Is Kissing Instinct?

[The Peon]

Like I said' date=' I [b']believe[/b] it to be learned. That is simply my opinion.

 

1. Researchers on all sides of the behavioral genetics debate emphasize that the link between a gene and a behavior is not the same as cause and effect. Bottom line: a gene does not make people do things. It doesn't code for emotions or thoughts. It may not even turn on or off without an instruction from its surroundings. Instead, a gene may trigger a whole cascade of biochemical events in the body, interact with environmental and developmental influences, and - together with these - increase the likelihood that you'll behave in a particular way.

http://www.dnafiles.org/about/pgm2/topic.html#overview

 

2. An important theoretical perspective of primate behavior is presented by sociobiology. This interpretation is based on the premise that natural selection has acted upon behavior patterns in the same way that it has acted on physical characteristics. This does not presume a genetic basis for certain behaviors, but rather that certain behaviors might lead to reproductive success. Some researchers have challenged this theory, yet many primatologists, as well as some anthropologists, see it as a potential explanatory mechanism for some aspects of both primate and human behavior.

http://wps.prenhall.com/hss_scupin_globalanth_5/0,8043,878150-,00.html

 

3. Primates often engage in various kinds of affiliative behavior, such as kissing, hugging, and social grooming. This friendly behavior is coupled with a variety of displays of emotions, from greetings to warnings.

 

4. Bonobo sex life is divorced from reproduction and also serves the functions of pleasure and conflict resolution. Erotic contacts in bonobos includes oral sex, genital massage and intense tongue-kissing.

(Will follow up with article and website)

 

5. Human beings share between 99.7 and 99.9 percent of DNA. That should mean that if sexual behaviors were the result of genes we would have similar sexual interests.

 

Edit for quote tags

 

You seem to be saying, that because SOME alterations of behavior can occur due to genes not setting said behaviors in stone, you can just toss out the effect of the genes all together. Otherwise you have not explained why kissing, smiling, frowning, crying, etc is cross cultural if its a learned behavior. Crying is the best example since it occurs way before other emotional traits are amplified.

 

On your fifth point, we do share similar sexual interests, its just expressed in different manners.

 

In case you were wondering, humans exhibit roughly 10 varients of sex, far more then most primates. They are:

 

1> Procreation Sex

 

2> Pair Formation Sex

 

3> Pair Maintenance Sex

 

4> Physiological Sex

 

5> Exploratory Sex

 

6> Self Rewarding Sex

 

7> Occupational Sex

 

8> Tranquilizing Sex

 

9> Commercial Sex

 

10> Status Sex

 

We combine and amplify each through our lives depending on our needs and wants. I bring this up cause it is a clear indicator of the human animals ability to complexify the most trivial or the most important parts of our social lives. Kissing is one of those things we have complexified, and again, is cross-cultural. Just like laughter, crying, etc. To say kissing is learned and humans would not do it if not thought is false. Thus to me, its instinctual. I may be wrong but this actual subject was on my mind for a while and I did some research on it and that is why I am so adamant on my position that it is an instinctual quality, not hereditary.

[Halash]

people watch movies.... thats how they learn....

[Mokele]

A few quick comments:

 

1. Researchers on all sides of the behavioral genetics debate emphasize that the link between a gene and a behavior is not the same as cause and effect. Bottom line: a gene does not make people do things. It doesn't code for emotions or thoughts. It may not even turn on or off without an instruction from its surroundings. Instead, a gene may trigger a whole cascade of biochemical events in the body, interact with environmental and developmental influences, and - together with these - increase the likelihood that you'll behave in a particular way.

 

There isn't a simple, 1:1 result of "if you have this gene, you will do this" in most cases, and evnironment does play a role, correct. But there's a difference between a gene "causing a behavior" and "causing differences in behavior". Any behavior needs nerves, muscles, etc to be carried out, and thus cannot be the result of any one gene. *But*, differences in behavior *can* be caused by a single genetic difference. An excellent example occurs in fruit fly larvae. Some larve will move very little in a nutrient plate, others with roam widely. Not only is the difference genetic, it's been traced to a single gene that displays classic mendelian dominant/recessive interactions.

