Li Yinhe talks about sex

Chapter 10 Sexual Rights of College Students

The ban on sexual intercourse among college students is also debatable.Because the proportion of premarital sex in our country is as high as 70-80%, but college students are not allowed to have sex, which is a bit unreasonable; and college students all over the world are having sex, but Chinese college students are not allowed to have sex, which is a bit unreasonable.

Recently, I read a report in the newspaper that a pregnant girl Xiaolin and her boyfriend were expelled from a certain university, and I felt very disturbed.As far as I know, there are many similar tragedies, but they have not been reported.

The key to this incident is whether college students have sexual rights.This problem can be viewed from the three levels of law, school regulations and morality.

First of all, judging from the current "Constitution" and relevant laws and regulations, citizens have sexual rights.College students are citizens, so college students have sexual rights.Sexual rights are based on man's ownership of his own body (he is not a slave and no second person has ownership over his body, be it the state, school, parents, spouse or anyone else).From this, it can also be deduced that people have the right to satisfy their basic physical needs.Under the premise of not harming others, people have the right to meet their needs such as eating, drinking, sleeping, and sexual intercourse.

In the Shaanxi pornography case, a policeman who made a mistake said this absurd thing when defending his behavior: "The law does not say that it is illegal for couples to watch pornography, but the law also does not say that couples can watch pornography." In a country ruled by law, as long as things are not against the law, they are assumed to be things that citizens can do, and there is no need to specifically stipulate what things can be done.For example, the law does not specifically state that citizens can eat, drink and sleep, but everyone knows that citizens can do these things.By analogy, the law does not need to specifically stipulate that couples can watch pornography, or couples (or a certain man and a certain woman) can have sexual intercourse.Going back to the college student’s pregnancy incident, the behavior of the two parties did not violate the law. They definitely have the right to have sexual intercourse and pregnancy (but not to give birth to a child, because it violates the family planning law).They should not be punished for their lawful actions.

The second is from the perspective of violation of school regulations.Under the national law, a certain social organization group will also formulate some regulations to manage this social organization.Although the pregnant girl did not violate the law, her behavior violated the school's regulations.The problem is that the regulations in various organizations should not conflict too much with national laws.For example, there may be provisions prohibiting students from stealing in school regulations, and such provisions do not conflict with national laws.In contrast, stipulating that college students are not allowed to have sexual intercourse and pregnancy is too different from the laws of the country, and it is easy for citizens to be at a loss.Because college students have dual identities of students and citizens.When obeying the school rule that no stealing is allowed, the dual identities of student and citizen do not conflict; when obeying the school rule that prohibits sexual intercourse, the dual identities of student and citizen conflict.Therefore, in the case of the student violating the school rules, there are unreasonable factors in the school rules themselves.

There must be an absolutely necessary justification for making group regulations inconsistent with the law.In other words, there must be good reasons for depriving group members of a statutory right.For example, schools can stipulate that students must not cheat in exams. First, national laws do not have such subtle regulations. Second, cheating in exams will reduce the quality of learning, so schools have the right to formulate this special regulation.However, if the school stipulates that all students should have short hair, it may not be appropriate, because there is no good reason.The ban on sexual intercourse among college students is also debatable.Because the proportion of premarital sex in our country is as high as 70-80%, but college students are not allowed to have sex, which is a bit unreasonable; and college students all over the world are having sex, but Chinese college students are not allowed to have sex, which is a bit unreasonable.There is no absolutely necessary reason for such school rules.

Finally, there is the moral dimension.Thinking that premarital sex is immoral is the moral standard of the pre-modern era.At that time, chastity before marriage was of great value.Not to mention voluntary loss of virginity, even forced loss of virginity is very strict.Among the commendations of integrity, there is a story of a virgin whose arm was touched and cut off to maintain her chastity.Our school rules should not impose that kind of moral concept on college students living in modern society.In the Nordic countries, the proportion of premarital sex has reached 99.1% and China is also very high.A behavior of the majority of people must no longer be an immoral behavior, because the so-called morality is nothing but the behavior norms of the majority of people.If most people are doing something in private, and only a few people who are caught are punished in the name of moral corruption, then the school rules with the original intention of rectifying morality may only have unexpected effects: most of them are not caught. Those caught will not become morally noble because of this, but will only become double-faced and hypocrites with duplicity and duplicity.Is this the success or failure of the school's moral education?
(End of this chapter)