Talk:Sexual capital

message: An interesting concept.  If the article is deleted, I hope the information can be placed in the discussion on sexual attractiveness. — , 03:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Connection to sexual attractiveness article

message: Why in a million years would you want to delete this article?
Just because it's a new concept?
Looks an awful lot like censorship to me.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.113.188.66 (talk) 04:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you actually bother to read the discussion?-Wafulz (talk) 03:09, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion?  

message: Where is the female example, we don't want to be sexist now, do we?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irongrip (talk • contribs) 16:53, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Female erotic actor? 

message: Does the article really say "The six distinct elements of Erotic capital" ? I count seven!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.220.70.97 (talk) 22:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone fixed that. — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 07:38, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Elements nonsense

message: I think this article is a bit weak - it really reifies an analytical tool (erotic capital) and casts it as a thing-in-itself.
It would be good if an expert in this area could have a look at it - it is currently intellectually very slipshod.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.41.121 (talk) 09:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Erotic capital is an objective, if relational resource in a field.  The article locates erotic capital in the context of specific fields.  I see no problem with it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.87.109 (talk) 00:01, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

text: The article references FOUR journal publications for the term.  Three of these publications use the term "erotic capital"; one of these publications uses the term "sexual capital".  Hence, this is NOT a case of "original research."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.77.58.178 (talk) 06:13, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's still crap.  99.232.87.109 and 75.77.58.178 may see no problem with it, but it's already only barely survived WP:AFD, does not properly cite sources, is written as if a 13-year-old cobbled it together for a school class, and is worded in ways that not only disagree with its own sources, but seem to have been made up in parts, with personal opinion, and not drawing from reliable sources at all.  — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 07:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

text: It's nice that it now cites (generally, not specifically) one more source and is no longer is juvenile wording, and some of its most obvious personal-opinion blather has been removed, but the problem still remains that a large number of claims are made in the article, none of them exactly cited to specific sources at specific pages. Especially problematic is the claim that "sexual capital" or "erotic capital" has X number of specific, identified aspects.  Even if one source can be found that says this, it isn't at all clear that this is a majority view in the field, or even that sexual/erotic capital as defined by that source is what is meant by either term as used in other sources. I am thus restoring the WP:NOR cleanup tag on this article. This would-be article, which despite recent minor cleanup still reads like someone's blog post, barely qualifies as a stub, is not sourced properly, and no amount of complaint in my direction is going to magically make it a proper encyclopedia article. It's nothing personal. The article just needs to be improved. My examination of the sources cited so far suggests that this is a potentially valid article on a notable topic, even if barely given the newness of the term and of the concept and its lack of widespread coverage so far. We can have an article about this. But what we have right now is not the article we need.  PS: The article is also grossly overcategorized. It should probably have something like two categories on it, not a dozen.  Most of them are redundant (i.e., if an article is in category Y, and Y is a subcategory (or sub-sub-sub-category, whatever) of category Z, then we do not also put the article into category Z). — SMcCandlish   Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 07:38, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite 

message: The reference listed beneath the "economic" subsection is wrong.  In that cited article, Michael's concept of sexual capital has nothing to do with a rational investment in attractiveness;  it is, instead, about acquiring safety skills, such as the ability to use condoms.  This is why it is an extension of "health capital" as the title of that article indicates.  Someone needs to go in and change that.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.77.58.178 (talk) 11:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "ECONOMIC" subsection 

message: This article does not address two important aspects: the loss of sexual capital with ageing in most societies (individual gerontophilia notwithstanding) for both men and women -- regardless of how the capital was invested prior to becoming old, and rape, especially of virgins, as a form of extreme aggession that not only violates human dignity, but also lessens the "value" ascribed to a sexual "capital". Can someone expound on this?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.200.65.119 (talk) 11:02, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Age. And rape 

message: Hammermesh's research in the book "Beauty Pays" does not define attractiveness in a way that is commensurate with the broad definition of erotic capital offered by Hakim.  Rather, Hammermesh's book, as the title indicates, advances a much leaner notion of attractiveness anchored to physical attractiveness, "looks" and "beauty".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.196.6 (talk) 04:38, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hammermesh and Hakim 

message: The article states that Catherine Hakim was the first to use the term in the early 2000s.  No citation is offered. In fact, the concept first appears in Hakim's written work only in 2010.  Prior to that, others were using the concept in a variety of ways in published work.  This should be removed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.232.0.182 (talk) 06:14, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Catherine Hakim originated the term? 

message: Hey, just letting you guys know that there's a paper out there that plagiarizes this article and doesn't cite it as a source, so if this comes up in a copyvio detector, the article is the original deal and the paper is a copy. Here is a link to said paper. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:03, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plagiarism