女警换偶了，李银河乐了

 

 

因“换偶”游戏一夜成名的苏某

　　2007年1月16日新华网社会频道社会聚焦栏目引自中经网消息：“女民警曝光换偶经历被辞 办国内最大交＊友网”。据报道，2006年10月24日礼泉县公安局刑警大队一位姓苏的女民警担当某网站《性情解码》栏目“换偶”专题嘉宾，她回答主持人时称：“从目的上来说，夫妻交友在于提升家庭生活质量，然后增进夫妻感情。换偶主要是以性交换为目的”。当主持人问她自己交换过多少个伴侣时，该女刑警竟大言不惭地说：“没有多少，只有两次”。视频播出的第二天礼泉县公安局震动了，一个女民警不仅与其夫创办了一个以换偶为内容的专业网站自己还曾经体验了换偶游戏。咸阳市公安局和礼泉县公安局对此事非常震惊，去年年底礼泉县公安局对苏某做出了辞退的决定。 

　　去年10月专访苏某的网站《性情解码》栏目主持人接到了苏某的电话，苏表示要和性学专家李银河直接对话，并给栏目寄去了她写的《艰难陈述》、《经历是流经裙边的水》两篇文章。《经历是流经裙边的水》详细描述了苏首次经历换偶的内心挣扎过程，地点在北京对象为一名单身男子，内容是她们夫妻二人与该男发生性行为。《艰难陈述》文中地点在天津对象为天津的一对夫妇，内容是苏夫妻二人与那对夫妇进行换偶。令人回味的是，事件发生的背景时间恰是苏某夫妻二人在中国人民公安大学自费上学期间。苏某与其夫的夫妻交*友网站，注册会员达67955人，会员半年收费30元全年60元。苏某这个李银河未曾谋面的超级粉丝和神传女弟子不仅狠拽了大众的眼球出了名，还狠赚了一大堆白哗哗的银子，据说在礼泉、咸阳等地均购置房产还有一辆现代牌轿车，坊间流传其总资产已超百万。

　　换偶这个敏感的话题一段时间以来挑战着国人的传统伦理观念的有些脆弱的神经，要说换偶我们不能不想到大名鼎鼎的李银河教授，咳，又是教授！这位头顶诸多桂冠如中国社会科学院社研所研究员啦、美国匹兹堡大学社会学博士啦、北京大学社会学博士后啦、博导啦、中国第一位研究性的女社会学家啦、大作家王晓波遗孀啦，还有性光四射大著：《同性恋亚文化》啦、《中国人的性爱与婚姻》啦、《酷儿理论———西方90年代性思潮》啦、《中国女性的性与爱》啦，俺忒崇拜滴说！这位精英老太中国外国南边北边飞来飞去鼓吹“一夜情”、“换偶”，这回好了她老人家的哼哼教导立竿见大影了有结果了该感动中国了。前一段那个啥也不是的所谓国学辣妹没事偏要色诱孔子据说把孔子都气哭了，眼目前连女刑警的偶也开换了，李银河老太恐怕该气乐嘍！

　　我国婚姻法第二条明确规定“实行婚姻自由、一夫一妻、男女平等的婚姻制度”，第三条规定“禁止有配偶者与他人同居”，第四条规定“夫妻应当互相忠实”还规定“维护平等、和睦、文明的婚姻家庭关系”，我们守法的同时还要理解立法的本意。我倒想问问李教授，你的换偶理论我咋看咋与我国婚姻法的立法原则格格不入呢？换偶难道仅仅是游戏，难道就不会影响婚姻家庭关系，难道就不会破坏社会和谐，难道就不与社会主义的荣耻观背道而驰吗?我咋就没见新华社人民日报求是杂志CCTV提倡换偶呢?

