Is the Romantic/Sexual Kiss a Near Human Universal?

William R. Jankowiak1, Shelly L. Volsche1, Justin R. Garcia2,3

1 Department of Anthropology, University of Nevada, Las Vegas

2 The Kinsey Institute for Research in Sex, Gender, and

Reproduction, Indiana University, Bloomington

3 Department of Gender Studies, Indiana University, Bloomington

1

Corresponding Author:

Justin R. Garcia, The Kinsey Institute, Indiana University, 1165

E. Third St., Morrison Hall 313, Bloomington, IN 474705, USA;

jusrgarc@indiana.edu

Abstract

Scholars from a wide range of human sciences have become

interested in the romantic/sexual kiss. This research, and its

public dissemination, often include statements about the ubiquity

of kissing, particularly romantic/sexual kissing, across

cultures. Yet, to date there is no evidence to support this

claim. Employing standard cross-cultural methods, this paper is

the first attempt to document the presence or absence of

different types of kissing around the world, with emphasis on the

romantic/sexual kiss. We defined kissing as lip-to-lip contact

lasting long enough for exchange of saliva. We coded the range

and types of kissing as: child to adult; adult to infant/child;

greetings between social equals; greetings between social non-

equals; romantic/sexual kissing; Oceanic kiss/smelling. Despite

frequent depictions of kissing in a wide range of material

2

culture, we found no evidence that the romantic/sexual kiss is a

human universal or even a near universal. The romantic/sexual

kiss was present in a minority of cultures sampled (40%). When

part of a cultural sexual repertoire, erotically suggestive

kissing takes on special intimate meaning. Putative biobehavioral

responses to romantic/sexual kissing are likely contingent on

cultural contexts that have come to enjoy, and not reject in

disgust, the romantic/sexual kiss as a pleasurable experience.

Introduction

Despite frequent depiction in a wide range of art,

literature, and media, there is no consensus concerning whether

or not romantic/sexual kissing is a human universal. Some

evolutionary psychologists (Hughes, Harrison, & Gallup, 2007;

Wlodarski and Dunbar, 2013, 2014) and anthropologists (Fisher

3

1983, 1992) argue that lip kissing may be a tacit, albeit

adaptive, means to assess a potential mate’s health and genetic

compatibility, in addition to testing a potential partners

romantic interest and socio-sexual attunement. These arguments

often include support from the primate behavior literature, where

affiliative gestures including open mouth and tongue kissing have

been noted in chimpanzees and bonobos (de Waal, 1990, 2000).

Several scholars also make claims such as “[m]outh-to-mouth

romantic kissing is… common in over 90% of known cultures”

(Wlodarski and Dunbar, 2013:1415). Certainly, in many westernized

social settings the romantic/sexual kiss is part of the

hierarchical sexual script (Danesi, 2013; Kirschenbaum, 2011),

and may be an important biobehavioral means of partner assessment

(Fisher, 1992; Gray & Garcia, 2013). But, what evidence is there

that the romantic/sexual kiss may be a human universal, rather

than a culturally variable display of affection?

The universality position receives support from research

conducted among United States college students, which has found

sex/gender differences in patterns of romantic kissing (Hughes et

al., 2007). In one such study, young women reported using the

4

kiss as a mate-assessment tactic, whereas young men reported

using the kiss to arouse a partner’s sexual interest (Hughes et

al., 2007). Moreover, nearly 2/3 of U.S. college students noted

experiences of attraction to another that then dissipated after

an initial kiss, suggesting that the first kiss with a new

partner may be an important moment of partner assessment (Gallup,

as cited in Hughes et al. 2007). In one study, U.S. college

students rated kissing as more intimate than other non-sexual

affiliative interactions such as cuddling, holding hands,

hugging, or massages (Gulledge, Gulledge, & Stahmann, 2003).

Other studies with U.S. adolescents have noted the importance of

kissing on the establishment of romantic and sexual

relationships, as an early part of ordered sexual experiences

(Welsh et al., 2005; O’Sullivan, et al., 2007).

Existing literature points to the role of romantic/sexual

kissing as part of a romantic, emotionally intimate experience

(Wlodarski and Dunbar, 2013); however, this may only be the case

in particular social-cultural contexts. Perhaps it is not surprising, then,

that some women sex workers (in Australia and UK) reported not

kissing clients on the mouth because it is too intimate (Brewis &

5

Linstead, 2000). This practice may be a way for sex workers to

purposefully maintain some emotional distance from clients

(Arnold & Barling, 2003). In an arena of commoditized sex work,

the romantic/sexual kiss is perhaps more likely to occur with the

higher financial costs of the seemingly more intimate, such as a

“girlfriend experience” (in North America) (Huff, 2011).

