Talk:Kiss

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Is the band usually written in capitals thus "KISS"? If so, I suggest the band be moved to KISS (with a link). -- Tarquin

Heh. I was hoping there would be some "History of the Kiss". Maybe based on study of other cultures or similar animals or something? Do we know anything about it? - Omegatron

I think this article puts to much emphasis on the sexual form of kissing. Perhaps an American cultural prejudice? cf. Cheek kissing

Contents 1 Illustration? 2 History of Kiss 3 Image upside down? 4 New image needed 5 Factual Innaccuracy 6 kiss as a greeting in europe 7 pro-homosexual bias 8 hongi 9 Possibly something add to the Screen Kiss section? 10 Kiss is not an Onomatopoeia 11 Social Darwinism?

[edit] Illustration?

What would anyone think about a photo as an illustration?

How about this one:

Or how about this one:

...To be reduced in size somewhat via the thumbnail feature... -- Infrogmation 21:01, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The article has enough pics for its length, but French kiss doesn't have any pictures yet, so I think I'll add the second pic to that article. CyborgTosser (Only half the battle) 19:47, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Heh, the picture now illustrating the article is even better. -- Infrogmation 18:44, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Just removed this image because three is too many for such a short article. violet/riga (t) 12:46, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have an even better proposal. How about a photograph of the statue, "The Kiss" by August Rodin?

Perhaps the greatest and most intimate depiction of a kiss ever, at least in my personal opinion... -Kasreyn 05:07, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Um dude, do you really believe it is the "most intimate depiction of a kiss ever", or did you hear that quote in a documentary and decide to adopt it as your own "opinion" because it sounded good? 202.191.106.124 03:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

What a needlessly insulting thing to say to me. No, for your information, some people are still alive today who can speak eloquently if they so choose. Some of them even edit Wikipedia. Good day. Kasreyn 05:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. On second thought, that illustration of the statue is done from a great angle for romanticism but a terrible angle for an encyclopedia; you can't see the lips! Argh! I'll see if I can find a photo which actually shows the lips touching. -Kasreyn 05:08, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

The current picture is terrible: the pose of the woman is too submissive for the 21st century. Also, look at the guy's left leg. It looks like it isn't even attached to him.--345Kai 17:24, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Although I don't think the picture is the best, I can't see what you mean by "the pose of the woman is too submissive". If it's because he is looking down and she's looking up, that would simply be because he is taller than her. Blaise Joshua 12:42, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Take another look: the woman is actually not shorter than the man. If she'd stand upright, she'd be at least as tall as him. She is contorting her body so that she can be below him, so as to show him he's superiour: that's what's wrong with the picture.--345Kai 06:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. I think you might be reading a bit too much into this. If they both stood upright, the man is clearly taller than her. I can't see anything wrong with it along the lines you have suggested. Blaise Joshua 22:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

That is how a good kiss should be regardless of height. Look at all the great kisses though out film, art and literature. Gone with the wind being a good example. Look at the 3 images above the first looks like they are nothing more than good friends, the second looks like the guy is drunk and the girl is jsut putting up with him yet Rodin's Kiss is regarded as one of the best depictations history has to offer.Schnizzle 12:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History of Kiss

Re to Omegatron's question above:

According to Texas A&M University anthropologist Vaughn Bryant,"References to kissing did not appear until 1500 BC when historians found four major texts in Vedic Sanskrit literature of India that suggested an early form of kissing. There are references to the custom of rubbing and pressing noses together. This practice, it is recorded, was a sign of affection, especially between lovers. This is not kissing as we know it today, but we believe it may have been its earliest beginning. About 500 to 1,000 years later, the epic Mahabharata, contained references suggesting that affection between people was expressed by lip kissing. Later, the Kama Sutra, a classic text on erotica, contained many examples of erotic kissing and kissing techniques." History has it that the Greeks learnt about kissing from the Indians and lip-locked their way throughout Europe and Asia around 326 B.C. However, it was the Romans who actually made kissing a popular practise. They had several forms of kissing, including the osculum, which was a kiss of friendship often delivered as a peck on the cheek as a form of affection. [1]

We need to put some history in the article. deeptrivia (talk) 03:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image upside down?

It seems that the image of a kiss as a symbol is upside down. In the interest of being informative, perhaps it would be more appropriate to find a picture that is oriented correctly.

