This photo appeared in the New York Times 70 years ago, taken by U.S. Navy photographer Victor Jorgenson. He titled it, “Kissing the War Goodbye.” A week later, Life Magazine published a shot taken by Alfred Eisenstaedt, from a better angle.
Life blew Eisenstaedt’s photo up to fill a full page. On the facing page was a collection of other couples kissing to celebrate “V-J Day:” Japan’s surrender ending the Second World War.
The other photos were real kisses: real celebrations of the War’s end. Though striking, Eisenstaedt’s shot was of something different.
Here’s what Eisenstaedt himself later wrote: “I was walking through the crowds in [Times Square on] V-J Day, looking for pictures. I noticed a sailor coming my way. He was grabbing every female he could find and kissing them all–young girls and old ladies alike. Then I noticed the nurse, standing in that enormous crowd. I focused on her and just as I’d hoped, the sailor came along, grabbed the nurse, and bent down to kiss her.”
But the sailor did more than that, didn’t he? He locked the woman into a vice-like grip which shows real expertise. He knew just how to grab an unwilling woman. He threw her off balance, her splayed knees show her helplessness. The angle of his head in the Eisenstaedt photo shows him, really, attacking her with his mouth. He’s not planting anything resembling a sweet–or even good natured–kiss. She is the shocked and passive receptacle of this man’s violence.
Look at her body language. Her twisted legs show how he has pulled her around. One hand hangs at her side in shock; the other is apparently clutching her purse: a big city woman’s automatic reflex, to protect her purse from being stolen.
There’s no tenderness in this kiss. No celebration on her part. It’s brutal.
Our reaction to this photograph as a culture–says more about us than about the photograph.
Couples have taken pictures of themselves in imitation of the pose. I’ve seen never one that quite gets it right, though. That’s because in the imitations, the woman is there willingly. They know the man they’re kissing. They’re kissing him back. They’re in control of hands and legs. It would take a highly trained actor to accurately mimic the original.
There’s a huge statue of this “kiss” in San Diego. It’s titled, “Unconditional Surrender.” The statue doesn’t render the Eisenstaedt photograph quite accurately, either. The element of force–the stronger person overcoming the unwilling weaker person–is not in any of the imitations.
The sculpture’s title says it all. “Unconditional Surrender.” Yeah, yeah, yeah, it’s supposedly about Japan’s “unconditional surrender” to end the War. But Japan is nowhere in the sculpture. The artist’s subconscious knew exactly what he–and the sailor–were up to, whether his conscious mind admits it or not.
This is the most beloved sexual assault in American history.
It’s also what rape culture looks like.
Rape culture doesn’t hide in the shadows. It proudly offers its violent, woman-degrading self to view. The photographer saw the assault coming–and thought only of the shot he might get. The crowd looks on, grinning and sniggering. We see (and we’re relieved it’s not happening to us) but we only smile and shake our heads.
A question: was this woman, ever before this moment, victim of a full-fledged rape? Statistically, it’s quite possible. What a brutal trauma to relive that pain! The photographer could position himself precisely because he watched the sailor doing this to a series of women. Some of those woman almost certainly were prior rape victims. No matter. The crowd grins and sniggers, the photographers snap their pictures. No one does a thing to help. If nightmares follow, they’re out of public view, alone in silent shadows.
That’s what rape culture looks like. A man like me can only try to imagine what it feels like. But as long as we smile at this image–that’s also who we are.
Hello Rev. Dennis, your commentary is well researched and filled with good intentions to keep us informed on a perspective that we might have missed. HOWEVER, I must be losing my edge or something…..? I don’t see the analysis of the photo that has been described. Sometimes I wonder if we are taking a stretch beyond to make very needed points of view to support women. Like I said, I may just be me losing my edge….you may have other supporting evidence to support your strong conclusions for this photo. All the best, dear colleague.
Thanks so much for your comment, Leonetta. There’s a simple reason I used the Jorgenson photo. It was in the public domain, while the Eisenstaedt photo is copyrighted. So I could use the Jorgenson photo without asking for permission. The more famous photo is easily searchable.
Actually, there are several photos. The kiss lasted long enough, Eisenstaedt himself took at least three. In a later photo, the nurse has made a fist with her left hand. In the last photo I’ve seen, she has raised the fist and is beginning to push the sailor away. In none of them does her body language show comfort or receptiveness to the kiss.
So I totally stand by my appraisal. Others may have different opinions, of course. You’re the first person to comment on my blog. (I’m actually surprised this post received so much attention. I don’t think my conclusions are in any way original.) I really appreciate you taking the time to speak up!
Here’s the photo if anybody’s interested.
