Talk:Side hug

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Side hug article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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

Archives: 1

This article was nominated for deletion on 5 August 2014 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

This article was nominated for deletion on 23 December 2013 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Christianity Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity 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.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Psychology Low‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology 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.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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]

There are references to "side hug" that pre-date the video by at least a year, eg, http://www.jonacuff.com/stuffchristianslike/2008/04/106-the-side-hug/. In this article he thanks people for suggesting "side hug", so it was clearly in use in some circles well before that performance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.125.80.109 (talk) 19:09, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SCL is satire. I have a hard time believing this is anything other than a joke. No group commonly calls an arm around the neck a "side hug". The references are not notable, and a single mention by an FOTF article doesn't terminology make. It's pretty hilarious that this is somehow listed under Wikiproject Christianity, but despite my strong temptation to keep it up as a joke, this article should be pulled. Send it to Conservapedia where the Poe's jokes belong. TricksterWolf (talk) 21:50, 23 December 2013 (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]

All nonsense aside, the title of this ought to be changed. This hug is not exclusive to Christians, sterotypical of Christain belief or likewise- it is merely adverstised in Christian circles. The title of the article should be changed. I don't know how, but it ought to be changed soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.102.102.16 (talk) 00:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What would you suggest it be changed to? It's titled "Christian Side Hug" because that's the phrase used in the sources that the articles cites. The article doesn't say anywhere that this is exclusively Christian, it is merely a name that some people have given to a particular kind of hug.

There is very little worth saying about the physical attributes of the hug. What's significant is the cultural/social/religious aspects, which in this case are Christian. If you have reliable sources that call this a "Hindu/Mormon/Jedi Side Hug" then please do create articles about them, and their cultural/social/religious aspects. They can even be linked from here under "See also". --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 12:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The title was changed to "Side hug" in 2012. As you rightly say, it's practised by people of many faiths and of none. And it isn't typical of Christianity generally. And even those who are very religious might have completely non-religious reasons for giving side hugs. And my experience is that the WP:COMMONNAME is "side hug", not "Christian side hug" or anything otherwise making reference to religion. What was the original intended topic of the article - (a) the Ryan Pann rap (b) the side hug as a specifically Christian thing (c) the generic concept of a side hug? It doesn't seem that either (a) or (b) is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article, but (c) might be. However, at the moment, the bulk of the article (read: the entire article text except for the single lead paragraph) is about something different again: religious attitudes. This is clearly WP:UNDUE weight. We need to redress the balance. It may be the case that the best course of action is to reduce this to a section on Hug.

Furthermore, I'm surprised that there doesn't seem to have been any activity here resulting from COVID-19. But that's an aside. — Smjg (talk) 21:53, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

EG ?

Can anyone explain what EG is ? Ta! --195.137.93.171 (talk) 04:53, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Encounter Generation evangelical youth conference". I've put back in the context of the rap performance that explains this. I also removed the analysis determining what the organisers were "serious" about, and relating it with other rules at the conference. This is both original research and synthesis, as well as being supported by a dead link. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:22, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article Is Pretty Poo r

I have often seen side hugs and I live in a country with virtually no Protestants, let alone evangelicals but the article gives the impression that it's primarily an evangelical thing, only 1 line has nothing to do with evangelical Christianity. I know the internet is obsessed with religion (usually the bashing thereof) but please. 86.40.39.164 (talk) 02:18, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Abstinence-only?

If the idea here is to de-sexualise a particular act of affection, isn't a side hug ultimately self-defeating? For example, if a man side hugs a woman, isn't he making it plain he has given at least a brief thought about how pleasant it would be to feel her breasts against his chest? Isn't drawing attention to her breasts by deliberately and conspicuously avoiding them only serving to telegraph to her his appreciation and desire? Should the article discuss this, or at least link to hypocrisy ? 69.128.140.82 (talk) 15:24, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]