Talk:Physical intimacy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Sociology  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology 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.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Sexuality  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject 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.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Scale[edit]

Who decides this scale of "increasing degree"?

The order of the four items is more or less a matter of logic: sexual penetration implies touching intimate parts, touching intimate parts implies touching, touching implies closeness. - Patrick 20:29, 7 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Also kissing used as a greeting would come before hugging, cuddling, and massage

The order of the sub-items in the 2nd main item was not intended to be relevant, I guess that is more personal, and e.g. for kissing, depends on how it is done.--Patrick 17:04, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It felt relevant, but I attempted something to fix that. I would add though that "increasing degree" is a cultural bias, and that many people in "Western culture" as well as everybody in many other cultures would consider some types of "outercourse" "non-penetration" practices (e.g. oral sex cunnilingus) to be much more intimate than intercourse. So with permission (or abstention), I would totally remove this statement. --[[User:Valmi|Valmi ]] 04:11, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

International Hug Day[edit]

I wished such a day existed, but both "international-hug-day december-4" or "international-hug-day 4-december" yield only WP results on Google...

A search for "International Hug Day" gives me some non-Wikipedia results, although the date on which the day seems to be changes. It does not seem to be a very big holiday.. --Conti| 05:15, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)

Non-sexual intimacy[edit]

I think this whole article is geared to much towards sexuality, while physical intimacy is also a very important part in non-sexual relationships. Either that, or it has to be acknowledged that even in what are termed "non-sexual" relationships sexuality plays an important part. Also, listing stuff will precede a more fully expanded text, I hope. Physical intimacy in parent-child relationships also needs to be explored, as it seems to me to be an important part of the formation of a healthy personality.

You are welcome to add more to the article.--Patrick 12:40, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)

Has this article jumped the shark?[edit]

It seems to me that the most recent (not-logged-in) author has been writing increasingly more suggestive prose in an effort to find out how much he can get away with. I think it should be rolled back to around October 10.
--GraemeMcRae 21:05, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Shark Jumped[edit]

If it has not already been rolled back (if it has, it may just me finding something odd about this article), then I would say, "Shark Jumped."

I was trying to figure out how I got here by following the keyword "hug."

It certainly isn't the worst or most graphic article I have found on here, but for this particular topic, I think it might be best to tone it down a little bit (just a little cleaning up ;).

I do however think that the topic before the baseball metaphor is pushing it. I do not think that this is the article it belongs in.

You have my support for rolling back.

(CloneArmyCommander 04:12, 18 November 2005 (UTC))

I understand your problem about being sent here after using the keyword "hug". I got here using "hugging".
It was a pretty disappointing article, which seems to focus far too much on sexual intimacy, which I believe should be an entirely different topic. I understand that sex does involve a strong degree of physical intimacy, but the section about the baseball metaphor is ridiculous in the context of this article. Discussing whether this sexual act or that sexual act is more physically intimate is irrelevent and entirely based on opinion.
There are articles for sex on Wikipedia already. It's just one of many forms of physical intimacy, and it's already been expanded on. This article really does need a lot of work done to it. I believe I'll start by changing the direction of the article in the introduction.
I think I'll find some more volunteers to work on this article.
--Carbon Copy Man 20:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
P.S. For anyone else who wants to help work on the article, the article "Violence and touch deprivation in adolescents" [1] by Tiffany Field should be a useful reference.
"In that study, the cultures that exhibited minimal physical affection toward their young children had significantly higher rates of adult violence, and, vice versa, those cultures that showed significant amounts of physical affection toward their young children had virtually no adult violence."
"Boys, girls, hugs" [2] by Hugo Schwyzer also provides an interesting perspective.
--Carbon Copy Man 22:29, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I finally got around to fixing the "physical intimacy" section. Rearranged the paragraphs so it made sense, and cleaned it up a bit. (What's the point of saying "cuddling" when it's already said it by saying "hugging", "resting your head on their lap", etc?)