Notice his firm lock on her neck and her fist trying to push him away.
Thanks for posting this, Dennis. I actually read, a few months back, the comments of the woman who was the object of this kiss/assault. She said that she did not enjoy it, that it was forced upon her. Her self-report is the most important piece of evidence here that this was an assault.
The picture is so celebrated, I think, because we want to believe that in the joy of the moment, all restraint was released, strangers kissed strangers in celebratory joy. It’s a nice fantasy; we don’t want to let it go. To me, the most damning evidence in this photo is that the man’s left hand is pulling up the woman’s head in a “headlock” that does not let her escape this “embrace.” Nothing can be done at this late date, of course, but it’s important to remember that desire, will, and force are as much of the human personality as tenderness and joy. Sometimes they are inextricably interwoven. This sailor is claiming the latter while exerting the former. Our job is to point out the complexities and the discrepancies– and to monitor our own behavior accordingly.
Thanks for engaging us in this discussion.
I was all prepared to take issue with you on this, but I just can’t. It’s too well thought out.
Once again, you have raised my consiousness. And, as usual, it doesn’t make me feel good.
Consciousness. I know better, just don’t type well.
The woman has a name. Ms. Swain never objected. During several interviews, she described it a moment of hope, love, and peace. She had been photographed multiple times during that kiss. Here’s another photo which doesn’t look like rape at all; https://www.google.com/search?q=nurse+that+sailor+kissed+still+alive&hl=en&biw=1097&bih=586&site=webhp&tbm=isch&imgil=saqM2KcVxDhfXM%253A%253Bmte-H0jpdZcYtM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.marineinsight.com%25252Fmarine%25252Flife-at-sea%25252Frecreation-and-humour%25252Fthe-real-sailor-kissing-nurse-story-kissing-for-glory%25252F&source=iu&pf=m&fir=saqM2KcVxDhfXM%253A%252Cmte-H0jpdZcYtM%252C_&dpr=1.75&usg=__ex3TnZPlm5YJRvyZElFtwcXw89E%3D&ved=0CHAQyjdqFQoTCNKstbjDsMcCFYITPgodBVMA7A&ei=ZArSVdLqA4Kn-AGFpoHgDg#imgrc=saqM2KcVxDhfXM%3A&usg=__ex3TnZPlm5YJRvyZElFtwcXw89E%3D
With all due respect, I think you are being unfair in your judgment. Let’s remember that all the soldiers coming home from the battlefield that day were men. Perhaps if women had served in combat; perhaps if they had seen their colleagues maimed, captured, tortured or killed; perhaps if they had endured the horrors of war, and then been given a reprieve, a new lease on life….Maybe some of these women upon returning would have been in such a state of jubilation that they would want to kiss any man they could. If I had been one of those unsuspecting men, I would have indulged them in that moment of pure joy and gratitude… as I suspect most of the women did that day. That is the story so aptly told by that photo. Anything beyond that is just your own projection.
Thanks to all who have posted civil comments. Comparing comments, it’s largely a good discussion. Since it’s an uncomfortable topic, I would expect more comments from those who are discomfited than those who are not. That’s to be expected.
I do take issue with the assertion that it’s okay for a man to do what he wants to a woman because war.
As I noted previously, my observations are not particularly original. I wrote the post because it needed to be said, not because no one ever noticed it before me. Here’s another take on the subject:
http://cratesandribbons.com/2012/10/05/the-kissing-sailor-part-2-debunking-misconceptions/
Speaking of misconceptions, I want to clear up another one, expressed in these comments. The nurse in the famous photo is not being raped. No one ever said she was–to suggest that I did is a straw man. She is being assaulted (as other photos taken of the sailor’s clutch-and-grab indicate.) When I use the term, “rape culture,” it applies to our culture’s acceptance of physical intimidation and sexual harassment of women as routine and acceptable. (It’s better than it was a decade or so ago–but make no mistake, physical harassment of women by men is still very much with us.) This and other aspects of rape culture are so-called because they foster a cultural attitude in which rape is made easier and safer through lack of support for women’s safety, victim blaming, etc. For a quick rundown on rape culture, you can check: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_culture
I applaud those men, particularly, who are able to hear this and enter into what I call “sacred discomfort” over it. We can’t change the past. We can change ourselves. We can work to change future attitudes. In so doing, we may make for less evocative photographs–but a more civilized society.
Ok, I’ll admit to being one of those people disturbed by your interpretation. You succeeded in getting me to look and ponder that picture more closely… and to do some followup research. Apparently, the “nurse” was really a dental hygienist. Recent forensic experts identified her as Greta Friedman, and not the nurse, Edith Shain, who had for years claimed it was her.