The representation of the romantic/sexual kiss in a wide

range of art and literature does suggest, however, that when part

of a cultural sexual repertoire, kissing takes on special

meaning. One psychological study of middle aged and older couples

from five countries (Brazil, Germany, Japan, Spain, and United

States) found that affiliative touch, including kissing and

cuddling, in long-term romantic relationships predicted

relationship satisfaction among both sexes/genders, and predicted

sexual satisfaction among men (Heiman et al., 2011). Some initial

findings even suggest that romantic/sexual kissing with romantic

partners may improve a variety of health outcomes (Floyd et al.,

2009; Hendrie & Brewer, 2010). These patterns are also consistent

with biocultural models that integrate specific sociocultural

context and practice with material human biology, and might imply

6

that, for some, romantic/sexual kissing can be arousing and

pleasurable – and perhaps even adaptive – but need not imply a

human universal.

Adopting a broad definition, Kirshenbaum asserts that the

kiss is a human universal. She does not, however, document

whether this applies specifically to the romantic/sexual kiss.

Advocates of the romantic/sexual kiss’ universality often cite

Eibl-Eibesfeldt’s (1972) pioneering ethological research and

claim it documents the romantic/sexual kiss’s universality. Eibl-

Eibesfeldt, however, did not make this claim. Instead, he

suggested that some forms of human kissing (e.g., adult to child,

or child to adult) may be universals. Thus an important

distinction is made about the behavior of kissing and the

supposed erotic intentionality in the romantic/sexual kiss (such

as among lovers) as a context removed from a more generalized

affiliative gesture (such as among kin). Because Eibl-Eibesfeldt

never systematically documented the cross-cultural presence of

the romantic/sexual kiss, its relative ubiquity remains

undocumented. In contrast, Marcel Danesi’s (2013) historical

review of ancient and modern European societies, including an

7

occasional non-European ethnographic report (Crawley 2005), found

the romantic/sexual kiss was not a human universal. Danesi’s

overview did not focus, however, on the non-romantic/non-sexual

kiss, nor did he attempt a systematic cross-cultural

investigation. This contradiction in positions about the relative

universality of the romantic/sexual kiss arises, in part, from a

lack of consensus as to what constitutes a romantic/sexual kiss,

as well as the absence of a systematic cross-cultural

investigation into the presence or absence of romantic/sexual

kissing.

To this end, our paper is the first attempt to document the

presence or absence of different types of kissing around the

world, with a special emphasis on the romantic/sexual kiss. We

initially used the standard cross-cultural sample (Murdock and

White, 1969). We further augmented this data with a short

questionnaire sent to ethnographers working in sample populations

where there was an absence of data. As shown below, the putative

universality of any kissing behavior, but especially the

romantic/sexual kiss, should be considered open to interpretation

and further discussion.

8

Methods

The current study used the Standard Cross-Cultural Sample

(SCCS) to conduct ethnographic analysis (Murdock & White, 1969).

The SCCS contains a subset of the 1,250 societies listed in the

Ethnographic Atlas (Murdock 1967), focusing on the most well-

described and representative societies for a total of 186

societies that are relatively independent from one another in

several dimensions. The SCCS provides a sample of world societies

that attempts to reduce the problem of non-independence due to

common cultural derivation (Galton’s problem).

We employed SCCS ethnographic methods to sample a variety

of societies and code the range and types of kissing behavior

present. We used the HRAF (Human Relations Area Files) as our

primary data source; specifically the eHRAF World Cultures

database. We searched for any mention of the words kiss or

kissing, in addition to more general descriptions of behaviors

that might constitute our definition of a kiss (drawing lips and

mouths together, exchanging saliva).

9

We then supplemented findings from eHRAF with data obtained

from historical sources, ethnographers’ unpublished data, and a

brief email survey to individuals who are well known for working

with specific cultures. These ethnographers were sent six

questions about their field site designed to determine if the

kiss was motivated out of respect for social position, an

affectionate kiss between family members, or an intimate or

romantic/sexual kiss. The survey was distributed via email and

consisted of the following questions:

1) Did you observe or hear of people kissing on the mouth in a

sexual, intimate setting?

2) Did you observe or hear about adults kissing each other

upon greeting? If so, was it hierarchical? That is, did

inferior kiss superior who do not reciprocate or kissed in

a different place? Or was it amongst equals with both

kissing each other?

3) Did you observe or hear about adults kissing children? If

yes, on what parts of the body?

4) Did you observe or hear about children kissing adults? If

yes, on what parts of the body?