 

2. An important theoretical perspective of primate behavior is presented by sociobiology. This interpretation is based on the premise that natural selection has acted upon behavior patterns in the same way that it has acted on physical characteristics. This does not presume a genetic basis for certain behaviors, but rather that certain behaviors might lead to reproductive success. Some researchers have challenged this theory, yet many primatologists, as well as some anthropologists, see it as a potential explanatory mechanism for some aspects of both primate and human behavior.

 

Anything shaped by natural selection *must* be heritable, either geneticly or culturally. A behavior that is not transmitted, but leads to reproductive success, will vanish, regardless of whether it is genetic or cultural in origin.

 

While, of course, not *all* behavior can be explained genetically, certain behaviors with certain characteristics seem to be best explained by genetics. The face humans make when angry is pretty much the same as that of all mammals. This makes it likely that it is genetic in nature, rather than cultural. The occurance of a behavior among all primates or all apes also makes this likely, though less clear-cut.

 

Given the occurence of kissing in other species of ape, I'm inclined towards a genetic view. But then again, I'm inclined towards a genetic view for *most* human behavior, as I don't think we're as smart or rational as we think we are.

 

Mokele

[Celeste22]

You seem to be saying, that because SOME alterations of behavior can occur due to genes not setting said behaviors in stone, you can just toss out the effect of the genes all together. Otherwise you have not explained why kissing, smiling, frowning, crying, etc is cross cultural if its a learned behavior. Crying is the best example since it occurs way before other emotional traits are amplified.

 

I don't believe that I stated that smiling, frowning, crying etc. were out and out learned behaviors. I know that researchers have found that an fetus has the ability to cry and suck its thumb from somewhere around 13 weeks.

I also know that researchers have identified the genes, I believe they are called Hox? genes that control the nerve growth in the face and that these genes likely help control human facial expressions such as smiles and frowns.

Smiling, laughing, crying, anger etc. would fall under genetic engineering evolved thru perception complexes in my opinion, but that's off subject here.

 

Kissing is entirely different, its not self-actuated, it normally takes two.

If one enjoys it, and the other loathes it, would we have to assume that one of the two was genetically deficit?

I haven't found any studies/research or felt anything personally that would lead me to believe/assume it was a genetic trait and its not as cross-acculturated as some might suggest.

 

Here's just a few brief examples:

1. Certain groups/tribes in South America and Himalayans do not kiss. They find it revolting to exchange saliva.

 

Genetic defect or gap? I don't believe so...

 

2. Finnish tribes believed kissing to be indecent and distasteful.

 

3. The government of Naples, Italy, once banned the practice of kissing entirely, making it an offense punishable by death.

 

And lastly, as was already stated, anthropologists believe that the act of kissing began with prehistoric mothers chewing up food then pushing it into their children's mouths with their tongues..ie...learned.

 

I believe something along those lines to be more creditable, but that's just my opinion/beliefs.

[The Peon]

I don't believe that I stated that smiling' date=' frowning, crying etc. were out and out learned behaviors. I know that researchers have found that an fetus has the ability to cry and suck its thumb from somewhere around 13 weeks.

I also know that researchers have identified the genes, I believe they are called Hox? genes that control the nerve growth in the face and that these genes likely help control human facial expressions such as smiles and frowns.

Smiling, laughing, crying, anger etc. would fall under genetic engineering evolved thru perception complexes in my opinion, but that's off subject here.

 

Kissing is entirely different, its not self-actuated, it normally takes two.

If one enjoys it, and the other loathes it, would we have to assume that one of the two was genetically deficit?

I haven't found any studies/research or felt anything personally that would lead me to believe/assume it was a genetic trait and its not as cross-acculturated as some might suggest.

