|
|
40%'s thread in the Policy reminded me that I meant to come back to this.
These responses have been really interesting. For one thing, no one came back with the rule (that I've since learnt elsewhere on the web) that when kissing on the cheek you always go to the left first. I *think* I tend to do this anyway, but largely because I tend to tentatively follow the other person's lead. Useful to know nevertheless.
But it's encouraging to learn that others are no more confident about this than I am. But a few things I wanted to pick up on, in no particular order:
Lurid mentions that, in England, kissing is less taboo among the middle classes. I might be dense, but it never occurred to me that there was a class component to all this. I was aware of its association with luvvie-ish, self-consciously cosmopolitan, meeja types, but not the middle class per se. Is there anything more to be said about this? Are the upper classes more or less reticent than the middle or working classes, for example? Why might this be the case?
Toksik is confident that men are are not to be kissed by other men, although The Fool observes that there is an exception if one (or both, ze's not clear) is gay. I'm interested in this, particularly because the consensus amongst social kissers seems to be that sexual attraction is not a factor (since family members qualify, even when no one else does). Does anyone else have any thoughts on how sexuality affects the kissing agenda?
Finally, hugs. Personally I'm surprised that hugging is widely taken to be a lower-level expression of affection, intimacy, welcome, whathaveyou, than a kiss on the cheek. Personally, I'm more readily inclined to lean in for a cheek-to-cheek than I am to embrace them bodily. For me, that's reserved for a very select few. It's made me think about the heirarchy more generally. What are the levels of acknowledgement? A nod, a handshake, a hug, a kiss... etc. Are there nuances within each? Does anyone do the double-handed shake or instance? It seems to me that greetings are much more complex and loaded social behaviours than I might have thought, with masses of room for misreading when you consider the modifying role of nationality, gender, sexuality, class etc.
Thoughts? |
|
|