When women kiss it always reminds one of prize fighters shaking
The words of H. L. Mencken, ever the cynic and satirist, ring with his peculiar mixture of wit and mockery: “When women kiss it always reminds one of prize fighters shaking hands.” At first glance, the saying appears but a jest, yet in its sharpness lies a reflection on the nature of human ritual. Mencken likens the kiss of women not to passion but to ceremony—an act outwardly warm, yet often carried with the stiffness of formality, as boxers salute before combat.
The ancients, too, understood that gestures of affection are not always born of love but often of custom. In Rome, greetings with kisses upon the cheek were as common as handshakes today, performed out of duty rather than desire. Mencken, with his biting eye, exposes this same truth: that when women kiss, particularly in the polite society of his age, it can resemble less the intimacy of hearts and more the choreographed ritual of civility.
Consider the salons of the early twentieth century, where society women gathered in glittering halls. They exchanged kisses upon arrival, not always out of deep fondness, but because etiquette demanded it. Behind the painted smiles there often lingered rivalries, gossip, and unspoken judgments. Like prize fighters who bow before striking, these women performed a gesture of peace even when their hearts prepared for struggle. Mencken’s metaphor pierces this façade with humor and cynicism alike.
Yet within the jest lies a warning: outward gestures can deceive. The kiss may hide indifference, rivalry, or even hostility, just as the handshake of boxers masks the coming blows. Mencken invites us to look beyond appearances, to remember that not all symbols of affection are what they seem. In this way, his humor serves as a mirror, reflecting both the comedy and the tragedy of human interaction.
Let the generations remember: laughter can reveal truth where solemn words fail. Mencken, though scornful, teaches us that rituals of affection may carry the weight of pretense, and that wisdom lies in discerning sincerity from custom. For a kiss may be tender, or it may be hollow; a handshake may unite, or it may precede a fight. The wise soul learns to see through the mask, to recognize when warmth is real and when it is but ceremony.
NYNhi Yen
It’s interesting that Mencken equates a woman's kiss with something as formal and impersonal as a fighter’s handshake. Is this a commentary on how society views women’s roles in intimacy, or is it just an attempt to make a provocative statement? His metaphor might make some think about how physical gestures can often be reduced to social conventions, but I wonder if it overlooks the nuances of human affection and connection.
LCLe chinh
This quote by Mencken seems to diminish the significance of a kiss, especially one between women. Is he trivializing it as something transactional or mechanical? While the comparison to a prize fighter might seem clever in a metaphorical sense, it feels out of place when you consider the range of meaning a kiss can have in real-life situations. Is Mencken ignoring the emotional depth that such gestures can carry?
Nnguoimuong
Mencken's quote appears to be a reflection of his cynical views on social behaviors. By comparing a kiss to a fighter's handshake, is he implying that women are less emotionally involved in physical expressions of affection? I can’t help but wonder whether this viewpoint stems from his perspective on gender roles at the time, or if it’s a broader commentary on human interactions being governed by social rituals rather than genuine emotion.
HMHung Manh
H. L. Mencken's comparison of a woman's kiss to a prize fighter's handshake feels rather harsh and dismissive. Is he suggesting that women’s gestures of affection are somehow detached or forced? The metaphor seems to devalue what can be an intimate and emotional experience. I wonder if Mencken is underestimating the depth of connection that a kiss can symbolize, reducing it to something mechanical or unemotional.