The University of Cambridge has banned any behaviour that could be interpreted as flirting, even when both parties are comfortable and consenting. The last regulation applies to students and members of the teaching staff (even if they are from a different department), but other standards regulate relationships in dormitories, faculty relationships, etc. in very similar ways.
A generation or two ago, this would have sparked a revolution. Today’s young intellectuals are eager to conform, and still denounce each other. We used to think that the rebelliousness of young people was natural and biologically necessary in all societies. Now we know that it is not. Secret groups of young rebels exist, of course (almost exclusively boys), but they are small and marginal.
Czech biologist Martin Konvička summarizes two prevailing hypotheses to explain this relationship to sexuality.
- Oversaturation. There are too many sexual stimuli, they are everywhere, people lose interest.
- The mania to prohibit.
As for the first explanation, there are in fact no socio-psychological or biological findings that can lead to the claim that when sex is readily available, interest disappears. If sex is too readily available, individuals need stronger stimuli. So more sex in unusual places, more special games, and more instances of a couple inviting a beautiful neighbour. This is indeed the case in some social groups.
The second explanation seems more logical. We’re not seeing a loss of interest, but an obsession with sex. An obsession to seek out anything that could be construed as sexual. An obsession to search the darkest recesses. A fascination with human sexuality that is seen as something diabolical. That which fits our idea of criminal inquisitors. In short, irrational fanaticism. Like everything associated with the current elite.
Meanwhile, in China, they’re figuring out how to encourage young people to date and date more.