Recently, Ma Yaohai (53), Associate Professor of Nanjing University of Technology, made headlines nationwide. He was sentenced to three and a half years in prison on a charge of group licentiousness for organizing group sex parties and partner swapping. In 2007, he started a swingers' online chat room, which later expanded to a membership of around 200, who engaged in regular group sex.

Altogether 22 people stood trial for being involved in group sex - 14 men and eight women. They were accused of participating in at least 35 orgies between the summer of 2007 and August 2009, of which Ma had organized or been part of 18. The other 21 defendants have admitted their guilt, and Ma is the only one who refused to plead guilty. 

According to the Qinhuai District People's Court in Nanjing, Jiangsu Province, Ma's acts have infringed on the Criminal Law. Ma admitted the facts, while at the same time he argued it was a private matter and planned to appeal against the verdict.

This case has sparked a heated debate on morality and sexual freedom. Some people think practicing group sex goes against traditional morality and has a negative influence on society as a whole. Others, however, maintain that individual privacy should be fully respected since such an activity involves consenting adults and is entirely voluntary and private. 

Yes

Fang Wenbin

Lawyer, Hunan, China

I think Ma Yaohai's behavior violated the law and should be punished. Some lawyers contend that the sex orgies organized or participated in by Ma are private and cause no social harm. However, according to Article 301 of the Criminal Law, "Where people are gathered to engage in licentious activities, the ringleaders and the persons who repeatedly take part in such activities shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not more than five years, criminal detention or supervision."  Thus, whether the promiscuous activity takes place in a private place is not a key factor in defining guilty or innocent. It is a crime as long as someone takes a lead in a sex party or repeatedly participates in such an activity, regardless of where the behavior takes place.

Second, the Criminal Law also stipulates, "A crime refers to an act that ...  endangers society and is subject to punishment according to law." In other words, an act poses social harm as long as it infringes on legal interests. There doesn't always have to be a victim.

Zhou Yan

Company employee, Shanghai

I think the punishment of Ma has revealed respect of our law for the traditional morality.

Every individual belongs to the society. If an individual's behavior has caused a negative impact on society, he/she should be responsible for that.  

Improper individual behavior such as practicing group sex will lead to a decline in public morality, and even worse, and exert a very bad influence on teenagers, which will affect the sustained development of society in the long run. That's also the reason why there's a film rating system and some movies are deemed not suitable for teenagers.

In the Chinese culture, a teacher commands respect and is seen as a role model. As a professor, Ma Yaohai's behavior is definitely unethical and improper.

Organizing group sex parties, if others don't know, is an individual activity. Ma's case, however, is disclosed and known by everyone. It is not a matter of individual choice anymore, but a social issue, of which the influence is enormous and goes far beyond what it was meant to be.

Li Jianping 

Legal Assistant, Beijing

I think Ma should be punished, and the crime of "group licentiousness" should not be abolished from the law. Instead, more detailed and specific definitions should be given to make the provision more applicable. For instance, a group sex that involves three or more people should be considered a crime and is subject to punishment. It seems that such activities are very popular nowadays.

Over thousands of years, there has been constant controversy over the relationship between morality and law. I always believe law should reflect what morality advocates, to a great extent. Of course, morality cannot be totally written into law, but the core of the morality, which is closely related to public order should be. Partner swapping infringes this kind of morality. That's why it should be punished.

Since the opening up in the late 1970s, Chinese people have become more open in sexual attitudes and behavior. In my opinion, brothels could be tolerated, but group sex must be banned. They are largely different. Group behavior poses stronger mental impact on both the participants and the public.

No

Li Yinhe 

Sociologist, sexologist and activist for LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender) rights

Group sex is fine as long as it meets three criteria: participants joining in voluntarily, taking place privately and participants being adults. There's no victim or damaged relationship (marriage) in this situation. If a regular extra-marital affair should be criticized for transgressing the morality of marriage, the partner-swapping doesn't even come up to the level of damage done by an extra-marital affair, because it is the result of discussion between a husband and wife. The nature of such an activity is similar to the nature of a husband and wife going to a restaurant to eat together; it's just that some couples jointly decide that they want to have their dinner in private, that's all. Their only difference to the general public is that whereas most people eat rice and noodles, they eat scorpion. Many people won't eat scorpion themselves, and can't bear to see others eating scorpion, but we can't round up all the people who have specific tastes and sentence them.

This is the reason why no other country in the world has a law that penalizes partner-swapping activities. Owing to rapid economic development, China's global image is increasingly open, wealthy, civilized, and the people are respected; but the penalization of partner-swapping greatly discredits the image of our country.

Yao Yongan 

Ma Yaohai's attorney

Both legislative interpretation and judicial interpretations have not elaborated on "group licentiousness," which is described in Article 301 of the Criminal Law. Besides, the participants in the sex parties have a clear set of rules. They are equal and have no quarrels or fights. The men respect the women and vice versa. 

Therefore, there is no infringement of the public order in this case. It is not their responsibility for media uncovering this matter, which causes a disturbance in society.

Partner swapping in this case will by no means harm public order because it was carried out privately. So it cannot be charged as "group licentiousness" and it hurts nobody. 

Whether it violates the bottom line of morality has nothing to do with whether he should be convicted. Moreover, it is the media that violates the law by disclosing this story, not the swingers.

Therefore, I insist that Ma Yaohai and the other 21 participants are innocent. It is a real violation of the law if the court verdict is passed in accordance with social mores.

Li Zhigang  

Beijing resident

Though Ma's behavior has infringed on traditional morality and public order, it is a private matter. It's completely voluntary as the participants are there of their own free will. Such a behavior should be criticized, but it's not appropriate to be governed by law. Law cannot morally govern what we do and what's on our minds. And things that are morally wrong are not necessarily legally wrong. If one's sexual behavior is subject to the control of law, our individual freedom is limited.

In addition, nowadays, Chinese people are increasingly accepting sexual freedom. Sexual behavior such as group sex parties and partner swapping actually exist widely in today's China. Many of the hair salons and massage parlors are disguised places providing sex services. This news is shocking simply because Ma is a professor. However, it is not fair to punish Ma since a lot of people are doing the same thing.

The trend is that Chinese people's attitude toward sex is becoming more and more liberal. For us ordinary citizens, what we can do is to try our best to protect and advocate traditional virtues, instead of being too extreme when considering such activities.