10

5) Did you observe or hear about children kissing other

children? If yes, on what parts of the body?

6) Lastly, did you observe adults smelling each other when they

met? That is, moving very close to a person and inhaling or

sniffing?

Coding

Sheril Kirshenbaum’s (2011) review found a broad definition

of what constitutes a kiss that included “the rubbing or patting

of the arms, breasts, or stomachs to striking one’s face or the

feet of another.” We adopted a more restrictive, albeit

conventional, definition that defines lip kissing (or the

romantic or sexually suggestive kiss) as lip-to-lip contact

lasting long enough for the exchange of saliva. In other words,

the romantic/sexual kiss is not a passing glance of the lips but

touching that is more focused and thus prolonged. Using this

definition, we coded the different types of kissing as: child to

adult, adult to infant/child, greetings between social equals,

greetings between social non-equals, smelling, and

romantic/sexual kissing. We included all conditions, as many

11

societies displayed multiple kissing practices across these

types. We defined each type of kissing specifically as follows:

Child to adult: A child passing their lips, however briefly, across

any part of an adult’s body.

Adult to infant/child: An adult passing their lips, however briefly,

across any part of an infant or child’s body. We did not

specifically include kiss feeding in this definition,

although it is noteworthy that many cultures that use “kiss

feeding” present with adult to infant/child kissing.1

Greetings between social equals: A mutual greeting by passing the lips

briefly across identical body parts, either simultaneously or

in succession. This was often seen as mutual kisses on the

cheek or forehead.

Greetings between social non-equals: A hierarchical greeting identified

by the lower status individual’s lips passing, however

briefly, over a body part of the higher status individual.

Greetings between a social inferior and a social superior

1 “Kiss feeding” may occur to pre-masticate food for young, and/or to share food in a way that promotes adult-child bonding (Eibl-Eibesfeldt, 1998).

12

were seldom reciprocated with the lower ranked individual

kissing the hands or feet of the superior ranked person.

Romantic/sexual kissing: Lip to lip contact that lasts long enough

so as to allow the exchanging of saliva. This is a prolonged

interaction lasting for at least one second or more of

contact.

Oceanic kiss/smelling: Obtaining close enough proximity to another

to allow for inhaling of, smelling, or breathing upon that

individual.2

Kissing was coded as present if the ethnographer noted that

lips touch any part of another person’s body. Thus, if parent

lips touch infant buttocks or ram or head the culture was coded

as having “adult to infant/child” kissing. For romantic/sexual

kissing to be present, lip-to-lip contact lasting long enough for

the exchange of saliva must have been observed or discussed. We

did not code specifically for frequency, as little data on this

is present. Therefore, we coded kissing as “1=present” or “2=not

2 Several of the proposed arguments for romantic/sexual kissing as a mate-choice process also include the possibility of assessment of illness via taste and smell during a kiss (Fisher, 1982; Hughes, Harrison, & Gallup, 2007; Wlodarski and Dunbar, 2013).

13

present” within the culture. In cases where no data could be

found to confirm specifically either way, the cell was coded as

“0=no data.”

The “kiss of peace” (from the early Christian church) was

reported in only one society so we collapsed this into “greetings

between social equals.” We coded the oceanic kiss (sometimes

referred to as a Malay kiss or face rubbing) as smelling, unless

it was also specifically noted that lovers did this, in which

case it was included as romantic/sexual kissing as well. The

oceanic kiss appears to be more about greetings that emphasize

mutuality through smelling than it is about assessing each

other’s salivary or genetic quality.

We also coded for the presence of stratification within a

culture. Originally, we coded “1=Stratified” or “2=Not

Stratified.” However, an interesting trend began to present

itself in the data, prompting us to separate stratified cultures

into simple and complex, changing the coding to “1=Stratified,”

“2=Egalitarian,” and “3=Complex.” Stratified societies have a

hierarchical system based on rank positions with or without a

centralized political authority. We separated these societies

14

into two types: simple and complex. We defined simple

stratification as having a hierarchical system based on rank

positions that lack a centralized political authority; whereas

complex societies have more dense populations, social classes,

and centralized political leadership (Fried, 1967; Service, 1962,

1971).

Our database was created in a Microsoft Excel 2013

spreadsheet, then imported into IBM’s SPSS V.21 for analysis.