　　李教授老太很有些救世主地启迪我等：“长期以来，中国社会是一个崇尚集体价值而否定个人价值的社会，是一个在很多方面忽视个人价值和权利的社会，在性的领域，压抑尤其深重。可以说，除了婚姻之内的性，所有的性活动都是被压抑着的，其中包括婚前性活动、同性性活动、虐恋、一夜情、换偶等等”。她还叫板婚姻法说“人们一直不知道也不习惯把自愿的、私秘的和成人之间的性看作是自己的应受宪法保护的公民权利。按照中国人思维惯性，只有得到法律批准的性才是自己有权利做的（由婚姻法承认的、由结婚证加以认可的夫妻之间的性权利），其他是无权做的，当然也是坏事。（均见李银河：‘我这一年’）”

　　按照李银河教授老太的观点，女刑警苏某的行为符合了成年、自愿、私密场合等三条原则，那么这种行为不违法更不是犯罪。事实上恰好相反，换偶行为明显违反了社会的公序良俗，如果提倡就不仅仅是《婚姻法》中“一夫一妻”制的原则受到挑战和颠覆，你想啊，工人换偶农民换偶军人换偶官员换偶教授换偶，还搞什么四化全TNND换偶吧，因为李银河说了俺有那个权利呀！换偶为何受到公众的抵制？就是因为换偶违背了伦理道德违背了公序良俗。公序良俗之所以重要因为它是维系公众社会的道德原则。社会的和谐既要靠法律外部制约，也要靠道德伦理公序良俗的自我约束。在结束本文之时，我还想我们尊敬的李教授你在研究性之余，是否也该好好学学社会主义荣耻观和我国婚姻法呢！

中国需要性道德

     作者：薛涌

　　最近《中国日报》对北京一个市区的高中生进行调查，发现大部分高中生认可“一夜情”，高中生“第一次性经历”发生的平均年龄是15岁左右；同时，高中生的性知识极度缺乏，40%在“第一次”性行为中都没有采取避孕措施。近年来，十几岁少女怀孕的人数逐年攀升，未成年少女堕胎占了中国150万例堕胎事件的四分之一。

　　许多人把年轻一代的性开放归之于西方的影响。但是，哪个西方国家的高中生半数以上认同“一夜情”呢？这种“西方影响”的幻觉，很大程度上是因为一些学者利用年轻一代对西方社会的向往，编造所谓的“西方价值”来鼓励孩子们不负责的性行为。

 
著名的社会学家李银河就是一例。她在自己“一夜情”和换偶等言论遭到社会批评后很委屈地反击：“谁让你搞一夜情了？谁让你换偶了？我只是告诉你，想做这事的人其实是有权利的，就连你这个不想做这事的人也是有权利做的”。

　　这未免自欺欺人。是她自己说，她要是十几岁的话，早去搞一夜情了；是她自己说，在和谐的性关系面前，一切道德都显得软弱无力；是她自己说，象换偶一夜情等等，是西方发达国家的新生活方式，甚至是人民群众创造力的表现；她甚至还说：“爱情应该既强烈，又不排他”。而她不是普通人。她是个有广泛影响的知名社会学家，有着一般人所没有的话语权力。

　　我在所谓“西方发达国家”住了将近十三年，从来没有见过一个如此有影响的公众人物这么说话。在美国，如果一个国会议员公开说这些话，不仅抗议的信件会挤破邮箱，而且很快会下台；如果一个教师在我孩子的学校里公开说这种话，我会立即要求学校将其解职，甚至可能提起诉讼。从政府，学校，社会，到家长，大家对孩子们的性教育一直有两个重点：第一，提高孩子们的性知识；第二，尽可能说服孩子推迟性行为。

　　为什么如此？这用不着一个洋博士煞有介事地给大家启蒙，凭老百姓的常识就能明白：青春期的孩子，生理欲望强烈，理性判断不足，心理上不够成熟，一夜情等不需要负责的性行为，对这个年龄层最有吸引力。所以，一般成年人对孩子的性欲抱有理解和宽容的态度，但同时也会抓住每一个机会告诉孩子，对自己的身心负责，尽可能推迟性行为；至少在发生性行为的时候，要给自己充分的时间对性伙伴进行了解，不要头脑一热就和人家上床。如果一个五十多岁的知名人士出来现身说法：“爱情应该既强烈又不排他，一夜情怎么了？我要是十几岁的话早就去干了！”那么十几岁的孩子还不都跟着效仿吗？难道这还不叫提倡一夜情吗？

当李银河说“爱情应该既强烈，又不排他”时，她提倡的就是多元的性关系，否则何来的“应该”？她似乎忘了，现代婚姻制度，就是以专一的（即所谓“排他的”）爱情为基础的。婚姻法也是建立在这样的社会伦理基础上的。如果“爱情应该既强烈，又不排他”，那么一夫一妻制还有什么存在的必要呢？

