Talk:Public display of affection

Interracial PDA

Why is 'Latino', an ethnonym, included here? It's not a race. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.41.30 (talk) 00:00, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Surprisingly good article

I didn't even expect a Wikipedia article on this, but I looked it up and was pleasantly surprised. This is really becoming a good encyclopedia transcending the limited space of paper! Nickptar 03:02, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Please add examples for countries all over the world. vaceituno 00:00, 23 Aug 2005 (UTC)

I'm not to sure about the article - and most of all the term. As http://www.cariboo.bc.ca/news/Past02Oct7/DigestsOCT7/PublicDisplayAffection/Display.htm shows, the term itself need not refer to anything sexual. Where did the term evolve? When? Who uses it? For what purpose? If there are laws against kissing in public, do they use the term? Or are they specific? For me, as a German living in Germany, the idea of schools outlawing holding hands sounds definitely out of the 19th century. CJ de

I think the term is USA specific, but there is an unwritten code of acceptable public display of affection all over the world. vaceituno 00:00, 24 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Now, what would really be interesting would be a section on changing attitudes to PDA in Western history. During some periods it was viewed as quite outrageous. Minivet 22:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Origin of term?

When did this term come about? Because I never heard it growing up ( in the USA ) but a few years ago I saw some forum about "banning PDA's in schools" and I thought they were talking about handheld computers being used to cheat on tests. But apparently everybody in the discussion was familiar with the other usage. Is it a regional thing? Squidfryerchef 06:09, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

To me the term itself shows lack of clear thinking, when used in the school setting -- for example, a smile is a public display of affection -- should it be banned? I would like to see a Wikipedia page on PDA policies in middle and high schools, including the zero tolerance ones. I came here for this and only found information on PDAs among adults in public settings.190.107.163.17 (talk) 03:13, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Homosexual Hijacking?

This article, while fascinating, contains an excessive amount of homosexual activist agenda. A "kiss in" Is not a communication of affection, exhibitionism, indifference or tolerance. Affection is merely the pretense of a "kiss in". The purpose of the ironically counter productive "kiss in" is to shock, disrupt and offend. It is a public display of contempt and disaffection toward the target audience.

I intend to research the topic of "PDA" and it taboos, and I hope to add some usefull/interesting material to the article.

Meinshad 13:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)meinshad

Agreed... The homosexuality references have no place here. 'Affection' knows no gender, and same sex references should not be included here. Ghengis Kant (talk) 23:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Totally disagree. There is affection between genders, and there are issues about same gender affection in many countries. If PDA plays a role in the way these issues are handled by the affected groups, it does have a place. It seem to me an homophobic bias to remove that content. vaceituno (talk) 12:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The purpose of this kiss-in is obviously to send a message to people like you who feel homosexuality should be invisible. You people need to learn that homosexual relationships happen, and that nobody should be forced to keep their displays of affection private to avoid harrassment or violence.--holizz (talk) 10:56, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Vaceituno raises a valid point, whereas as Holizz makes evident the very problem with the original objection. The function of an encyclopedic entry is to provide reasonably unbiased opinion - not to alienate or embrace a particular group or mindset. Inclusion of it here is questionable; and the fiery responses suggest that it's about an agenda, as opposed to describing phenomena. I stand by my assertion in which I agree with the original objection - Holizz, is the suggestion somehow that same sex PDA is different than opposite sex PDA? If it warrants inclusion here, perhaps a distinct entry for 'homosexual public displays of affection'. Ghengis Kant (talk) 22:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I think your radically changing what he meant. He even said that affection has no gender, so I don't think he's someone whos trying to make homosexuality invisible. I think what he meant was that this is an article on PDA, not homophobia, which the kiss-ins are against, not merely PDA. The kissathons in South Africa are, however relevant. I agree that saying that homosexual PDA is more looked down upon, but it seems to overdo it a little. 72.220.125.86 (talk) 11:19, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

To me the reference about homosexuality is and should be part of a discussion of the relative acceptability of PDAs in different cultures. This article is lacking a general discussion of acceptability in an international context, as it seems to only reference Europe and the Americas, with little attention paid to the Middle East, Africa and Asia. Gymnophoria (talk) 17:26, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Illegal in Illinois?