It really focused way too much on sex before, when sex is really just one aspect of physical intimacy. (It's kind of surprising that I actually had to add sex to the list.)

I'm really starting to like the way the section sounds now. There really was some good content hidden in there.

(Carbon Copy Man 10:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC))

just a little...[edit]

spring cleaning! Maybe some content addition/alteration later--Elizabeth of North Carolina 05:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Sexual intimacy[edit]

I think we should remove sexual intimacy from the "Other forms of intimacy" section, as sexual and physical intimacy are basically the same thing. At least, that's how I perceive it. Master of Puppets Call me MoP! 06:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Because it is more confusing than helpful, we should also remove the redirection of "fondling" to the "physical intimacy" page. "Fondling" is more more often associated today with sexual molestation crimes, and is therefore worthy of its own page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.60.250.213 (talk) 16:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Imagery[edit]

Why are there only images of artworks, a sculpture and a painting? I find it hard to believe that there are no photos available of real people engaged in the mentioned activities (Examples of physical intimacy include being inside someone's personal space, holding hands, hugging, kissing, caressing, and sexual activity). There should be heaps and heaps of pictures of young couples sitting on benches in the park and people hugging, they're a staple of stock photography. I'd do it myself but my legalese is insufficient, I'm sure someone knows of some photolibrary or perhaps a photographer that is willing to lend a few pictures?81.83.152.111 (talk) 00:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


Skinship[edit]

It says that skinship(word used mostly in Japan and Korea) means the intimacy...blahblah, between a mother and a child.. and then gives examples, one of them being a mother touching a child in a bath or something like that. Skinship is not always between a mother and a child. People usually use the word to describe the intimacy between two people who are... in love, the intimacy between a boyfriend and a girlfriend for example. The word is not used to describe the intimacy(?) between a mother and a child, and also, it's not usually used to describe "sex". I don't quite get why the author(?)/writer, whatever, even mentioned sex. "Skinship" is used to describe the intimacy in a sexual relationship but not specifically sex. (haha, reading over what I just wrote, I think I repeated some words a lot...=P) -- BEASTxITxUP (talk) 08:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Totally agreed. I am a Japanese native speaker, and skinship does not necessarily have anything to do with mothers or children. It is physical affection, regardless of relationship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.158.33.140 (talk) 08:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Skinship in Korea[edit]

I do not know about other countries, but skinship in Korea is very common in purely platonic friendships, whether its hugging, holding hands, caressing or kissing on cheeks. Areas covered here are sexual and mother/child relationships. Unfortunately, I do not have any suitable sources to back this up other than personal experience. I think it is worth a look? 94.193.61.168 (talk) 08:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the material relating to the use of the word "skinship" in Korea. This does not fairly characterize the way the word has been used for at least the last ten years. Koreans most often use the word for touching between a boyfriend and girlfriend, and it usually implies flirtation or the first steps towards erotic contact. The fact that Koreans are often comfortable in non-erotic contact between same-sex friends is a, perhaps interesting, cultural fact that should not be conflated with this term. Meanwhile, what is acceptable in terms of public displays of affection between boyfriends and girlfriends in Korea is in the process of rapid change, and depends very much on age-group, region, and personal upbringing. Many people remain quite conservative by Western standards, while others are starting to be quite open and liberal in this regard.zadignose (talk) 06:32, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Pat on the back[edit]

Interestingly, a pat on the back links to physical intimacy. There is nothing sensual to it, since the intention is totally different. Shouldn't this redirect be removed?

Argoneon (talk) 13:56, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Propose an NPOV Skinship fork[edit]

I feel that starting a separate page for Skinship, initially using the current content here, would be beneficial for at least two reasons:

  • Here, it would allow some of the language considerations not directly related to the topic of this page to be edited down for better focus.
  • The separate page would allow more exploration of the concept within far Eastern culture without creating a POV fork.

    MistyMorn (talk) 12:12, 29 July 2012 (UTC)