Ms. Friedman has been clear that the kiss was unexpected and unwelcome. Although she has never claimed that is was a “violent assault”.
For me, the most interesting part about this post is the degree and ease with which people can project their beliefs and biases onto situations involving other people, while completely ignoring the context.
Those who witnessed “the Kiss” saw it at the time and for years afterward as a spontaneous act of jubilation (the sailor was kissing every woman he met). Now, two generations later, some are re-imagining the event as a display of sexual violence, and “rape culture”. I suppose that if you are inclined to see the world in that way, you will see evidence for it everywhere.
It’s disturbing when people “see what they believe” and ignore the larger context. The first rule of interpreting history is to not impose your own values and norms on events of the past, but to seek to understand them within the context of the culture and norms of the time. If you can do that, you can feel and understand what’s really going on in that photo and the moment it captured.
Hey, Gene, I really appreciate re-connecting with you. Don’t know if you’re in Indy or in Punta Gorda at the moment, but wherever you are, I hope all is going fabulously well for you!
You know the way my mind works and I know yours. We’ve always been able to speak frankly, and I see that as a good thing.
A couple of comments, therefore. First, I personally have refrained from quoting any of the people purported to be the woman in the photo–precisely because multiple women have come forward or been proposed by others. That’s pretty typical of a situation like this. All we can definitely take from it is that something like this happened to multiple women that day. From what they say, none of them “asked for it.” But “Boys will be boys,” right?
I guess we can debate all day what’s “violence” and what’s not. But he’s sure got a lock on her. And her response is to make a fist and press it up against him. She’s not into the kiss. It’s not friendly on the part of either of them. Beyond that I’m just repeating myself, which strikes me as a waste of my time.
Let’s look at the contradiction in what you yourself say. You depict it as a “spontaneous act of jubilation” followed in the same sentence by “the sailor was kissing every woman he met.” You can’t have both. The first *might* have been spontaneous. In this photo–the preying mantis grip he’s got on her back and neck says it all. Come on–you’ve been a young man and so have I. There’s celebration. There’s also using the celebration as an excuse to get a few sexual press-ups. I know the difference. I hope you do, too. This clinch is beyond a press-up.
Finally–there’s “imposing your own values and norms on events of the past.” That’s a misreading of my post. My post is about using the past to illustrate the present–and the present to help understand the past. I would hope you’ve set through enough of my sermons to know that’s standard practice for me.
You want to look at the context? Absolutely–that’s the whole idea–let’s look at the context. 1945–at least women had the vote and could own property by then. But “good girls” didn’t kiss on the first date. “Good” women weren’t sexual outside marriage. As for men? Well. . . again, “Boys will be boys.” It was fine for single a guy to say, “I’m gonna go out and get a little honey on my stinger tonight.” Short-arm inspections for venereal disease were standard throughout the Navy. Catcalls and wolf whistles were standard. The sexual double standard was *way* alive and well. Let’s face it–it was very normal to think of women as sexual commodities. That was just the locker room standard of the day. (And still is, in great part. We men just don’t admit it quite as much, I suspect.)
My Mother came of age in those days. In fact, she was the same age as the woman in the photo. She had worked as a waitress and also a dancer before the War. A striking memory of a conversation about homosexuality when I was a young man. “Well,” she noted, “At least the homosexual men weren’t mauling you all the time.” As a young woman, that’s what she had to get used to. “Octopus arms” when out on all too many a date. All too many male customers “mauling” her when she was waiting tables. Hands on breasts. Hands on legs and buttocks. Men pressing bodies up against her as they went past. Sometimes surreptitiously. Sometimes in the open. It wasn’t polite. Classy men didn’t do it. But not all men were classy. It was just something you had to put up with as a woman.
And my friend, that’s exactly what’s going on in that photo. Using the celebration as an excuse to do some high-intensity mauling. “Boys will be boys.” For the women–it was just part of life. That was the context of the day. The women who have come forward identifying themselves as the woman in the photo–pretty well agree, that was their response at the time.
That’s also–precisely what rape culture is. That’s what we had in 1945. There wasn’t a term for it then. It was the standard of the day.
But let’s suppose you or I happened to be one of those smiling onlookers. You’re quite right–had I been a young man in 1945, I wouldn’t have been aware enough to see a problem in what was going on. I would have smiled, too. That’s the difference between 1945 and today. We have learned a thing or two–or at least I hope we have.
So I can’t get judgmental about the onlookers–I wouldn’t have known any better, myself, at the time. That’s not the point. The point is, do we know better today? Or are we learning to know better?
Personally, I hope we are. But it’s slow going.