User:Tclaw, who seems to have a history of crap and dubious edits, claims that all forms of PDA are illegal in Illinois and are punishable by prison sentences. He has yet to provide a citation for this ridiculous assertion and has accused me of vandalism for removing it. I have searched the internet and consulted a roommate who just moved from Chicago recently and this law doesn't seem to exist. Please be on the lookout for Tclaw trying to add this back w/o a cite. 24.2.50.40 (talk) 00:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Heavy petting in parks?!

Heavy petting is common in parks around Europe? Heck, I need to visit parks more often. Seriously though, things that are common in parks around Europe are joggers, old ladies and turks with bbqs. No petting, sorry. {{subst:unsigneIP|92.229.120.230|22:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)}}

Come to the south man, come to the south ;). vaceituno (talk) 13:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vaceituno (talk • contribs)

Latin america

Of course PDA is accepted and has not been banned ever. Not even in Argentina (or other countries recently under a dictatorship). It was, maybe, seen socially as a bad conduct, but not "banned". There were no sanctions or fines applied. Also, even if it can bee seen as a display of the newly gained freedom (perhaps the music video "Zoom" by Soda Stereo can be an example), it cannot be considered a "patriotic" act, particularly in Argentina were it was the Junta who used terms such as "patriotism", "nation" and even race to promote their values.That section needs revision.

In Chile, another country "recently" under a dictartorship, there has been a large amount of discussion in the mainstream media regarding "emo kids" (just teenagers i'd say) virtually "taking hold" of public parks in the capital city where they involve in drinking, smoking and many forms of PDA. Even though the practice is widely accepted, the debate shows that the subject is not so pacific. See news here http://diario.elmercurio.cl/detalle/index.asp?id={4c9be9f2-b7aa-4195-8a0c-dc9a6a07a107} http://diario.elmercurio.cl/detalle/index.asp?id={d3f27799-987f-45a8-b37c-6711e3f5e586}--190.22.46.126 (talk) 02:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

References

I've removed two whole paragraphs relating to the Middle East. They were unreferenced and very much against my experience as a decade-long resident in Saudi Arabia and other parts of the region.

The rest of the article looks like the work of a 15 year old as well. And what is it with that silly three-letter acronym repeated all over the article? Anyone bothered enough may want to do a search and replace on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.144.83.243 (talk) 23:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm also not sure about the reference regarding PDAs in South Africa. Where does it say in the constitution that PDAs under the age of 16 is illegal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.242.204.228 (talk) 11:52, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Latin america vs. the United states

Very important to mention that PDAs in latin america are completely different. They're simply something for the couple to enjoy, not meant to attract attention or carry a social / political message; while in the US PDAs actually occur on a much lower rate, among couples whom the mainstream society might perceive as "odd", they are meant to sexually disturb the public, attract attention and hence strengthen the bond between the couple.

79.175.191.160 (talk) 07:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC)Goshtaasp

On a psychological level.

Public displays of affection can be seen as a way of marking ones territory. Just saying. -AC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.231.239.198 (talk) 16:48, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Latin America, again

The way this part of the article is written, it can be misleading in at least two ways: 1. if something occurs in one isolated Latin American country, it DOES NOT mean it is a common trait to all Latin American countries. Would it not be more accurate to say Chile instead? 2. I have little knowledge of Chilean culture, but from the articles referenced it seems to me that it is one very specific group of people who has promoted sex in public, so to say. From that it is absurd to infer that it is a tolerated habit or anything like that. I doubt that sex in open, public spaces is seen as OK in ANY place in the planet, not to mention 'Latin America', a region with many nations culturally rooted in Catholic morality.