Djkimmons 06:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New image needed

Since the image of "asymmetry in kissing" is about to be deleted because it's another of Toronto98's copyvios. Good riddance, if you ask me. I've nothing against french kissing but that photo was just gross.

Can anyone find an image of "asymmetry in kissing" that isn't a copyvio and doesn't look gross? Kasreyn 04:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Factual Innaccuracy

I believe the assertion that Nelson's last words were "Kiss me, Hardy" is now held to be utterly false. If in doubt, look at the Wikipedia page on Nelson and any authorative source. This error should be changed, although mention could still be made of the common misconception. Blaise Joshua 12:47, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

With no disagreement, I've edited this section. Blaise Joshua 12:04, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] kiss as a greeting in europe

It is common practice -regardless of gender- to use a kiss (cheek to cheek) as a greeting at least in Belgium and France, and probably in most of western europe. Among male friends, it has mostly replaced handshake. In France, it is customary to kiss each cheek, once ore more according to local tradition.

In my experience, kissing between men is extremely common in Southern Europe, and is perhaps less common but not regarded as unusual in Latin America. I think the article should definitely reflect this, if only to denote the fact that, in many cultures and locales, physical contact (hugging as well as kissing) between adult males can be non-sexual. 87.216.180.106 01:27, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] pro-homosexual bias

There are too many images of same-sex couples kissing. Homosexual kisses are less than 10% (even of erotic kisses) and are illustrating disproportionately. --Uncle Ed 21:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

They make up in intensity for what they lack in frequency. But seriously, there are a bunch of non-gay pictures, one of two males and one of two females. This seems about as balanced as you are ever going to get. Since the frequency of same-sex relationships in western countries is not indicative of the whole world one could even argue that more same-sex pictures are in order. Haiduc 23:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. Article is in no way biased - 1 out of 7 is m-m. Tag removed. — Moondyne 08:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe there is no basis for the theory that 10% of people are homosexual or engage in homosexual activities, and 1 out of 7 I've never even heard of. What may be true is that a significant portion of people are not 100% heterosexual, and that a significant amount of people have engaged in homosexual activities at least once in their life, but I don't believe that 1 out of 10 people are homosexuals. I would put it down to about 1-2% depending on where you are in the world. Rfwoolf 11:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] hongi

In the hongi practiced by the Māori of New Zealand, noses are pressed, not rubbed, except by inexperienced non-Māori visitors. This act is never referred to as a kiss. Copey 2 00:40, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possibly something add to the Screen Kiss section?

I've noticed in some cultures that don't allow kisses to be shown casually in the open(like Asia), would have the two love interests share someting like a piece of fruit or a drink insted. Am I wrong, or could this go into the artical?

[edit] Kiss is not an Onomatopoeia

perhaps onomatopoeic)

Since when does a kiss make a sound that sounds like, "Kiss." It doesn't, unless either of the people doing it make that sound. The noise reminds me more of a high-pitched form of a raspberry when I hear it on T.V. or whatever. I say the "perhaps onomatopoeic" part should be removed from the article, for not being NPOV (Neutral Point of View) and for being wrong. It is hard to classify the sound, as I'm trying to figure out what it would sound like, since my "high-pitched raspberry" isn't sounding right.

That is a commonly held opinion among etymologists. Just because you don't feel the word sounds onomatopoeic doesn't mean it wasn't. It does sound like an onomatopoeic to me, far more than, say, bow-wow for a dog's bark. But at any rate, it doesn't matter how much I think it sounds like the sounds that can come from kissing, that is simply a common theory among etymologists and thus should be included. Cereal Box Conspiracy 19:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Social Darwinism?

The sections that read "Women are subconsciously more attracted to men whose immune system proteins and genotype are different than her own, leading to offspring with resistance to a greater number of diseases, and thus having a better chance of survival.", as well as the next sentence about couples bonding if they have the right "chemistry" (no citation), are not substantiated by any research in the source article. I've left the citation intact (#1, since it also relates to the another sentence in the paragraph), in case people want to take a look. The article is from what appears to be a journalism school's student-run website, that does not cite its sources, stating only that it is "the most widely accepted theory."

If anyone can come up with an actual study that supports this view, I would be happy to leave it there.

