Warning: shameless self-promotion ahead. Minors should only read under the supervision of parents or adult guardians. Cynics should roll their eyes dramatically, sigh, and then keep reading.

As I mentioned previously, I was interviewed by the BBC the other day about the “Nanjing Swingers” trial. To start off, here are the links to the BBC news article on the subject that quotes me, plus a link to the PRI page where you can access the MP3 file of the U.S. interview (the longer, and better, of the two).

BBC news story: “China charges online ‘swingers’ in Nanjing

PRI’s The World

The case involves violations of the Criminal Law (Section 301) that forbids “group licentiousness.” The 22 defendants ran an online group, characterized as “swingers” or “wife swappers” (other phrases may come to mind). Basically they arranged for groups of people to get together and have sex – a clear violation of the law.

Although quite titillating, the case isn’t all that exciting from a legal perspective. The Criminal Law provision is fairly clear, and the decision to prosecute is not surprising (one of the defendants is a university professor).

Much more interesting is what this case says about social change and related legal reform. Big issue. In the interview, I boiled it down to this:

“You have two camps that have come out on this trial,” Mr Abrams told the BBC World Service.

“On the one side, you have got the conservatives and, frankly I think, the government, who are saying there are public policy issues here, there is the matter of social order to think about.

“On the other hand you have people who want liberalisation, who want the law to reflect the reality of the situation, who are saying that not only there should be legal reform, but the government should stop cracking down on these people for these kinds of activity [sic].”

Obviously the conservatives have the law on their side, and no, I don’t think that this case will lead to any legal reform. Perhaps the next time the Criminal Law is amended, provisions like this could be changed.

I should point out that all of this is expected with economic development and greater interaction with the rest of the world. Many nations worldwide have undergone social liberalization along with modernization, and the types of laws that remain on the books in certain countries are rather surprising given current opinions about issues like sex.

For example, it was just a few years ago, in 2003, that the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Texas law that criminalized sodomy (Lawrence v. Texas).

Societies change, sometimes rapidly, but laws pertaining to social interaction often lag behind. As time goes on, these laws just stop being enforced, and eventually because of a famous case or simply broad-scale legal reform, they are taken off the books.

One would expect something similar in China, although there are two complicating factors. First, compared to many Western countries, China is still quite conservative when it comes to sex. It’s hard to tell sometimes when looking at all the scantily-clad models featured in major newspapers here, but at the level of personal interaction, this remains a conservative nation.

Second, the government’s interest in social order and stability might serve to slow down social liberalization. Although I would argue that there are absolutely no political ramifications of an online sex ring, the government could see it in different terms. A large group, organized online that meets in private and espouses ideas about personal freedom — hell, you never know where that might lead.

I’ll write a follow-up post to this one in ten years as a progress report. I have a feeling that this sort of reform is going to be slow going.