Daniel Ávila — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.194.67.100 (talk) 14:44, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Homosexual PDA paragraph

I quite agree that the paragraph now is of low quality, but the topic is indeed relevant. Perhaps we can decide on how to reword it? --Cyclopia^talk 18:17, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

This article is basically a dictionary definition. I suspect it could be merged with something else. Having two paragraphs about the different public reactions to same-sex public displays of affection is ridiculous here and probably covered better elsewhere already. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:27, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Strange as it is, I didn't find anything else significant here on WP, but maybe my google-fu is rusty. --Cyclopia^talk 19:18, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Section on Modern China Wrong

The description of modern Chinese culture is entirely incorrect, based on personal experience. In every major city I have been in, you can see couples holding hands, and couples will occasionally kiss. The sole reference for this assertion is a blog post citing personal experience which admits in many places to be talking about traditional and not modern culture. Marking disputed. Linuxrocks123 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:21, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Removed, random blog posts aren't credible references. --Cold Season (talk) 22:13, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Disgust and Public display of affection

I don't know what problem you have for the Manchus, but I think we had this conversation before. If you don't mind, we can do this over and over again.

Quotes are optional. I have provided pages for each reference which matches the content very well. These are all reliable source. However, you are actually the one that is specifically targeting Manchu people. You have been doing this for many years by misstating the reference. Your quote and reference are meaningless because it does not matter how many reference you are citing, it all came from Shirokogorov's research in 1924. The book has already mentioned that his research is based on his visit to Amur River in Northern Manchuria in the 1900s, that is far away from giving a conclusion for a culture. You can't play WP:I just don't like it for your own interests.--Šolon (talk) 23:07, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not WP:I just don't like it. You are. You write with a sole MANCHU WP:POV by willing trying to curb any info about Manchu people's cultural practices that isn't to your liking. And even now you are arguing in that way here. It is well cited to several researchers, such as Barre, Henderson, and others.

Secondly, info about cultural practices for HEALTH or others does not belong in an article about AFFECTION.

Thirdly, info about disgust need to be about disgust, as explicitly mentioned in the sources and not from own biases of what's disgusting.

Fourthly, a quote is needed, as you need to establish that your info is in fact factual and relevant by providing a quote when it is contested. If you refuse to do so, it means that you show explicit unwillingness to resolve an issue (and that's on you).

Fifthly, do what over again? Fixing you trying to remove well cited info (about Manchu cultural practices) that you don't like, and fixing you trying to misconstrue sources in places that are not related to the topic?

--Cold Season (talk) 23:18, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• As reproduced from my talk page [1]. As I feel that this needs more eyes. Relevant to the edits on circa 8 April 2018 on both articles. --Cold Season (talk) 23:33, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

First, I am trying to reach a consensus instead of arguing.It doesn't matter how many researchers you have. They all came from Shirokogorov's research, Barre, Henderson, and others are just citing the reference. Why don't you post their bibliography? Because you know that'd absolutely against your favor.

Secondly, my source is about affection of Chinese parents towards different situation.

Thirdly, your quotos have nothing to do with disgust. My source even mentioned that Chinese and Vietnamese consume human placenta, which is done by psychologist Rachel Sarah Herz. It is obviously not from "own biases of what's disgusting."

Fourthly, Quote is not required as you can see in so many Featured and Good Articles. Pages number is good enough.--Šolon (talk) 23:44, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Fifthly, you are overly dedicated on posting these stuff in many articles. You are obviously WP:I just like it. Like what I told you, the research was done in a visit in Northern Manchuria, but you are focusing on playing WP:I just like it and wouldn't listen.

--Šolon (talk) 23:44, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• Not really, it establishes and strengthens notability and reliability per WP:SECONDARY.

• Your info is not relevant to the topic of the article (that is, Public display of affection). The term affection or any synonymous term does not appear in your sources. The context in the source is also not about affection or any expression thereof, as it is about health, respect, or something else (depending on the group of which the info is about).

• The Manchu info talks about the dichotomy between the perspectives of westerners and Manchu, and their reponses. There's mention about how people react to it and view it, like "obscenity," "shameful," and "shocks." Barre, for example, states that "Protective anxiety (disgust) will then lead the latter to withdraw his franchise from the transaction and resume the standard moral." (in his Obscenity: An Anthropological Appraisal) in his treatment of perceived obscenities such as in described Manchu practices.

• I quote...