However, it may be useful to know that this seemingly uncontentious statement is part of a controversial theory called social darwinism, which holds that our *learned social behaviours* can be explained by biological evolutionary processes. (Standard theories of evolution hold only that our physical attributes, and possibly our unlearned instincts, are shaped by evolution.) Social darwinism may be quite valid in the case of instinctual behaviours. However, it is also frequently pressed into service to justify colonialism (weakening another people, they might say, allows one's own descendants to thrive), genocide (killing off part of the gene pool is contended to improve the chances of one's own genetic material being passed on), and rape (disregard for consent is explained as an adaptive behaviour, since it increases the pool of sexual partners and therefore the potential number of offspring). The fact that evolution can just as easily refute these contentions as support them is usually not addressed (under some other circumstance, the social darwinist could claim that genocide is evolutionarily counter-adaptive, since it limits the diversity of the gene pool and thus reduces our ability to mate with very different genotypes... basically the argument about genotype-based "disease resistance" that shows up in citation #1 of this article.)

So, if you do find a source purporting to have scientific evidence in support of some social behaviour being based in "more disease-resistant offspring," or some such -- especially if it is still unknown whether the behaviour in question is instinctual or not -- it may be worth investigating a little more carefully to determine the source's POV. Wordie 01:24, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Social Darwinism applies in this case. I think somebody just got their facts wrong. As far as I know, humans don't make use of pheromones, and the odors we have left over from an earlier period in our evolution have turned into a turn-off for some reason. Besides, wasn't Social Darwinism pretty thoroughly debunked in the mid-20th century? – Lantoka (talk) 01:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe someone got their facts wrong -- I hope you're right. In this case, facts were gotten very drastically wrong by a university program dedicated to science reporting. Unfortunately, arguments in this vein are very common, wrong or not. The argument is a bit circular. To the best of my understanding, the train of thought is, "some social behaviours could be considered evolutionarily adaptive if they were influenced by evolution. This proves that those behaviours *are* influenced by evolution, even if no genetic evidence has ever been found, and even though our social behaviours change much faster than inheritance can account for." As you can imagine, this is a very convenient kind of pseudo-science for "proving" the "inevitability" of human society as it is now, usually in order to defend it from people who are trying to redress some injustice. (People who commit rape "can't help themselves, it's genetic.")

As for social darwinism being debunked, it has been, as thoroughly as any scientific idea can be. One problem with social darwinism is that it does not allow for a counterexample. Philosophy-of-science jargon calls this "falsifiability" (not falseness, that's totally different). Any idea that it is *impossible* ever to disprove is not a scientific theory; it is an article of faith. Which makes it damnably difficult to debate or debunk. These things tend to live on in the public imagination forever.

See, for a perfect example, the article on pheromones, where a subtle form of the same disagreement is occuring. That article clearly states that *no* peer-reviewed research has *ever* demonstrated that pheromones affect human behaviour. As that statement gets tested again and again, it comes to be thought of as a "theory": human behaviour is not affected by pheromones. This is a scientific theory (is "falsifiable"), because a single credible study showing the opposite will prove it wrong. However, noone yet has. Regardless, someone at the NYU school of scientific journalism contradicted that theory in an article, and someone quoted that article on Wikipedia.

The point is, science never proves anything absolutely. (that's the whole point of "falsifiability"). Some people will strain the limits of credulity by insisting (usually repeatedly) that science has failed to prove or disprove some thesis *absolutely*. The Intelligent Design movement is a great example of this; since evolution has not been proven absolutely, evolution must be false. At worst, this kind of tedious grasping at straws can be a subtle way to make it sound as if current scientific data supports a proposition, when in fact it merely does not preclude it (because science can't ever preclude anything). At best, it undermines the NPOV, encyclopedic tone of an article. A subtle point, which I will no longer belabour. I hope Lantoka's suggestion is correct, and my worries are for nothing. :) Wordie 00:10, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

You guys don't kiss much, do you? Smell sure feels like it plays a major part in sexual attraction. But that's all subjective... I found some info and citations relating pheromones, immune system, and stronger offspring on the Major histocompatibility complex article. I hope they're adequate. Chris goulet 08:25, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but claiming that certain theories of the role of pheromones and histocompatibility are examples of "social darwinism" is plain wrong. This is simple evolutionary theory, which is not particularly controversial except with particular groups of people with specific agendas. And you cannot place ID and evolutionary theory on the same level, even if it's in the name of NPOV. IMO, the reference to pheromones is perfectly valid (there is plenty of scholarly material available to back this up as a credible hypothesis). 87.216.180.106 01:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)