A hypocritical and unfair appeal to sexual morality

In an incident in Kerala, a high school has suspended a class XII boy and a class XI girl for hugging in public after her performance in a competition. A legal tussle followed with the intervention of the Kerala State Commission for Protection of Child Rights (CPCR) which recommended the school to readmit the boy. The School authorities moved the Kerala High Court questioning the capacity of the Kerala State CPCR to intervene in the disciplinary matters of the school. Justice Shaji P. Chaly who heard the proceedings has passed the judgment upholding the ultimate authority of the school to maintain its discipline and moral order on 12^th December 2017.

The objective of this article, however, is not to get into the legal aspect of the rights of the school and the CPCR. It is to expose the hypocrisy of the society around the interactions of teenagers of the opposite gender under the mask sewed out of constricted notions of sexual morality. It is interesting to find that all the parties involved in the case despite arguing for different ends, share a unique belief that romantic involvement is ‘immoral.’  A critical analysis of the arguments made by petitioners, respondents and the Justice of the Kerala High Court himself as laid out in the judgment serves the objective.

All hell broke loose when the boy hugged the girl in front of other students and teachers as a congratulatory gesture. The teacher who has witnessed has submitted that “she was shocked to see the incident, and she has not experienced any such public display of affection.” Not surprisingly, the school authorities also condemned the action as ‘immoral’ and deemed it fit to punish the students by asking them not to attend the school henceforth. In an egoistic attempt to establish an evidence of romantic involvement, the school authorities went to the extent of stalking their Instagram accounts by invading their privacy. It is disappointing to find Mr. Justice himself endorsing the allegations of obscenity in the pictures. To quote, “I find that various photographs were posted in the Instagram in various compromising positions…”

On the other hand, the counter-arguments reflect no different morals. The boy’s father has submitted to the court that “there was no evil intention or any other design on his part, apart from congratulating her.” Though the Kerala state CPCR condemns the claims of obscenity in the pictures and defends the students’ right to privacy, it stands in no different position. The following statement is indicative of that: “the pictures were...further not visited with any bad intentions or motives, but again captured in a very conducive and peaceful atmosphere.” The intention here refers to the intent of romantic involvement.

Besides, at the heart of the sexual morality lie the stakes of reputation and public shame. One of the principal grounds that the Kerala State CPCR has invoked in its recommendation to the school has been that the “parents suffered…ignominy.” Mr. Justice also believes that the pictures “tarnish the reputation” of the boy and the girl and “if it had the effect of publicity, the issue definitely hampers the reputation of the school.” The judgment also says “there can be no doubt that such incidents can disturb parents and the students of the school and even the public at large.” The boldness of the students has indeed outraged the sexual morality of the hypocrites.

This incident exposes the hostile and stressful environment in which the teenagers of the opposite gender are forced to interact with each other. Many schools do not even allow boys and girls to talk to each other. In another incident in Kerala, a girl was made to sit with boys as a punishment. She was teased and embarrassed by other students. When her elder sister questioned it, the teachers shouted at her which has led to her committing suicide. This gender segregation breeds fear and hypocrisy among the students. Such an atmosphere creates enormous stress for the teenagers who start experiencing drastic changes in their biology and emotional needs. They enter into frequent conflicts with parents. Hence, understanding teachers and peers form the source of comfort. It is also necessary to impart rigorous sex education. In an essay on ‘The taboo on sex knowledge,’ Bertrand Russell writes “ignorance on such matters is harmful to the individual, and therefore no system whose perpetuation demands such ignorance can be desirable….sexual morality…must…commend itself to well-informed persons and not to depend upon ignorance for its appeal.”

I shall extend my argument one step further and claim that it is high time Indian society should provide a healthy and conducive atmosphere for the teenagers to discover their sexuality and romantic desires. Professor Wyndol Furman in the Psychology department at Denver University, argues that teenagers find positive emotionality only with the opposite gender. Romantic involvement at this stage forms a fundamental step in the construction of their identity, self-esteem, and confidence. Often, lack of such experiences directly affects an individual’s sexual practices in the adult stage. Russell in fact, mentions an instance where a sexually inexperienced individual cannot distinguish between sex-hunger and love, and this has dangerous consequences to their emotional vulnerability and commitments.

In light of this discussion, it is horrendous to see that the judgment, in this case, recommends the school to consider imposing a fine on the boy’s parents so that it can act as a “deterrent to the students, and a precaution to avoid similar incidents.” This regressive verdict is a wakeup call to all of us to recognize the adolescent needs and spread awareness about it. Teenage stress due to moral policing in educational institutions and families need urgent attention.