Ethnographers from 18 of our 88 (or 21 percent) of cultures

responded to our survey. Significantly, we found the ethnographic

comments consistent with data found in the HRAF. We thank the

following colleagues for providing non-published data for this

project: Janet Chemela (Wanano), Alyssa Crittenden (Hadza),

Shanshan Du (Lahu), Liam Fink (Northern Alaskan), Russell Graves

(Pume and 1990s Maya), Tom Gregor (Mehinku), Michael Gurven

(Tsimane), Barry Hewlett and Bonnie Hewlett (Aka), Robert Javenpa

(Cree), Karen Kramer (Pume and 1990s Maya), Frank Marlow (Hadza),

Pierre Lierard (Turkana), David Lipset (Sepik), Pamela Feldman-

Savelsbeg (rural Bamiléké), Susan Seymour (Northern India,

15

Odish), Pamela Stern (Inuit), Charles Lindholm (Pukhtun), and

Cuncun Wu (Han and Ming dynasty).

Results

In total, we collected data from eighty-eight cultures (N =

88) from a wide range of geographical locations, historical

backgrounds, and social structures. Within this sample frame, we

found that a total of 69 (78.4%) cultures presented with at least

one type of kiss, and 14 (15.9%) cultures did not present with

any type of kiss. There were a total of 5 (5.7%) cultures for

which we could not find any data on their kissing behaviors,

erotic or otherwise. These data suggest that kissing behavior, of

any type, is likely not a human universal.

We then analyzed our findings with simple percentages to

determine whether or not romantic/sexual kissing was, at minimum,

prevalent among human societies. What we found was two-fold.

First, romantic/sexual kissing is not as common as often believed

or claimed in the literature. We suspect that perhaps western

ethnocentrism, that is, “the belief that a behavior currently

deemed pleasurable must be a human universal” may be driving this

16

misconception. Second, there is strong correlation between

position on the scale of social complexity and the reporting of

romantic/sexual kissing as present. In support of our findings,

the reporting of romantic/sexual kissing as not present decreases

with social complexity (see Table 1). Even with the dismissal of

cultures for which no romantic/sexual kissing data could be

confirmed, there is a relationship between the presence of

romantic/sexual kissing and social complexity.

Based upon these data, we find the frequent citation that

90+% of cultures kiss, particularly when referring to an erotic

context, to be arbitrary and factually incorrect, necessitating

further critical examination and research.

[Insert Table 1 here]

During the analysis, we noted the occurrence of another

intriguing trend. When the presence of kissing increases,

particularly romantic/sexual kissing, there is a decrease in the

presence of the oceanic kiss or smelling as part of the greeting

ritual. While we deliberate the cultural implications of this

data in our discussion, we have presented a graph (see Figure 1)

for consideration. The act of greeting each other with smelling

17

is often considered rude or “animal” within complex social

organizations. In most cases, if any sort of smelling was

mentioned in a non-greeting context, it was part of erotic play

and seduction, as with the practices of the Kama Sutra.

[Insert Figure 1 here]

As demonstrated in Table 2, identifying social complexity

and type of kiss, romantic/sexual kissing is the least present

within egalitarian (primarily foraging, hunter-gather, and small-

scale agricultural) societies. However, with the complexity of

the social structure, the percentages of cultures within each

category that partake in the romantic/sexual kiss increases

(egalitarian, 34.3%; stratified, 23.1%; and complex, 63.0%). This

trend is also seen for greetings, both between social equals and

social non-equals, as well as for behavior between adults and

infants or children. To validate this coding, note that none of

the cultures coded as egalitarian displayed stratified greetings.

In contrast, the presence of smelling decreases with the

complexity of the social structure (egalitarian, 14.3%;

stratified, 19.2%; and complex, 7.4%). We ran a one-way ANOVA to

assess the statistical significance of this trend, which

18

confirmed a clear statistical significance between the groups

(F(2.87)=5.824, p>0.004).

[Insert Table 2 here]

Discussion

The current study serves as an important corrective to

claims of romantic/sexual kissing as a human universal. By

undertaking the first cross-cultural assessment of kissing, we

find that these claim are factually inaccurate. We found only 35

out of 88 (nearly 40 percent) cultures in which the

romantic/sexual kiss was present. Significantly, no ethnographer

working with foragers or horticulturalists reported having

witnessed any occasion in which their study populations engaged

in a romantic/sexual kiss. From an epistemological perspective,

the absence of evidence does not mean the behavior is truly

absent; positive confirmation is better than a negative finding

in such situations. Acknowledging this epistemological axiom,

however, it is equally valid to consider that when longtime field

researchers with diverse field experiences (e.g., Hewlett and

Hewlett, Marlow, Gurven, Gregor, Junod, and others who provided

19

data for the current study) study sexual behavior in their

respective cultures, gathering information about individuals’

intimate lives, report that they have never witnessed

romantic/sexual kissing occurring or been told that it does

occur, it is analytically fruitful to accept the field

ethnographers’ observations. In this case, the absence of an

observation stands as potential evidence of the absence of the

behavior. This is especially so when the literature perpetuates a

claim without ethnographic evidence of the presence of a

behavior, arguing (with inaccurate referencing) that the

romantic/sexual kiss is a human universal. In so doing, the

presence of universality claims in the literature also highlights

the intellectual dangers of western ethnocentrism. Based upon our

findings, the romantic/sexual kiss is not a human universal or

even a near universal.