"As with sources in English, if a dispute arises involving a citation to a non-English source, editors may request that a quotation of relevant portions of the original source be provided, either in text, in a footnote, or on the article talk page." (WP:VERIFY)

• I'm not particularly interested to whomever you point fingers at with those WP essays you pull out. The info meets the criteria of inclusion. But I will add that it was from Northern Manchuria. Someone else added it. --Cold Season (talk) 10:09, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Barre, Henderson, and others are not falling into the category of WP:SECONDARY on this specific topic itself. They are just referencing Shirokogorov's work in the 1900s for other research purposes. Therefore, the original researcher and the background needs to be specified in the paragraph. Southern Manchuria and Peking were intentionally excluded because Shirokogorov believed that these areas were less "pure". However, culture changes from time to time. There is no such a thing called "pure" culture whatsoever. It has regional differences as well. The Manchu studies in the English-speaking countries research Manchus ethnic group in China as a whole, not in a certain area, (e.g. The Manchu Way: The Eight Banners and Ethnic Identity in Late Imperial China). His work is like conducting research at Yulin Dog Meat Festival, then comes up a conclusion that all Chinese consume dog meat (although it might be more relevent than Shirokogorov's research). Therefore, again, the original researcher and the background needs to be specified in the paragraph, or it will be misinterpreted.--Šolon (talk) 22:06, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Remind me of this page Slavery in China#20th century:

Throughout the 1930s and 1940s the Yi people (also known as Nuosu) of China terrorized Sichuan to rob and enslave non-Nuosu including Han people. The descendants of the Han slaves, known as the White Yi (白彝), outnumbered the Black Yi (黑彝) aristocracy by ten to one. There was a saying goes like: "the worst insult to a Nuosu is to call him a "Han" (with the implication being that "your ancestors were slaves")".

— Preceding unsigned comment added by No1lovesu (talk • contribs)

I will agree with the background being added for clarification. --Cold Season (talk) 07:50, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Sentence in "Religiosity" is nonsense.

The first part of a sentence in the "Religiosity" section makes no sense: "Seemingly religiosity may work in two different ways where religious communities are in general quite racially segregated in the around the world,". What does that even mean? ----64.211.224.254 (talk) 19:26, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Ambiguity and omission turn the provided definition of PA into potential disinformation

Using this definition of physical affection (PA) provided by Gulledge, A. K., Gulledge, M. H. and Stahmann, R. F. in the in the paper "Romantic physical affection types and relationship satisfaction" outside the context of the original paper constitutes disinformation because it deliberately omits critical qualifiers, namely the explicit exclusion of sexual intimacy, which is stated in the very next sentence of the paper, and is essential to the study’s focus. The inclusion of the term "arouse" creates ambiguity that, when divorced from the paper's context, could misleadingly imply a conflation of non-sexual and sexual behaviors. This misrepresentation distorts the original intent, narrows the scope of PA by leading readers to interpret "aroused" as referring primarily to sexual connotations and may be exploited to support inaccurate conclusions or undermine the study’s credibility.

The use of the word "arouse" in the definition, despite the paper explicitly excluding sexual intimacy within the study, introduces a term heavily associated with sexual connotations. This choice of wording could mislead readers into conflating physical affection with exclusivly sexual behaviors, subtly undermining the clarity of the study's focus. This creates room for misinterpretation, which could then be exploited to push a narrative inconsistent with the study's stated intentions.

Finally, the introduction of the term "Physical Affection (PA)" is not standardized and is an operational definition as stated by the authors. This definition creates tension between the article title and the definition of PDA provided in the first paragraph of the article.

The following options could resolve this issue:

   1) Drop the definition entirely due to its tension with the previously defined term PDA (for the reasons I previously outlined).

   2) Include the omitted critical qualifiers from the paper, specifically stating that the study expressly did not include sexual intimacy in its consideration.

   3) Provide an alternative definition for PA that is less ambiguous when taken out of context.

Definition and context provided from the paper as reference "In an attempt to facilitate understanding, we have operationally defined PA as any touch intended to arouse feelings of love in the giver and/or the recipient. This operational definition was also provided on the survey instrument employed in the present study. PA Types and Relationship Satisfaction 235 Seven types of PA are examined (sexual intimacy is, once again, excluded from present consideration)." (Gulledge, A. K.; Gulledge, M. H.; Stahmann, R. F.) Joeblowonthebeach (talk) 19:11, 22 December 2024 (UTC)