 
 
　　在一个现代社会，换偶，“一夜情”等等，本应属于法不禁官不纠的私领域范畴。但是，这并不妨碍人们站在道德的立场对这种行为进行批评，或者对提倡这种行为的人进行谴责。这些行为，也并不代表什么西方发达国家的先进生活方式。在美国，一系列的调查表明，具有稳定的性关系和家庭生活的人，一般比较幸福，也比较成功的。而性关系不稳定，缺乏家庭生活的人，特别是那些喜欢一夜情的人（黑人社区特别典型），普遍比较贫穷潦倒，生活更为不幸，犯罪率也较高。道理很简单：人类社会的基本效率和谐，就是建立在社会成员之间对彼此行为的可预期性之上的。你的生意伙伴的行为越可以预期，合作就越成功。所以，许多公司宁愿从长期的合作伙伴以高价采购，也不愿意图一时便宜从一个刚刚认识的供货商那里进货。同理，一个成熟的人，不会为一时的吸引力而放弃自己的长期伴侣而投向陌生人的怀抱。专一的爱情以及建立在这种爱情上的婚姻，提高了人类在最亲密的感情行为中的可预期性。因此，能够彼此建立这种稳定的预期关系的人，在感情和事业上也就比较成功。

　　其实，建立在专一（或排他）的爱情基础上的婚姻，是西方启蒙主义以来基本的社会伦理，也是西方发达国家成功的关键。当欧洲的殖民者到了美洲后，就发现当地的印地安人性关系不专一，于是稳定的性关系成为欧洲人文化认同的基础。现代妇女走出家门工作，革命性地改变了男女关系，确实使得离婚率急剧上升。但是，这主要是因为社会流动使两性的接触机会增多所致。爱情专一的主流价值并没有改变。这也是为什么美国大分单身族都渴望婚姻的原因。相反，看看非州一些地区，不稳定的性关系带来无休止的疾病和暴力，这才是最值得中国社会所警觉的。我希望我们的一些专家，把这些事实告诉孩子，作一个负责的成年人。

Lady's swingers ring fuels debate on sex and marriage
By Ma Jun 2007-1-26  
 
A YOUNG policewoman dismissed for allegedly running a swinging, or spouse-swapping network, has fueled the already heated debate in China about whether sex and marriage can be, or should be, separated.

China Business View, a leading newspaper in Shaanxi Province, reported on its front page on January 16 that the woman, surnamed Su, had not only engaged in sex with several men with her husband's consent, but also run - together with her husband - a swinging Website.

The Shaanxi woman claimed it was the largest of its kind in China, attracting nearly 60,000 members seeking the pleasures of uninhibited sex outside marriage.

It was not clear whether everything Su said was true. It was certain, however, that she was a member of the police bureau of Liquan County in Shaanxi Province until she was dismissed in November. That was one month after she told local media of her extraordinary "experience."

China Business View's report was quickly picked up by myriad media outlets, including Xinhua news agency and People's Daily. But it might not have been so eye-catching and provocative if Dr Li Yinhe, a controversial sociologist, had not openly voiced her support for the ex-policewoman.

In her well-read personal blog at Sina.com, Li says: "Sexual activity between a married person and a person other than his or her spouse - provided that the spouse has been informed and agreed - is not morally wrong. Examples include swinging and polyamory (love of many)."

She further argues: "All consensual sexual activities between adults in private should not be criminalized (by law) and should be protected as human rights."

What she ultimately wants is tolerance. This sounds desirable. But her "theory" is quite problematic, especially regarding swinging and polyamory.

The logic of swingers seems sophisticated, but in its nature it is absurd. They proclaim that sex could be free from love and marriage, more accurately, that married persons still have the right to have sex with anybody they want, if only their spouses consent to it.

But actually, true love is the very restraint to free sex. And marriage is considered the consecration of true love.

For unmarried young men and women, there might be nothing more in a relationship than sex or passion. After they have experienced many relations like that, they meet someone one day, and find that there is much more than sex, fun or passion in the relationship.

"This is it, this is the one." They know, and they feel that they have the obligation to give themselves totally and exclusively, to this one person.