Some scholars have used the universality position to further

link the exchange of saliva during kissing as a means, albeit

subconscious, to the assessment of reproductive viability of a

potential mate (Wlodarski and Dunbar, 2013, 2014). To that end,

however, the argument that romantic/sexual kissing can be a cue

20

of health and illness requires further investigation. The

potential for detecting communicable disease may be a case

against kissing in the first place, rather than a reason to kiss

and in so doing assess a partner post-exposure to potential

pathogens. In societies that lack dental care and do not

inoculate against communicable diseases, it may in fact be

maladaptive to engage in romantic/sexual kissing. As an example,

respiratory illness is a common health concern globally, and

romantic/sexual kissing may be a good way to exchange upper

respiratory viruses and a host of other diseases – that is, by

testing for a potential partner’s fitness one may compromise

their own (Tom Gregor, email correspondence, 2014). Aversive

breath smell and/or taste during kissing may signal communicable

disease (Durham et al., 1993). In these societal conditions, the

potential risk of disease may outweigh the potential benefits of

romantic/sexual kissing. As dental and medical care is relatively

recent in human history, it would stand to reason such societies

provide an example of the evolutionary norm not the exception.

Interestingly, there is no correlation between leisure time

and the appearance of couples engaging in romantic/sexual

21

kissing. The Aka and Hadza of central Africa, for instance, have

an abundance of leisure time and are intimately expressive

societies (Hewlett and Hewlett, 2008, 2010) and yet do not engage

in romantic/sexual kissing. Clearly something else is required to

shift kissing from adult/infant affiliative contact to

adult/adult erotic contact, ultimately being included in a

seductive context. It is unclear at this time the ways in which

social constructions of gender may also influence the occurrence

of romantic/sexual kissing. Recent studies with westernized post-

industrial samples have found moderate sex/gender differences in

attitudes toward romantic/sexual kissing (Hughes, Harrison, &

Gallup, 2007). Further, in several contemporary (heterosexually-

focused) studies, women have reported higher rates of forced

kissing than men (China: So-Kum Tang, Critelli, & Porter, 1995;

India: Waldner, Vaden-Goad, & Sikka, 1999; U.S.: Christopher,

1988), perhaps due to men attempting to seduce partners (Hughes,

Harrison, & Gallup, 2007), suggesting the romantic/sexual kiss

may have ties to power and privilege quite removed from notions

of mutual erotic pleasure.

22

There is a strong association between the degree of social

complexity, especially as it pertains to the development of

social class, and the increased presence of romantic/sexual

kissing. This pattern, it seems, does not vary by cultural area

or geographical region. Elite social classes strive to create a

culture of distinction through the cultivation of an ethos of

social sensibility and cultural refinement. It is a social code

of refinement that is often manifested in numerous outlets that

range from the appearance of etiquette books, ritualized displays

of manners, refined cuisine, and concern with hygiene (Elias,

1939/2000; Pinker, 2011). We suspect a historical trend may

account for how the parent-child kiss found in 32 out of 88 (or

36.4%) cultures assessed here gradually progressed to include the

romantic/sexual kiss. From this perspective, the romantic/sexual

kiss’ emergence onto the world stage may be a by-product of the

rise of elite social classes that value, as a sign of social

distinction, the control of emotional displays. Such an elite

social class may also be less likely to worry about negative

health consequences potentially tied to kissing.

23

Although it is often assumed that the romantic/sexual kiss

is a mark of unleashed passion, we argue that it is the exact

opposite. The romantic/sexual kiss, especially within a romantic

context, requires careful deliberation and calculation that

involve intentionality and mutual reciprocity. The end goal of

eroticism, a type of playfulness, is not instant gratification

but the opposite: heightened sensation that is best served in a

slow, lingering fashion. The romantic/sexual kiss is one of many

potentially delightful forms of conscious, overt romantic/sexual

expressions. In time, other social classes strive to adopt the

elite’s cultural preference and style of interaction. Support for

this interpretation is found in the data and Figure 1, which

illustrates a relationship between the emergence of social

classes and the increased presence of romantic/sexual kissing.

Note that 34.3% of egalitarian societies display the

romantic/sexual kiss, with a slight dip among stratified

societies to 23.1%, and a significant jump to 63.0% in complex

societies.

