Campus
Sex -- Forbidden Fruit
By
CHEN XINXIN
IN
January 2003, students Xiao Lin and Xiao Ma made an ignominious
departure from Chongqing Institute of Posts and Telecommunications.
The reason? Their ongoing relationship had resulted in Xiao
Ma's pregnancy. Consequently they were expelled.
The relevant school rule reads: In cases of
immoral behavior, offenders will either receive a warning or
an entry in their personal dossier. In extreme cases of sexual
misconduct, offenders will be suspended or expelled.
The latter more stringent ruling applied to
Xiao Lin and Xiao Ma. They were instructed to admit their immoral
behavior and sexual misconduct and write self-criticisms. Xiao
Lin and Xiao Ma refused, insisting their love was not immoral,
and that what had occurred as a natural course of passion was
not sexual misconduct.
Xiao Ma is regarded by those that know her
as conscientious and hardworking. One teacher described her
as a pleasant, lively student of broad interests. Her boyfriend
Xiao Lin considers her kind and considerate.
Xiao Ma wrote in her self-criticism: "I
cannot reconcile myself to being charged with immoral behavior
and sexual misconduct. I gave myself to the man I love, and
have no regrets, no matter what consequences await me."
Said Xiao Lin: "I admit to her (Xiao
Ma) and her parents that I am to blame, and acknowledge that
it is I that should be punished. But I cannot accede to the
school's order that we admit to immoral conduct and sexual misconduct.
I believe college students are entitled to the same rights and
considerations as all Chinese citizens, including the right
to have sex. She (Xiao Ma) and I are genuinely in love. What
happened between us was a failure to control our passions, but
it did no harm to society, the school, nor anyone else."
Xiao Ma's father is a government employee.
Although shocked at his daughter's behavior, he is nonetheless
furious at the school's treatment of his daughter and Xiao Lin.
He argues that the school should bear in mind how fierce competition
makes it extremely hard for two such young people to get into
college, particularly Xiao Lin, who comes from rural Fujian
Province and on whom rest the hopes of his whole family. He
went on to say that the school has a responsibility to educate,
and that it should not castigate these two as immoral and depraved,
as this denies them their right to an education and so seriously
prejudices their future.
The school is, however, adamant. President
Nie Neng says, "Moral cultivation is an integral aspect
of the school code. Those failing to observe it must be punished.
Sex outside marriage is morally reprehensible. If in this instance
it is excused on the basis of being true love, there will be
severe repercussions. As an educator, I cannot overlook this
misdemeanor." A teacher at the school commented: "If
these two are not punished, other students will interpret it
as the school's acquiescence of such occurrences."
In late 2002, Xiao Lin and Xiao Ma filed a
lawsuit against the school for encroaching upon their rights
to privacy and education. In January 2003, the court overruled
their lawsuit, but the case is now a topic of media interest.
Open-mindedness
Sexual
relationships among university students have increased in recent
years. In a place between Hunan's Changsha Normal University,
Hunan University and Zhongnan University, there is a cohabitants'
village where students in de facto relationships that regard
themselves as representatives of the contemporary lifestyle
live.
"The 1980s was a watershed," says
Zhu Qi, vice chairman of the China Sexology Society. "During
the first 30 years of the People's Republic, pre-marital sex
was a social taboo. Since 1978, however, and most particularly
since the 1990s, traditional Chinese attitudes towards sex have
been challenged and influenced by the West." Says Pan Suiming,
president of the Sexology Research Institute attached to the
People's University of China, "For the first time in China's
thousands of years of history, it is now being declared legally
and overwhelmingly that sex is not purely for purposes of procreation.
People now claim their right to sex as an aspect of love and
happiness."
According to Mr. Pan's study, 72.2 percent
of men between the ages 25 and 29 have pre-marital sex, as do
46.2 percent of women in that age group. Among men and women
over the age of 40, 45.7 percent of men and 24.1 percent of
women have pre-marital sex.
A survey was recently conducted among university
students on their attitudes to sex. Forty percent said they
were understanding of and agreeable to the concept of cohabitation,
and 30 percent said they had not formed a clear idea. Few would
have supported such behavior ten years ago, when the majority
of university students were against cohabitation, as it signified
moral depravity and immaturity.
It is evident that today's young people are
more open-minded about sex, and that they are engaging in pre-marital
sex at a far younger age. Miss Zhou, a student at a Beijing
foreign languages university, says, "Pre-marital sex is
no longer a no-go zone for students. There are those that rent
apartments off campus specifically to cohabitate. Such cases
are open secrets." Miss Zhou's boyfriend Li Feng expresses
enormous sympathy for Xiao Lin and Xiao Ma, saying, "Cases
like this occur on other campuses too, but no one thinks of
those concerned as immoral. These students are adults and so
have a right to their own private life."
A large number of parents were also of the
opinion that university students are adults away from parental
control, and that if they fall in love it is likely that they
will, at some time or other, have sex.
Sociologists point out that the number of
university students indulging in pre-marital sex is relatively
small, and that their behavior may be attributed to early sexual
maturity and late marriage. Taking into consideration the long
lapse of time between nubility and legal sexual union, it is
unreasonable to expect them to live in unquestioning chastity.
Old Rules vs. New Situation
Never
before have there been so many in accord with those overstepping
social sexual mores. "I did not expect such a reaction
from other students," admitted President Nie of the Chonqing
Institute of Posts and Telecommunications. "But as a school
leader, I cannot permit such behavior. We give an orthodox education,
and will continue to do so in order to maintain an acceptably
moral ethos on campus."
Nie's supporters are heads of other universities.
It is reported that Shenzhen University is to issue a rule forbidding
intimate gestures such as holding hands and hugging and kissing
between girls and boys on campus. Offenders get black marks,
and those accumulating 30 points will be expelled. A famous
university in Shanghai also defines kissing in public as an
immoral act meriting a negative entry in the dossier of the
student concerned. Serious violators also face the threat of
expulsion. Almost all universities expressly forbid cohabitation.
In the students' regulations is stated that on a case of cohabitation
being discovered, it will be entered in the students' dossiers,
or they will be expelled.
Li Yinhe, a noted sociologist and sexologist,
disagrees with such harsh measures. "In an era of sexual
open-mindedness, such measures do not inhibit campus sex,"
says Li. "Problematic students should be given guidance.
The government and educational department must provide timely,
practical, relevant and effective sex education, particularly
to university students, who do not necessarily know all there
is to know about sex. Current sex education is angled more from
the medical perspective of avoiding venereal disease and HIV
AIDS."
As the case of Xiao Lin and Xiao Ma
was being debated earlier this year, Chinese media carried a
British report published around the same time on an expelled
pregnant student who had won an out-of-court settlement of a
sex discrimination lawsuit against her former school. Margaret
McCluskey, now a 21-year-old Cambridge student, has a four-year-old
daughter. When she was 16, she fell pregnant at the Mount Lourdes
Convent Grammar School, Enniskillen and was forbidden to attend
class. The humiliation and psychological pain she was forced
to endure made her file a lawsuit against her former school.
The school admitted its sex discrimination, agreed to review
its pastoral care program and to pay Margaret McCluskey compensation
in the amount of GBP 6,250.