 

Here's just a few brief examples:

1. Certain groups/tribes in South America and Himalayans do not kiss. They find it revolting to exchange saliva.

 

Genetic defect or gap? I don't believe so...

 

2. Finnish tribes believed kissing to be indecent and distasteful.

 

3. The government of Naples, Italy, once banned the practice of kissing entirely, making it an offense punishable by death.

 

And lastly, as was already stated, anthropologists believe that the act of kissing began with prehistoric mothers chewing up food then pushing it into their children's mouths with their tongues..ie...learned.

 

I believe something along those lines to be more creditable, but that's just my opinion/beliefs. [/quote']

 

Erm, you mention a group of barely successful social groups as an example, and call that evidence. I find it more reasonable to look at the cultures which have thrived and succeeded to this day, as a much better look at the human example. From what you presented, it appears that they had to learn not to kiss. Either by making it a taboo, ie disgusting, or forcing laws to stop it.

 

If you want credibility stop looking for those pockets of humanity that prove nothing but the radical extents of the human condition, and look to the mainstream. That is one mistake many Anthropologists made for a long time, looking at these small tribal groups which are barely successful and claim these are the examples which we should look to when learning of the human condition, ignoring the fact that we have a huge social group of successful Sapens to view the real human condition. Thankfully that is changing now.

 

If one enjoys it, and the other loathes it, would we have to assume that one of the two was genetically deficit?

 

No. Allow me to explain again. In major cultures kissing is viewed as a greeting, and as a part of pre-copulation behavior. IE, most Spanish countries greet with a kiss on the cheek. Many countries used to greet ladies with a kiss on the hand. Italians kiss on the cheeks, etc. None of those examples are "loathed" by anyone within the culture, and is a much better example then looking at some amazon tribe. And if a pre-copulation kiss is forced on someone who doesnt wish to recieve it, I am sure it will be loathed, much like being raped is. But sex is not a learned behavior either is it?

 

Lastly, look at the lips themselves. You carry on your face a mimic vagina. Thats right, the fleshly lips humans have are sexual signals. Sexual signals are used simply as that, as sex objects and sexual displays. Much like breasts are fondled and "kissed", vaginas can be "kissed," and penises stroked and "kissed," the lips are an important part of these sexual displays and should not be removed from the natural instinctual part of pre-copulation, something that is inherited.

 

And lastly, I will quote a Biology expert, which I believe sums it up:

 

Given the occurence of kissing in other species of ape, I'm inclined towards a genetic view. But then again, I'm inclined towards a genetic view for *most* human behavior, as I don't think we're as smart or rational as we think we are.

[Bio-Hazard]

I don't know if it has been mentioned here, but supposedly the lips have many sensations when kissing something. This may have been what turned kissing into a modern day phenomena where people continue to do it to today.

 

Perhaps kissing someone on the hand allows for a mental stimulation so that you can remember more about the person you are kissing.

[Celeste22]

Erm, you mention a group of barely successful social groups as an example, and call that evidence. I find it more reasonable to look at the cultures which have thrived and succeeded to this day, as a much better look at the human example. From what you presented, it appears that they had to learn not to kiss. Either by making it a taboo, ie disgusting, or forcing laws to stop it.

 

I really wasn't prepared to get this indepth over "kissing", and it really doesn't matter what I believe does it?!!

I'll just add these as my last sources. No reply neccessary. You've certainly given me a few things to think about and research.

 

1. In parts of Japan, Siberia and among the Eskimo culture, rubbing noses was, until modern times, the only kind of kissing that went on.

