Talk:Side hug

Notability

I refuse to believe that people are this stupid without more citations. I believe this is a valid article about because the Christian side hug is a representative element of the broader pro-abstinence movement. I have made changes in the article to reflect this point. I have also linked the article to similar representations of the pro-abstinence movement, such as purity rings and the virginity pledge. Aavarner (talk) 21:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Except you've provided no evidence that it is actually practiced by anyone, pro-abstinence movement or otherwise. It's a joke line in a rap song. If I release a song joking about how the Pope worships the Flying Spaghetti Monster, that doesn't mean someone can then write an article about the practice of Pastafarianism in the Catholic Church. This is a non-notable neologism used to mock the fundies, not an appropriate subject for an encyclopedia (unless it's widespread enough to demand attention, which this isn't). —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 22:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While it was originally presented in a joking manner, and is interpreted by some as satire, this is very much a real phenomenon and is noteworthy enough to deserve an article, given the media buzz that it has generated. 24.162.143.232 (talk) 03:00, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The side hug was a rule at the EG youth conference where front hugging was banned. The rap, though a itself a joke in that it was performed in a silly manner, was performed by Christian youth pastors at at the conference in order to get the side-hugging rule across to the attendees. The lyrics blatantly reveal its intent, saying twice that public displays of affection like front hugging would get teens ejected from the event.

Also, I added some citations showing that some religious organizations promote or require side hugging, at least in certain situations. One source is a youth leader application which clearly state that only side hugging is allowed. Another is a church website site that encourages an advice seeker not to front hug her friends of the opposite sex. I'm sure I could find many more if I wanted to put the time into it, but I'd rather not waste my time if it will just be deleted. Unlike the spaghetti monster, Christian side hugging certainly exists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aavarner (talk • contribs) 23:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Aavarner (talk) 23:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the church website with the advice not to front hug friend of the opposite sex reprinted it from Brio magazine, printed by Focus on the Family. Focus on the Family is very well known and respected by the fundamentalist community. My parents love it.Aavarner (talk) 00:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

jesus christ, fundies say the darndest things!216.66.110.43 (talk) 05:36, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why Christian?

This is a 'hug' practised by many people of many faiths - and of none. Why is it specifically Christian if you do it but presumably not if done by Ranjit Singh, Ali Hassan, or even me? Also, why is it 'avoiding possible sexual contact'? In the picture, the man only seems to be avoiding one of the young lady's protruberances. Is one OK, but not two? Peridon (talk) 23:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because the song in which it is referenced calls it Christian, and because it is commonly employed by Christians as a technique to maintain abstinence. As far as sexual contact goes, I think it has more to do with keeping the genitals away from each other. Breasts are sexualized by our society but aren't inherently sexual, and are not what this is about. Anyway, I do agree with you that it doesn't make sense, but only because I think these silly fundamentalist Christians pathologizing natural human behavior doesn't make sense. 12.144.218.74 (talk) 06:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say it was commonly used by Christians. I know quite a few (I've even been drafted into a church quiz team on occasions...) and none of those I know worry about hugging in the slightest. Peridon (talk) 18:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

breasts are inherently sexual - best guess at why we have permanently engorged mammaries is to provide the same cleft/plumpness attraction that in other primates is done via the buttocks, which are now out of the eye-line because of our upright posture. not relevant, but just sayin'. 94.193.221.42 (talk) 11:43, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]