This is the idealized marriage. It doesn't empirically describe every marriage, but it sheds light on the significance of marriage as a human institution.

One cannot deny its legitimacy and value as an ideal, as a goal that human beings ought to pursue. Measured by this standard, same-sex marriage is to be tolerated, for if both persons feel true love for each other and are ready to promise fidelity and to take the responsibilities of marriage, they deserve it.

But the logic of swinging is another thing. It contradicts the model of marriage. A theory that aims at justifying extramarital sex is worse than immoral. It's unashamed.

Mutual conspiracy

Fidelity is a moral thing. Kant said that only the esteem of moral laws makes an action morally meaningful.

And only restraint of sexual desire makes the promise of fidelity meaningful and dignified.

By contrast, the simple act of confessing to and getting approval of extramarital sex from one's spouse - without any self-restraint - is worthless for moral consideration.

As to the "mutual consent" theory, it is not worth refutation. It is more like mutual conspiracy than mutual consent. Maybe the conspirators had not betrayed each other, but they had managed to betray marriage in a tacit understanding.

Then what about polyamory - a lifestyle of having more than one love/sex partner? If it is understood as an alternative to monogamous marriage, it is of the same ilk as swinging. It could be the case that sexual fun and passion are shared by more than two people.

But true love and marriage require exclusive mutual fidelity in one couple.

It's not a question of number, but a question of exclusiveness and totality.

I love one person, and marry him or her. It means that I attach myself, as a whole person, in a deep, ontological relationship, and therefore ought to be faithful, exclusively to that person.

It's an "all or nothing" thing.

Now we can exam the very point made by Li: Swingers and those who engage in polyamory have the "sexual rights" to choose these lifestyles.

What does "rights" mean? Does any lifestyle freely chosen deserve to be called a "right?" Definitely not.

"Rights" are more than individual freedom, they are called rights because they are right, that is, they are justified by the philosophical discourse or common sense of human beings.

Li's justifications, if there are any, are based on the philosophical standpoint of radical individualism, which dismisses any entities other than the atomized individual person.

This philosophical stance reduces marriage to a pure contract between two independent persons, or better an alien contract of two atoms.

But our common sense tells us that a person is much more than bounded desires, and it is neither impossible nor worthless for human beings to restrain and moderate their desires.

If married persons want to pursue extramarital sex, it will harm some highly regarded values, which the law promises to protect, namely the fidelity of marriage, the stability of family and, in some cases, the moral tone and mode of society.

Professor Li's justification for swinging and polyamory is misleading. If the "sex revolution" she has campaigned for in the past few years prevails, it could result in public moral chaos rather than the humanity she claims to seek.

 

 

中国近半数男性有过婚外性关系？  

方言,生存还是毁灭?

The life or death of Chinese dialects

China faces linguistic challenge: survey

BEIJING, Dec. 28 -- A national survey released yesterday indicates that nearly half of the Chinese population cannot communicate in the standard spoken language, putonghua.
One of the largest surveys of its kind showed 47 per cent of the nation cannot speak the national language. Unbelievable, you say? The large number of people surveyed - 470,000 across the nation - testifies to the validity of the study. The findings are deeply worrying.

Given the country's vast geographic dimension and diversified culture, communication between different regions often has to surmount many linguistic obstacles. That is why we need a standard spoken language.
China boasts 56 ethnic groups and seven main Chinese dialects, with each further divided into several local accents. In some extreme cases, people in two bordering counties may not able to speak in mutually-understood terms. This always leads to a pitiful loss of efficiency.

It is not acutely necessary to break the linguistic barrier in a society with stagnant economic activities or in a community where people do not depend on internal communication. But as communications intensify, the price of everybody speaking Chinese but not being understood, becomes unaffordably high. China has such a situation. Increased economic activities and cross-region labour mobility make it necessary to find a common language for people to communicate.

From a historical perspective, there had been a commonly used talking language dating back to the Spring and Autumn and Warring States periods more than 2,000 years ago, linguists point out. It is not justified to readily apply history to reality. But past experiences can offer valuable clues to current situations. Historians tell us we are now in a similar era that witnesses dynamic social exchanges with our ancestors. The common spoken language was used to link people from different regions and ethnic groups to satisfy increasing communicative needs. We are now facing the same situation. A standard, commonly used spoken language is also in the interests of the country as it helps promote national identity and cohesion amid a linguistic sea of highly distinct local accents.

