Thanks but no thanks to the implied sexual assault. I’ve had enough of those for one lifetime, kthx. Creep.
Sorry, but I thought you knew what that is a common reference to:
Aside from being an informal fallacy depending on usage, such questions may be used as a rhetorical tool: the question…en.wikipedia.org
Aside from being an informal fallacy depending on usage, such questions may be used as a rhetorical tool: the question attempts to limit direct replies to be those that serve the questioner’s agenda. The traditional example is the question “Have you stopped beating your wife?” Whether the respondent answers yes or no, he will admit to having a wife and having beaten her at some time in the past. Thus, these facts are presupposed by the question, and in this case an entrapment, because it narrows the respondent to a single answer, and the fallacy of many questions has been committed. The fallacy relies upon context for its effect: the fact that a question presupposes something does not in itself make the question fallacious. Only when some of these presuppositions are not necessarily agreed to by the person who is asked the question does the argument containing them become fallacious. Hence the same question may be loaded in one context, but not in the other. For example, the previous question would not be loaded if it were asked during a trial in which the defendant had already admitted to beating his wife.
All of which, of course, is the same logical fallacy that you engage in constantly, when you accuse me (or others) of being this or that without any evidence other than your unsubstantiated opinion.
Hope that helps.