Thanks for your thoughtful and lengthy reply to my comments.
I hate to say this, but I think you have me confused with a different person named ‘Gene’. We’ve never met. I just happened to come across your post because someone shared it on Facebook and it got “liked” by one of my friends. I was moved to leave my comments here.
I agree with you that if the actions in the photo were to happen today, it would be considered inappropriate. Today we have much stronger norms about consent and physical boundaries, and it’s just not ok to go and force a kiss on a woman for any reason. . . .
What we disagree about is that I believe that kiss was appropriate for the time and place it occurred, and therefore not something we should condemn today.
Certainly, it’s tempting to judge the behavior of different times and cultures through our current moral lenses. I don’t find this to be useful or constructive. And there’s a certain cultural egocentricity involved. As if to say, “these people were trogolodytes for their behavior. If they were only as enlightened as we are, this would never happen”. Which seems to be what you’re saying above.
But the truth is, that was the context in which those people lived. And their behavior was appropriate given the norms of the time. For better or worse, it was a more patriarchal society. Today, we reject many of those values. But it’s unfair to condemn someone for living in accordance with the norms and expectations of their time. They lived in their time, not ours.
Thanks for your comment, Gene. And no, I didn’t confuse you with Gene Maresca. Perhaps I should have used Gene M’s full name in my response to him, so that you didn’t think I was responding to you. But that’s easily cleared up.
I appreciate what you have to say, but you–and Gene M.–both miss what I’m really getting at, here. The sailor’s kiss was *acceptable* in 1945. Knowing what we now know, that didn’t make it right in any time or place. It’s not about judging those people. As I admitted in a previous post, I, myself wouldn’t have done any better. It’s about learning from past mistakes and sins of omission.
Beating one’s wife was *acceptable* a hundred years ago. Or, as in the beloved movie “Gone with the Wind,” raping one’s wife was *acceptable* in 1939. (I’ve dealt with that in a subsequent blog post.) In that same movie, Ku Klux Klan activity alluded to–was also *acceptable,* even heroic, in 1939. Going back farther, beating slaves–even beating them to death–was *acceptable* in 1850.
We study history partly to gain insight into our own time. Particularly, to debunk the myths we’re still living in our own time. In this case, to try to gain greater understanding of the point where healthy male assertiveness gives way to brutality and sexual assault. In learning from all this–giving up old prejudices–and male privilege–is not fun. The Sailor’s Kiss was a beloved photograph. “Gone with the Wind” was a beloved movie. Looking back, we can now see both are deeply problematic. We loose something, but in using such a “mishna” wisely, we gain something greater. We become more mature, decent, and civilized as a culture. It is, of course, a long, slow battle.
As a Minister, I assert that religious faith is not what you believe. (“Belief” [or disbelief] can be nothing more than a cop-out, a way of saying “I’m good” without doing anything to make goodness real.) As a Gentle Atheist, I assert that religious faith is not what you do or don’t believe; it’s what you live. It’s living in such a way that the world can become a place where all human beings can flourish.
And the victory of that faith lies partly in looking back and seeing how brutal, unjust, and benighted were some of the things previous ages took for granted. The ongoing victory of faith lies in helping future generations do the same with our age. That’s what we’re up to. It’s not about “judging” people who are dead, now. It’s about using their mistakes to go forward in our own time.
I remember when this photo was first published. I disliked it then and still do today. I have always found it offensive. I particularly hate the outsized,out of place statue on the Sarasota waterfront. I am happy to know others agree!
This is outrageous! Stop rape culture now!
What an interesting discussion Dennis. Of course I agree with your analysis. Thanks for doing your bit to awaken good men to the reality of rape culture.
religious faith is not what you do or don’t believe; it’s what you live. YES!
Thanks for your “pingback,” Noodlemaz. The point in your blog post is well taken: that those who don’t want to hear about, or be accountable for, rape culture, will make endless excuses.
The main hope of my blog post, was that a few people (mainly men like me,) would go off and think about it for awhile.
One thing about the statue–it’s not really true to the photo. I don’t know whether that’s an artistic decision (which would be problematic) or if the artist simply couldn’t look honestly at the photo (which is equally problematic.) But the woman in the photo is noticeably off balance. Indicating she has been pulled off balance–another indication she is being kissed against her will. The woman in the sculpture piece is not off balance. She’s a willing participant. So it seems to be a sculpture of what the artist *wanted* to see, not what the artist saw.
When informed that many people, particularly African Americans, saw his film, “The Birth of a Nation,” as deeply racist–director D.W. Griffith was astounded. Same thing. Art cannot deal honestly with bigotry or prejudice the artist himself doesn’t realize he has.