China has promulgated the law on the use of a common language in 2001, requiring putonghua to be used in general in education, broadcasting and other public service sectors. The country has engaged in special campaigns in the past decade, encouraging the use of the standard spoken language. The hard fact that still nearly a half of the population cannot speak putonghua demands more effort. Promotion of putonghua should not necessarily mean stifling other spoken languages. We must respect dialects. This is the unswerving policy of the country.

Dialects carry culture.

Moreover, China has paid much attention to protecting languages of minority groups such as the Tibetan language. They are officially recognized and widely taught in local schools. What we seek to achieve is to spread commonly used putonghua to better serve as a communication tool, while preserving the unique cultures born out of the country's diversified dialects.

 

Views differ on the fate of Chinese dialects.Some people believe that Chinese dialects can survive in modern times.Here is a widely reprinted article by Chinese English writer Cai Shangyao(蔡尚耀)
(China Daily)  Dialects can survive by themselves.  By Cai Shangyao.  December 9, 2004.

China's State Administration of Radio Film and Television (SARFT) recently issued a notice banning domestic radio and TV stations from translating foreign radio and TV programmes into any local dialect. The notice said that such dialect translation contradicts the national initiative to promote Putonghua, or Mandarin, around the country. Foreign programmes that have been translated into dialects must be removed from television and radio immediately.

The notice evoked a mixed response from experts and audio and video producers, as well as the general public. Many voiced their concerns about the fate of local dialects, with some even expressing the worry that all local dialects would disappear before anyone realized it.

China has always been a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic, and multi-dialect nation. It is hard to guess how many dialects exist, but they can be roughly classified into one of the seven large groups: the northern dialect, Wu dialect, Xiang (Hunan) dialect, Gan (Jiangxi) dialect, Hakka dialect, Min (Fujian) dialect and Yue (Guangdong) dialect (or Cantonese). These dialect groups are largely mutually unintelligible.

When the People's Republic of China was founded in 1949, the government began promoting Putonghua (the common language based on Mandarin) so that all Chinese citizens could communicate with other Putonghua speakers from other parts of China. In the context of social and economic development, the use of Putonghua is becoming more and more widespread, while the use of local dialects is decreasing and becoming less widespread.

This is, indeed, a positive sign of social progress. Nevertheless, there is some concern that - in the long run - local dialects and accents are likely to be diluted to death.

Dialectal differences are the result of a long geographical separation and lack of adequate communication facilities in ancient times, and have little significance in modern society. If local dialects are unduly emphasized, localism and regionalism will become more pervasive and more serious. If local dialects were used as the medium of instruction in schools, or if government officials dealt with the public in local dialect or dialects were commonly used in radio and TV programmes, what would become of our society and our country? It makes sense for SARFT to require broadcast media to use Putonghua, and it is right that government officials speak Putonghua on public occasions.

As the common national language, Putonghua is not identical to the northern or Beijing dialect because it has also absorbed features from other dialects, Classical Chinese and other national languages, making it richer and more complete, more standardized and of a more public nature than any individual dialect (including northern dialect). The common national language serves the whole nation, while a dialect is based on a particular geographical area, serving people in this particular area. To facilitate the process of social unification and cultural modernization, we should spare no effort in promoting Putonghua as the common national language, particularly for formal and public occasions.

Putonghua should be more widely used in public and private places, while the use of local dialects should be restricted. Putonghua should be the medium of administration in all government departments, the medium of instruction in schools, the language used for broadcasting and the language used in public services, since this not only is required for economic development, but also is the need of a civilized society.

Popularization of Putonghua and standard Chinese characters does not mean stamping out the use of the various local dialects. Dialects can develop freely in their natural environment. One of the characteristics of languages is that they do not remain static but instead change over time. This is pretty much the same case with dialects. From a long-term perspective, dialects should not and would not be wiped out. There is no need for any purposeful and deliberate attempt to protect dialects. Just let dialects take their natural course. The best way to protect a dialect is to use it in daily life and pass it down from generation to generation.

