Kiss the Girls

Content Warning: This section of the guide includes discussion of racism, gender discrimination, sexual violence, rape, graphic violence, illness, death, physical abuse, and emotional abuse.

The story takes place in the 1990s before terms like toxic masculinity and positive masculinity became a part of cultural discourse in the US. However, the terms provide a clear way to understand the characters and the central theme that the characters illustrate. The book pits Cross against Casanova and Rudolph. Cross is the laudable hero (positive masculinity), and Casanova and Rudolph represent the villains (toxic masculinity). While a person can be toxic regardless of their gender, the story highlights cis males, with Casanova believing men have naturally violent desires. Casanova’s belief reflects a dangerous stereotype that excuses male violence by portraying it as inevitable rather than a choice. Kate advances Casanova’s ideas in Chapter 91 when she reads an essay about men’s allegedly suppressed desires. The story becomes a battle between two different types of manhood, with Cross’s decent version of masculinity triumphing.

The theme manifests through the literary device of juxtaposition, with Patterson contrasting Cross’s behavior with that of Casanova and Rudolph. While Cross is earnest and compassionate, Casanova and Rudolph are brutal and deceitful. Cross is an ally of women, but Casanova and Rudolph are their enemies. This contrast reinforces the idea that masculinity itself is not inherently dangerous—rather, it is how masculinity is wielded that determines whether it is protective or destructive. The killers present their violence as purposeful and aesthetic, but the story reveals that toxic masculinity is not fulfilling. Rudolph is insecure, and Casanova obsesses over Kate. They “twin” and create a powerful bond, but since their intimacy centers on terrorizing women, it’s unsustainable. If Casanova and Rudolph wanted to move toward positive masculinity, they’d admit that they want a close relationship with each other, and they wouldn’t conceal or sublimate their normal human desire for friendship through the women. Their inability to confront their emotions highlights how toxic masculinity often stems from repression, leading men to express vulnerability through dominance rather than connection.

The motif of twinning complicates this binary between toxic and positive masculinity. Casanova and Rudolph reinforce each other's worst impulses, mirroring the way toxic male relationships can normalize violence and predation. However, Cross is also drawn into this dynamic, unwittingly “twinning” with Casanova as they become locked in a psychological battle. Their mutual obsession leads Cross to describe himself as a “hunter” (733), revealing how even righteous pursuits can mirror the patterns of those they seek to destroy. This blurring of lines suggests that masculinity is not simply good or bad, but fluid and susceptible to external influences. Cross’s saving grace is his ability to self-correct—he does not fully succumb to the mindset of the killers, reaffirming his role as a figure of positive masculinity.

The binary between toxic and positive becomes less stable as the case carries on. Though Cross never hurts women, he subtly starts to act like the murderer. He becomes obsessive and single-minded. As he tracks alleged suspects, he admits, “I was hunting now” (733). The metaphor of hunting likens him to the killers, illustrating how even the most well-intentioned men can be drawn into toxic patterns. The nuanced slip into toxicity suggests Cross and the murderers are twinning. They’ve developed a bond, and they’re competing with each other. The twinning adversely impacts Cross, but it’s not permanent. He doesn’t irrevocably harm anyone, and he ends up killing the true Casanova. Nevertheless, Cross’s susceptibility reveals the vulnerability of men—a decent male role model isn’t immune to negative behaviors. The novel ultimately suggests that masculinity is not a fixed state but a spectrum, and men must actively choose whether to embrace the virtues of care and protection or fall into the allure of power and violence.