Further support for this interpretation is found in the

decreased preference to Oceanic kiss, or smelling each other upon

24

meeting (see Figure 1). This shift is consistent with the

increased value placed on an ethos of dignity and thus mutual

respect for the other’s self-respect. As noted earlier, the act

of smelling another is often considered animalistic and rude,

particularly within complex social organizations. As cultural

anthropologists have noted, the development of a code of manners

organized around control of emotional displays is closely

associated with cultural refinement (Elias 1939/2000). In such a

social milieu overt mutual smelling upon meeting shifted from a

positive to an insulting or negative act.

We do not intend to dismiss the value of smelling in an

erotic context. However, in our sample smelling for erotic

purposes is representative as part of erotic play, and in all

cases, included cultures that present with the romantic/sexual

kiss. Given research in perceptual psychology and biology, this

is not surprising. New research suggests that humans make

subconscious judgments about the relative attractiveness of

another based on how a person smells, likely via semiochemical

25

olfactory mechanisms (Grammer, Fink, & Neave, 2005; Kohl, et al.,

2001; Sergeant et al., 2007)3.

What is remarkable, given the pleasures many people find in

kissing, is that it came so late in human history. How then did

kissing, once perceived by so many to be so repulsive, become so

common? It cannot be due to simply copying the behaviors of the

global elites. In 1890 when the South African Thonga (Junod,

1962) and one hundred years later the Mehinku of Amazonia

(Gregor, email correspondence, 2014) observed Europeans kissing,

their first reaction was one of disgust at such “gross” behavior.

Like other romantic and sexual behaviors, while romantic/sexual

kissing may be a way to communicate intimacy in some societies,

or function as a specific eroticized pre-copulatory/foreplay

activity in others, it is important to note that for others yet

kissing is seen as unpleasant, unclean, and unusual (Danesi,

2013; Ford & Beach, 1951; Gray & Garcia, 2013; Hatfield & Rapson,

2005; Nyrop & Harvey, 1901). It is significant that the practice 3 The non-human animal literature finds many animals use chemicalsignals and urogenital smelling, along with complex mating rituals, to determine relative mate quality. Many mammals communicate fitness and receptivity through urine spray for olfactory/smell detection by conspecifics (Gray & Garcia, 2013; Horowitz, 2009).

26

of kissing, unlike many other culturally-specific practices, has

been readily adopted around the globe. This suggests there is

something intrinsically pleasing to the kissing act that is

independent of cultural borrowing. As soon as individuals were no

longer entangled in unisexual associations, and couple outings

were culturally appropriate, it is possible that individuals

began to utilize the kiss in new socio-sexual ways while

discovering potential psychophysiological pleasure embedded in

the act of romantic/sexual kissing.

Conclusion

There is no support that the romantic/sexual kiss is a human

universal. Claiming that the kiss in some form is present in most

cultures is different from the claim scholars have made that the

romantic/sexual kiss is present in the vast majority of cultures.

To claim something is a universal, it must be present in the

cross-cultural records and in both egalitarian and stratified

societies. Our survey found weak evidence that forager’s kiss in

this potentially romantic/sexual manner. Although forager adult-

to-child kissing was found in every forager society in our

sample, the romantic/sexual kiss was not. We also found a

27

positive correlation between the level of social stratification,

especially the appearance of distinct social classes, and the

appearance of the romantic/sexual kiss.

The romantic/sexual kiss is often co-opted, and perhaps

ritualized, as part of romantic and sexual performance. In these

cultural instances, romantic/sexual kissing may well serve to

bolster the pair-bond relationship, by way of biobehavioral

partner assessment and/or by way of conforming to the imagined

cultural sexual script. The evidence from westernized samples is

compelling that in some instances kissing does directly impact

the function of romantic relationships; in such cases, it is

possible that romantic/sexual kissing may even serve as a

culturally specific adaptation. However, we implore scholars to

avoid characterizations of the romantic/sexual kiss as a human

universal, and as such to critically examine the likelihood of

romantic/sexual kissing as a specific adaptation derived to

promote human survival and reproduction vie mate-choice. Rather,

the romantic/sexual kiss may be a seemingly pleasurable part of

the sexual repertoire which varies across place and time, but

28

anchors on the truly universal human capacity for sex and love

(Fisher, 1992; Gray & Garcia, 2013; Jankowiak, 2008).

Acknowledgements

For their invaluable feedback we thank Don Brown, Barry and

Bonnie Hewlett, Peter Gray, Tom Gregor, and Pierre Lienard. We

also thank our colleagues noted above for contributing their

observations and data to our analysis.

