Jump to content

Talk:Hug

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by PressSourceCheck (talk | contribs) at 05:01, 7 November 2022. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconSexology and sexuality Start‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

New Section?

Should a new section about the health benefits of hugging be made? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.10.133.58 (talk) 16:35, 18 November 2013 (UTC) Hugging is a happy exercise to preform!--~209.232.148.99 (talk)WOW[reply]

(untitled)

hug should be an extra article in many cultures thi8s is a big deal.--yidi 14:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC) WOW[reply]

NPOV

magical properties??? citation please. Kit O'Connell (Todfox: user / talk / contribs) 06:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[[1]] .V. [Talk|Email] 18:10, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Origins of the hug

Unless there's a good reason to think that the origins of the hug can be traced to a specific time and place, maybe the article should just be mute on the subject. --24.147.86.187 19:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There has got to be somewhere talking either about the origin of the hug, or how it has been studied as a common form of expression in unconnected cultures (like native americans and Europeans when they first landed). Im surprised this topic is so neglected, while i think something regarding origin is a big need-to-have there are so many things lacking from this article. - Debeo Morium: to be morally bound (Talk | Contribs) 21:03, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hugs on holidays?

"Many people hug on holidays, such as Mother's Day, or Christmas."

Seems a bit silly to put this in. I'm not saying it's untrue, but people hug for tons of reasons. Graduations, after not seeing each other for a while, etc. I don't know why we're calling out holidays. Does this warrant a list of "typical reasons to hug?"

Drewmutty (talk) 08:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I went ahead and removed it. Maybe someone wants to resurrect this and other original research in a page called list of occasions upon which people might hug. maxsch (talk) 23:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shepherd Jr. High Controversy

I fixed up Shepherd Jr. High's controversy part, by source and by experience as a current student at Shepherd Jr. High (March 5th, 2008) as well as reading the newspaper article on the front page that explained the situation. Thecutnut (talk) 09:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

There was a lot of nonsense on this page. I moved Groping and Tree hugging to the see also section. The CDC does not single out hugging as mode of transmitting SARS, rather SARS (like many contagious diseases) can be transmitted by close contact. Hugging is clearly close contact, but the specificity of the line about SARS is misleading, so I took it out too. The prehistoric hug is cute but not encyclopedic: removed. The bit about hugging and the female brain is controversial and I'm removing it for lack of independent scientific support, some of Louann Brizendine's other numbers in the book that this supposedly comes from are not from her own research and turn out to be false (see, for example, the claim that women use more words than men: it's not true!). I'm not sure what to do about the school controversy, some of the links in it were dead and it is really not about hugs or hugging per se, it is more about American hysteria about child sexuality and exploitation. It seems like it really belongs elsewhere...maybe in its own page, or nowhere... maxsch (talk) 19:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)was a lot of nonsense on this page. I moved Groping and Tree hugging to the see also section. The CDC does not single out hugging as mode of transmitting SARS, rather SARS (like many contagious diseases) can be transmitted by close contact. Hugging is clearly close contact, but the specificity of the line about SARS is misleading, so I took it out too. The prehistoric hug is cute but not encyclopedic: removed. The bit about hugging and the female brain is controversial and I'm removing it for lack of independent scientific support, some of Louann Brizendine's other numbers in the book that this supposedly comes from are not from her own research and turn out to be false (see, for example, the claim that women use more words than men: it's not true!). I'm not sure what to do about the school controversy, some of the links in it were dead and it is really not about hugs or hugging per se, it is more about American hysteria about child sexuality and exploitation. It seems like it really belongs elsewhere...maybe in its own page,[reply]

Hand Hug

I think we should add Hand Hug for the see also Section (Arian19 (talk) 06:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Let's work out one thing at a time, and wait until the CSD on Hand Hug is resolved. P Carn (talk) 06:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dog

What's the nonsense about James Corden's dog. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.10.16.107 (talk) 16:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is this about Dogs like hugging less than other primates? Dogs aren't primates... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.107.244.66 (talk) 06:34, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hugtherapy

i believe in the positive and healing effects of a loving hug i believe relationship are improving if people feel free to hug eachother i believe even therapy gives with hugs can do so much of healing in lifes of people i am really EXCITED about communication with a hug

Hugtherapy (talk) 12:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i love to cuddle when its cold outside — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.244.141.177 (talk) 16:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Himba people

The bit about Himba people is without any reference, and the only mentions I can find on the internet that Himba people supposedly don't see hugging as affection are people referring to *this* article and its unsubstantiated info. What's more, here's a picture of Himba girls embracing and smiling. http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4082/4942315938_2b1d9b161e_z.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gatero (talk • contribs) 22:00, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cuddling

Why doesn't cuddling have its own article? Benjamin (talk) 03:06, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

History Section

Please add some history. I can't remember seeing friends hug in a movie of the 40s.--89.12.125.184 (talk) 23:43, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested Edit

Cuddling Business Cuddling has become a profitable business worldwide for the many ‘professional cuddlers’ who offer their cuddling services for a fee. Professional cuddlers promote their business as non-sexual and offer it those who are missing the touch and connection of another person.

