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;
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
Top Related