References

Arnold, K.A. & J. Barling. 2003. Prostitution: An illustration of

occupational stress in “dirty” work. In M. Dollard & A.

Winefield (Eds.), Occupational Stress in the Service Professions, pp 261-

280. New York: Taylor and Francis.

Brewis, J. & S. Linstead. 2000. ‘The worst thing is the

screwing’: Consumption and the management of identify in sex

work. Gender, Work & Organization, 7 (2): 84-97.

Christopher, F.S. 1988. An initial investigation into a continuum

of premarital sexual pressure. Journal of Sex Research, 25 (2): 255-

266.

29

Crawly, E. 2005. Primitive Marriage and its System. Kila, MT: Kessinger

Publications Reprint.

Danesi, M. 2013. The History of the Kiss! The Birth of Popular Culture. New

York, NY: Palgrave, MacMillan.

de Waal, F.B.M. 1990. Sociosexual behavior used for tension

regulation in all age and sex combinations among Bonobos. In

J.R. Feierman (Ed.), Pedophilia: Biosocial Dimensions, pp 378-393. New

York, NY: Springer.

de Waal, F.B.M. 2000. The first kiss: Foundations of conflict

resolution research in animals. In F. Aureli & F.B.M. de Waal

(Eds.), Natural Conflict Resolution, pp. 15–33. Berkely, CA:

University of California Press.

Durham, T.M., T. Malloy, & E.D. Hodges. 1993. Halitosis: Knowing

when “bad breath” signals systemic disease. Geriatrics, 48 (8): 55-

59.

Eibl-Eibefeldt, I. 1971. Love and Hate: The natural history of behavior

patterns. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

Eibl-Eibesfeldt, I. 1998. Us and the others: The familial roots

of ethnonationalism. In I. Eibl-Eibesfeldt & F.K. Salter

30

(Eds.), Indoctrinability, Ideology, and Warfare: Evolutionary Perspectives, pp

21-54. New York, NY: Berghahn Books.

Elias, N. 2000 (First published in 1939). The Civilizing Process:

Sociogenetic and Psychogenetic Investigations. Revised Edition. New York, NY:

Oxford University Press.

Fisher, H.E. 1982. The Sex Contract: The evolution of human behavior. New

York, NY: William Morrow.

Fisher, H.E. 1992. Anatomy of Love: A natural history of mating, marriage, and

why we stray. New York, NY: W.W. Norton.

Floyd, K., J.P. Boren, A.F. Hannawa, C. Hesse, B. McEwan, & A.E.

Veksler. 2009. Kissing in marital and cohabiting

relationships: Effects on blood lipids, stress, and

relationships satisfaction. Western Journal of Communication, 73 (2):

113-133.

Fried, M.H. 1967. The evolution of political society: An essay in political

anthropology. (Random House studies in anthropology, AS 7). New

York, NY: Random House.

Ford, C.S. & F.A. Beach. 1951. Patterns of Sexual Behavior. New York,

NY: Harper and Row.

Grammer, K., B. Fink, & N. Neave. 2005. Human pheromones and

31

sexual attraction. European Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology and

Reproductive Biology, 118 (2): 135-142.

Gray, P.B. & J.R. Garcia. 2013. Evolution and Human Sexual Behavior.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Gulledge, A.K., M.H. Gulledge, & R.F. Stahmann. 2003. Romantic

physical affection types and relationship satisfaction. The

American Journal of Family Therapy, 31 (4): 233-242.

Hatfield, E. & R.L. Rapson. 2005. Love and Sex: Cross-cultural

perspectives. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

Hendrie, C.A. & G. Brewer. 2010. Kissing as an evolutionary

adaption to protect against Human Cytomegalovirus-like

teratogenesis. Medical Hypotheses, 74 (2), 222-224.

Heiman, J.R., J.S. Long, S.N. Smith, W.A. Fisher, M.S. Sand, &

R.C. Rosen. 2011. Sexual satisfaction and relationship

happiness in midlife and older couples in five countries.

Archives of Sexual Behavior, 40 (4): 741-753.

Hewlett, B.L. & B.S. Hewlett. 2008. A Biocultural approach to

sex, love and intimacy in central African forgers and farmers.

In W.R. Jankowiak (Ed.), Intimacies: Love and sex across cultures, pp 40-

64. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

32

Hewlett, B.S. & B.L. Hewlett. 2010. Sex and searching for

children among Aka foragers and Ngandu farmers of Central

Africa. African Study Monographs, 31 (3): 107-125.

Horowitz, A. 2009. Inside of a Dog: What Dogs See, Smell, and Know. New

York, NY: Scribner.

