54% of Cultures Don’t Kiss Romantically: Discover Their Unique Expressions of Love

Kissing is one of the most intimate acts between humans, yet its origins remain surprisingly enigmatic. When we discuss kissing, we often refer to the romantic lip-to-lip contact that involves suction and pressure, but that description lacks the allure often associated with this act.

But what drives humans to kiss?

Throughout history, the significance of kissing has varied across cultures. The earliest documented kiss can be traced back to ancient Mesopotamian texts from 2500 BC.

In ancient Rome, three distinct types of kisses existed: the palate, a friendly kiss on the cheek; the Basium, a platonic kiss shared between family and close friends; and the Sabium, a passionate kiss exchanged by lovers.

Clearly, kissing transcends mere romantic expression.

Despite its prevalence, kissing is not a universal practice. A 2015 study of 168 cultures published in American Anthropologist revealed that only 46% of people engage in romantic lip kissing. Cultures that do not incorporate kissing have alternative ways of expressing intimacy.

Despite appearing to be universal, less than half of global cultures actually practice romantic kissing – Photo credit: Getty

On the Trobriand Islands near Papua New Guinea, a couple may nibble each other’s eyelashes. Interestingly, during his explorations, Charles Darwin noted a particular Malayan kiss in which individuals squat and smell each other, implying that scent plays an important role in human intimacy.

Can biology provide insights into the reason we kiss? Research suggests that kissing serves a biological bonding function and facilitates emotional release through the release of oxytocin, hormones linked to trust and attachment.

Oxytocin reduces stress, fosters intimacy, and strengthens the bond between romantic partners, suggesting that you kiss because it feels good.

According to evolutionary theory, the origins of lip-to-lip kissing may stem from early maternal behaviors such as breastfeeding and pre-chewing food to feed infants directly.

This behavior is still observable among primates like chimpanzees, potentially laying the foundation for lip contact as a signal of care and bonding.










Human infants are biologically inclined towards lip contact, associating it with comfort and safety. This may have evolved into broader social behaviors linked to caregiving and emotional bonds.

However, theories emphasizing maternal lip-to-lip behavior may fail to fully explain romantic kissing.

A provocative recent theory by evolutionary psychologist Dr. Adriano Lameira of the University of Warwick proposes that kissing evolved from grooming behaviors.

In primates, grooming often culminates in oral contact, such as removing fur from one another. Lameira’s hypothesis suggests that as humans lost body hair, grooming became less feasible, leading to shorter grooming sessions and the enduring practice of kissing as a form of affection.

Indeed, kissing is a complex behavior, potentially shaped by the actions of our ancient ancestors. Whether it be the passionate Sabium or the simple pleasure of closeness, kissing addresses a profound human need for connection.


This article answers the question, “Why do we kiss?” as posed by Dani Castillo through email.

If you have more questions, please reach out via email: questions@sciencefocus.com or send us a message Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram (remember to include your name and location).

Check out our ultimate fun facts and explore more amazing science pages!


Read more:


Source: www.sciencefocus.com

Tears, Joy, and Expressions: A New Book on Emojis—Illustrated Yet Imperfect

Standardizing the look of the irrepressible emoji must have been a challenge

Caner Elci/Alamy

Face with Tears of Joy
Keith Houston (WW Norton)

If a picture can convey a thousand words, what role does an emoji play in our evolving vocabulary? In Face with Tears of Joy: The Natural History of Emojis, Keith Houston delves into the intriguing tales behind these peculiar symbols and explores how they have become a staple in our everyday conversations.

An understanding of their origins and dominance in our communication is essential. Houston navigates through the early days, uncovering insights that trace their lineage back a decade earlier than the commonly accepted timeline.

It’s an astute investigation. By extending the emoji lineage to specifics of niche Japanese tech from the 1980s, Houston offers new perspectives, suggesting a timeline closer to the millennium than previously recognized.

Clearly, the work is well-researched, evident from Houston’s review of the intricacies during various subcommittees of the Unicode Consortium.

What makes emojis such a significant cultural phenomenon? While Houston lays out a timeline of these images, he grapples with larger philosophical questions about how countless interpretations of commonly used images converge into a shared societal and cultural understanding.

One notable section shares how Facebook users reacted to a video of the 2017 terrorist attacks on London’s Westminster Bridge. When users sought to respond, the platform defaulted to just one of six emojis, none of which seemed particularly appropriate. Houston’s observations here are profoundly insightful.

Typewriter artists crafted images using keystrokes—the forerunners of the emojis we know today.

Unfortunately, throughout the book, Houston veers away from delving into such enriching insights and experiments. He also fails to delve deeply into a Unicode meeting discussion over the merits of adding emojis like tacos and other popular items to countless smartphones globally. Instead, we get a list-style overview of events as they occurred.

This chronological format holds significance, but it’s also replicated in a roughly twelve-page timeline at the book’s conclusion. I found myself reading the bullet points and questioning if I could’ve learned just as much about the emojis and their history without perusing the preceding 180 pages.

That’s unfortunate. Houston contends that emojis warrant thorough and thoughtful exploration, and their cultural ramifications should be taken seriously. It’s unclear why specific details are highlighted while others are overlooked. For instance, he mentions presenting users with images of reality TV stars displaying various emotions related to Kim Kardashian’s 2015 Kimoji app in media reports but cites a staggering figure of 9,000 downloads per millisecond at its peak, countering reality with 9,000 downloads per second. What relevance does this bear beyond mere anecdote?

Nevertheless, there are engaging pieces and illuminating insights about this relatively new mode of communication. Houston reveals stories about early typewriter artists who ingeniously transformed keystrokes into beautiful representations, setting the stage for contemporary emojis.

Overall, Face with Tears of Joy is an in-depth and often enlightening read. However, I frequently felt it was padded with content that could’ve been far more meaningfully enriched with analyses exploring the “why” and “what” behind emoji usage over the last two decades.

Ultimately, Houston’s work serves as a valuable starting point for dissecting the cultural significance of emojis. I look forward to future explorations on this topic.

Chris Stokell Walker is a technology writer based in Newcastle, UK

New Scientist Book Club

Are you passionate about reading? Join a welcoming community of fellow book enthusiasts. Every six weeks, we explore exciting new titles, offering members complimentary access to excerpts, author articles, and video interviews.

Topics:

Source: www.newscientist.com