As an alternative I chose a poster of one of my favorite sculptures: Rodin’s The Kiss
http://www.philamuseum.org/collections/permanent/103439.htmlhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Kiss_%28Rodin_sculpture%29
Rodin’s sculptures really allow and benefit from extended observation and I feel that this image is great- positive, beautiful, and romantic.
I like how her arm curves around his neck- how obviously into each other they both are.
Their bodies are both relaxed and engaged; to me it is a beautiful image of a private moment.

For the architecture nerds out there, Louis Kahn proposed to his wife in front of this statue in Philadelphia.
 

as for it working ‘both ways’, yes, sometimes people have joyous consensual sexual encounters and sometimes their sexual encounters are forced or coerced by other people who think their jubilation gives them the right to other people’s bodies.

Do I contradict myself?

Very well then I contradict myself,

(I am large, I contain multitudes.)

-Walt Whitman

If you can define ‘truth’ in terms of a destination, and ‘representations’ well enough to not refer to anything which can be communicated, then I could probably explain how things which are not representations lead to truth.

Otherwise, I’ll just point out that “truth” means a lot more than “what was happening in front of the camera when this picture was taken”.

The Mail Online writes: “Mendonsa and his date, who would become his future wife, rushed to a nearby bar where the sailor admits he ‘popped quite a few drinks.’
As they set on their way, Mendonsa spotted a woman in a nurse’s uniform – he left Petry and rushed to grab her.”

“He went out on the street” rather than “They went out on the street” sort of leaves the impression that Petry was not by his side, and that, in the excitement, he grabbed the nearest woman.  But if the Mail account is correct, his date was right there, available for assault.  He was not so excited that he spontaneously grabbed a victim.  He actually made a selection there.

And about the excitement.  I’d always thought that what happened was people heard the war was over, there was jubilation in the streets, and the guy grabbed the woman when he heard the news.  But he had time for “quite a few” drinks in between hearing the war was over and assaulting someone.  What an opportunistic creep.

And the Mail saying that they’ve never once reenacted the kiss? I think I need to take a shower.    

On the prior page, however, one sees another impromptu coupling in Miami, in which “a longing, determined sailor grabs a willing light-o’-love and hoists her into position for a prolonged, determined kiss.” The caption says “willing,” but as she has been swept off her feet and we can’t see her expression, it’s hard to say.

Above the Miami image, in contrast, are photos from celebrations in Washington and Kansas City, where the embraces look to be more consensual. The latter caption, in fact, says that the GI in question is “just passing through Kansas City, [and] gets well bussed.” That picture is open to interpretation, but one could easily conclude from their positioning and body language that the implication in the caption is on target: she is asserting herself, rather than the other way around.

After all these years, the Times Square kiss has become separated from its sibling images.  The other photographs in the montage might not change feelings about the famous shot, but they do offer a wider perspective for assessing it.  I’d be curious to see if viewing them all together makes any difference for others.