Some professional cuddlers prefer to open retail shops while booking is available via official websites. One of the first ones, Cuddle Up To Me, was launched in Portland, Oregon by Samantha Hess and gained a lot of media attention worldwide. Following the success of Cuddle Up To Me - A number of online startups emerged. While some suggest choosing from a great variety of cuddlers (both male and female), others let anyone run their own business in any country. Cuddlr was the first mobile app (launched in 2014) and is mainly focused on offering free hugs. CuddleUp.com launched in early 2015 and is a network which connects professional cuddlers with clients and helps the latter hire a spooning partner. CuddleUp.com removes the barrier to entry and allows virtually anyone with access to the internet become a professional cuddler.

Another way of running a cuddling business is cuddle parties (or cuddle workshops, usually paid[1]).

Despite not everybody approving this kind of relationship and business model, it has proven to be successful. For example, Cuddling Con crowdfunding campaign has raised $169,000 and the Cuddlr app has hundreds of thousand downloads[2].

References

  1. ^ "Fancy snuggling up to twenty strangers for FOUR hours? Join the 'cuddle club' where you'll pay £29 for 'therapeutic touching' sessions". MailOnline. Retrieved 27 April 2015.
  2. ^ "Professional Cuddlers Embrace More Clients". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 27 April 2015.

Zverolen (talk) 06:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Hug. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:15, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mariah carey Lylah26 (talk) 21:11, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Hug. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:55, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Hug. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:53, 28 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hug. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:13, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense in cuddling section

"In 2014, British sociologists Eric Anderson and Mark McCormack published a study which shows that 93% of British heterosexuals student-athletes had spooned or cuddled with a male friend, as a sign of friendship."

That can't be true. There's no way such a high number of people in Britain are gay, (even if they oddly claim to be straight). It looks like propaganda and should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Griefslams (talk • contribs) 10:18, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is Hugging really universal among all communities?

The lead of this article states that Hugging is universal in human communities while a sentence below in the Characteristics section states "Unlike some other types of physical contact, a hug can be practiced publicly and privately without stigma in many countries, religions and cultures, within families, and also across age and gender lines". However, I'm not entirely sure I agree with either of those statements especially the second one, because hugging of the opposite sex in Islamic countries (especially in most of the conservative Arab nations) would definitely be stigmatised publically unless it was between members of the same family. I also doubt hugging is very common in conservative Hindu/Buddhist cultures and in some of the East Asian countries (e.g. China and Japan) unless it was between people who know each other well. Maybe privately it would be practiced without any stigma but definitely not publically so I would suggest rewording those bits or maybe giving more information on cultures where hugging is stigmatised (like the example I've given for Islam cultures and the East Asian countries). I might do it myself later if I get time although I would be grateful if anyone else can do it before I do. Does anyone else agree with this? Broman178 (talk) 19:58, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]


  • What I think should be changed:

These edits should be reverted [1][2]

  • Why it should be changed:

WP:SOCK: Erez Ben-Ari was using sock puppets to promote himself and his business, please see investigation archived here [3] which concluded in blocking all his accounts. BillShearim, NCSFreedom, and BenAriAtMicrosoft all belong to Erez as recorded here [4].

WP:COI: Erez has added his own business "Hugz & Cuddles" to this article (as BillSeharim). This is self-promotion and conflict of interest. Erez Ben-Ari's page and his self-authored Hugz & Cuddles page ware previously deleted [5] due to some of the same violations as well lack of notability.

PressSourceCheck (talk) 05:01, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hug&diff=1061598829&oldid=1061439915
  2. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hug&diff=1061599138&oldid=1061598829
  3. ^ "Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BenAriAtMicrosoft/Archive". March 12, 2022 – via Wikipedia.
  4. ^ "Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of BenAriAtMicrosoft". March 12, 2022 – via Wikipedia.
  5. ^ "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erez Ben–Ari". March 19, 2022 – via Wikipedia.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hug&oldid=1120469246"