 

2. It seems that the wikipedia is a form of gospel here and it says this:

"Kissing is a learned behaviour, related to the grooming behaviour seen between other animals. Many non-human primates also exhibit kissing behaviour." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kissing

 

Lastly, if I were to be swayed to believe that kissing was indeed genetic or inherited, it would be under the contingency that:

"Changes in the environments generate a need for "new" perceptions on the part of organisms inhabiting those environments. It is now evident that cells create new perception complexes through their interaction with novel environment stimuli. Utilizing "genetic engineering genes," cells are able to create new perception proteins in a process representing cellular learning and memory. (Cairns, 1988, Thaler 1994, Appenzeller, 1999, Chicurel, 2001).

Although perception proteins are manufactured through molecular genetic mechanisms, activation of the perception process is "controlled" or initiated by environmental signals. The expression of the cell is primarily molded by its perception of the environment and not by its genetic code, a fact that emphasizes the role of nurture in biological control.

http://www.brucelipton.com/nature.php

 

If I understand the research correctly, I will concede, that after millions of years kissing may be inheritable at this point, but was at one time "learned" at a cellular level. (Mokele, any input would be helpful)

 

But sex is not a learned behavior either is it?

 

Genetic/instinctual in nature, but I came with a "how to" manual.

 

Lastly, look at the lips themselves. You carry on your face a mimic vagina.

 

Thanks for the mental image. Kissing my man will never be the same somehow.

 

And lastly, I will quote a Biology expert, which I believe sums it up:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mokele

Given the occurence of kissing in other species of ape, I'm inclined towards a genetic view. But then again, I'm inclined towards a genetic view for *most* human behavior, as I don't think we're as smart or rational as we think we are.

 

Mokele's the man. I respect both his and your views and opinions, and have enjoyed reading your posts, whether I agree with them or not.

[The Peon]

I really wasn't prepared to get this indepth over "kissing"' date=' and it really doesn't matter what I believe does it?!!

I'll just add these as my last sources. No reply neccessary. You've certainly given me a few things to think about and research.

 

1. In parts of Japan, Siberia and among the Eskimo culture, rubbing noses was, until modern times, the only kind of kissing that went on.

 

2. It seems that the wikipedia is a form of gospel here and it says this:

"Kissing is a learned behaviour, related to the grooming behaviour seen between other animals. Many non-human primates also exhibit kissing behaviour." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kissing

 

Lastly, if I were to be swayed to believe that kissing was indeed genetic or inherited, it would be under the contingency that:

"Changes in the environments generate a need for "new" perceptions on the part of organisms inhabiting those environments. It is now evident that cells create new perception complexes through their interaction with novel environment stimuli. Utilizing "genetic engineering genes," cells are able to create new perception proteins in a process representing cellular learning and memory. (Cairns, 1988, Thaler 1994, Appenzeller, 1999, Chicurel, 2001).

Although perception proteins are manufactured through molecular genetic mechanisms, activation of the perception process is "controlled" or initiated by environmental signals. The expression of the cell is primarily molded by its perception of the environment and not by its genetic code, a fact that emphasizes the role of nurture in biological control.

http://www.brucelipton.com/nature.php

 

If I understand the research correctly, I will concede, that after millions of years kissing may be inheritable at this point, but was at one time "learned" at a cellular level. (Mokele, any input would be helpful)

 

 

 

Genetic/instinctual in nature, but I came with a "how to" manual.

 

 

 

Thanks for the mental image. Kissing my man will never be the same somehow.

 

 

 

Mokele's the man. I respect both his and your views and opinions, and have enjoyed reading your posts, whether I agree with them or not. [/quote']

 

Thank you Celeste I enjoyed debating with you. You have given me a few things to think about as well, and I am guessing niether of us is fully correct and its probobly a combination of the two, instinctual and hereditary. I didnt mean to seem so passionate in my view, but I am a very passionate person and debate as such. Sorry for ruining future kissing, I find it kinda kinky

[MigL]

Getting back to the OP after an 'anal' post ...

Apparently Governor A Cuomo can't control his instincts.

[Phi for All]

20 minutes ago, MigL said:

Getting back to the OP after an 'anal' post ...

!

Moderator Note

Which now has its own thread here.