Talk:sexual union

RFD

The following information passed a request for deletion.

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

sexual union

Seems to mean "sexual intercourse". Plentifully attested to mean something. Deleted multiple times before, probably as a sum of parts. Is surprisingly common: sexual union,sexual intercourse at the Google Books Ngram Viewer.. If this is declared sum of parts, I wonder what prevents "sexual intercourse" from being declared sum of parts. I see added value in having this entry. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:27, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

It seems not to have failed RFD in the past (Special:WhatLinksHere/sexual union doesn't indicate any old deletion archives) so I would've just not nominated in the first place. Anyway, keep. I suppose it's not very idiomatic, but as long as it's a little idiomatic, a little is enough. Renard Migrant (talk) 20:40, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me to be a euphemism for the euphemism sexual intercourse. DCDuring TALK 12:41, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• Keep. Mentioned in the Kama Sutra (rather unsurprising). Donnanz (talk) 11:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

  @Donnanz Not sure why being mentioned in Kama Sutra matters. The nomination would be that "sexual union" is a semantic sum of parts, not that it does not exist, so claims of existence have no bearing on the nomination. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:54, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Kama Sutra or not, my vote stays the same. Donnanz (talk) 09:20, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Well it's in English translations of the Kama Sutra, not the original, which is not written in English. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:47, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• Kept: It's been over a month and no one, not even the nominator, has voted delete. Purplebackpack89 18:05, 4 November 2014 (UTC)