The Sichuan Dialect Saved A Radio Station.  By Yuan Lei (袁蕾).  November 11, 2005.

In the city of Chengdu, most people use three 'languages': Sichuan dialect, putonghua and Salt-and-pepper putonghua (that is, the Sichuan variation of putonghua).  The brilliance of Feige, the host of the radio program "Eating in Chengdu," is that he can used all three 'languages' fluently in the program.

In May 2002, Feige was a radio program host for the Sichuan Economic Radio at night, as well as being the manager.  During the day, he had to sit at the station to sign documents and write reports.  Since he was there anyway, he might as well as host another day program.  At the time, the 5pm shift was 'garbage' time for all the radio stations, and the director was happy to let him work it with the condition that he must bring it some advertisement within three months' time.  At the time, most radio stations run medical forums with doctors at that time slot.  He wanted to run a comedic program related to 'sex' but unrelated to health and medical treatments.  However, it did not seem appropriate to tell 'sex jokes' during the evening rush hour.  Undoubtedly, he decided that 'food' was the safest subject (note: there is a Chinese saying that food and sex are natural human impulses).

"At this Farmers Delight restaurant, the pure chicken does not use lipstick, and the wildlife fish has never watched television, the fish hot pot has 6,640 grains of pepper lying at the bottom."  Feige is certified as Grade A competency in putonghua, but he broadcast in Sichuan dialect instead.  For most Chengdu residents, whether at home or work, they will use Sichuan dialect if they can instead of "salt-and-pepper" putonghua; they will use "salt-and-pepper" putonghua if they can instead of pure putonghua.  It is true that putonghua has always represented the authoritativeness of the radio stations.  So when people can listen to pure Sichuan dialect on an authoritative radio station, it proved to be very endearing to the listeners as well as letting them know that the authorities affirms Chengdu culture.

Within a month, "Eat in Chengdu" fulfilled the obligation to have "some advertisement."  Within a few more months, Feige could no longer handle the business by himself and so he brought in a female co-host, Lanmei'er.  Within half a year, the daily one-hour program "Eat in Sichuan" set a record for 160,000 yuan in advertising revenue -- whereas the entire station was only making 200,000 yuan!  Within one year, the radio station arranged for Feige and Lanmei'er to be simultaneously broadcast on two different frequencies at the same time, and the 160,000 yuan grew to more than 300,000 yuan.

"Without the Sichuan dialect, 'Eat in Chengdu' could not be where it is today.  'Eat in Chengdu' save the whole Economic Radio," said Feige.  In 2003, since this station's ratings were far too high, Sichuan Economic Radio printed a new rate card.  The previously 'garbage' time slot of 5pm now has a news special rate.  All those channels that broadcast this program had their rates raised.

On the other side, the Chengdu Traffic Station which broadcast a food program in pure putonghua saw its audience levels and advertising revenues go into a downslide.  Finally, the Sichuan Economic Radio which had always been the lesser player turned around.  The Traffic Station listeners were now turning to the Economic Radio.  So the Chengdu Traffic Station paid a huge sum to get Feige and Lanmei'er to switch allegiances and move over there, with the same time slot and program content, with the freedom to say whatever they want.  Under the influence of Feige and Lanmei'er, the other radio and television stations began to change their broadcasts from occasional Sichuan dialect to occasional putonghua.

"Putonghua is still a class higher than the Sichuan dialect.  If we use Sichuan dialect all the time, it would lower their class."  In order to ensure that restaurants from all classes can be represented in the program, Feige uses language to classify the restaurants: a small restaurant under 100 square meters would be done in Sichuan dialect with some colloquialisms (e.g. 你娃去嘛); Sichuan-style restaurants with more than 100 square meters but under 2,000-3,000 square meters would be presented in Sichuan dialect with putonghua terminology pronounced in Sichuan accent; restaurants that are refined in appearance with some bourgeois style would be presented in informal putonghua with a mixture of "salt-and-pepper" and Beijing accent; and when a listener hears pure putonghua, then this is surely a traditional western restaurant.  The program then switches back to 'salt-and-pepper', then to Sichuan dialect.  When listeners call in, they usually get the authentic 'salt-and-pepper' putonghua.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

《十面埋伏》英文影评

和谐社会应是城乡和谐的社会