Huff, A.D. 2011. Buying the girlfriend experience: An exploration

of the consumption experiences of male customers of escorts.

In R.W. Belk et al. (Eds.), Research in Consumer Behavior (Volume 13),

pp 111-126. Emerald Group Publishing Limited: Bingley, UK.

Hughes, S.M., M.A. Harrison, & G.G. Gallup. 2007. Sex differences

in romantic kissing among college students: An evolutionary

perspective. Evolutionary Psychology, 5 (3): 612-631.

Jankowiak, W.R. (Ed.). 2008. Intimacies: Love and sex across cultures. New

York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Junod, H.A. 1962. The Life of a South African Tribe. New York, NY:

University Books. (originally published in 1912)

Kirshenbaum, S. 2011. The Science of Kissing: What our lips are telling us. New

York, NY: Grand Central Publishing.

33

Kohl, J.V., M. Atzmueller, B. Fink, & K. Grammer. 2001. Human

Pheromones: Integrating neuroendocrinology and ethology.

Neuroendocrinology Letters, 22: 309-321.

Murdock, G.P. 1967. Ethnographic Atlas: A summary. Pittsburgh, PA: The

University of Pittsburgh Press.

Murdock, G.P. & D.R. White. 1969. Standard cross-cultural

sample. Ethnology, 8 (4): 329-369.

Nyrop, C. & W.F. Harvey. 1901. The Kiss: And it’s History. London, UK:

Sands & Co.

O’Sullivan, L.F., M.M. Cheng, K.M. Harris, & J. Brooks-Gunn.

2007. I wanna hold your hand: The progression of social,

romantic and sexual events in adolescent relationships.

Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, 39 (2): 100-107.

Pinker, S. 2011. The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why violence has declined. New

York, NY: Penguin Books.

Sergeant, M.J.T., M.N.O. Davies, T.E. Dickins, & M.D. Griffiths.

2005. The self-reported importance of olfaction during human

mate choice. Sexualities, Evolution & Gender, 7 (3): 199-213.

Service, E.R. 1968. Primitive Social Organization: An evolutionary perspective.

New York, NY: Random House.

34

Service, E.R. 1975. Origins of the State and Civilization: The Process of Cultural

Evolution. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company.

So-Kum Tang, C., J.W. Critelli, & J.F. Porter. 1995. Sexual

aggression and victimization in dating relationships among

Chinese college students. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 24 (1): 47-53.

Waldner, L.K., L. Vaden-Goad, & A. Sikka. 1999. Sexual coercion

in India: An exploratory analysis using demographic variables.

Archives of Sexual Behavior, 28 (6): 523-538.

Welsh, D.P., P.T. Haugen, L. Widman, N. Darling, & C.M. Grello.

2005. Kissing is good: A developmental investigation of

sexuality in adolescent romantic couples. Sexuality Research & Social

Policy, 2 (4), 32-41.

Wlodarski, R. & R.I.M. Dunbar. 2013. Examining the possible

functions of kissing in romantic relationships. Archives of Sexual

Behavior, 42(8): 1415-1423.

Wlodarski, R. & R.I.M. Dunbar. 2014. What’s in a kiss? The effect

of romantic kissing on mate desirability. Evolutionary Psychology,

12 (1): 178-199.

35

Table 1. Romantic/sexual kissing Data

Present Not Present No Data

Egalitarian 1234.3%

1748.6%

617.1%

Simple Stratified

623.1%

1557.7%

519.2%

Complex Stratified

1763.0%

27.4%

829.7%

All Cultures 3539.8%

3438.6%

1921.6%

36

Table 2. Social Complexity and Type of Kiss

Total Egalitarian

SimpleStratified

ComplexStratified

Cultures 88100%

3539.8%

2629.5%

2730.7%

Romantic/sexual kissing

3539.8%

1234.3%

623.1%

1763.0%

Adult to Infant/Child Kissing

3236.4%

1131.4%

1142.3%

1040.7%

Kissing Behavior in

Adult Greetings

2326.1%

514.3%

519.2%

1348.1%

Kissing Behavior inStratified

1314.8%

00.0%

27.7%

1140.7%

37

GreetingsOceanic Kiss/Smelling

1213.6%

514.3%

519.2%

27.4%

Figure 1. Romantic/sexual kissing and smelling (Oceanic kiss) arerepresented by the percent of each social group presenting with data for that behavior.

38

E g a l i t a r i a n S i m p l e S t r a t i f i e d C o m p l e x

34.3

23.1

63

14.3 19

.2

7.4

Percent of Societies Erotic Kiss Present Smelling Present

39