【正文】 aosan proposed in the Third Version of Interpretation of the Latest Enacted Chinese Marriage Law (Draft for Comment) The Third Version of Interpretation of the Latest Enacted Chinese Marriage Law (Draft for Comment): It was published in November 16th, 2011 in the government’s official newspaper People’s Court Daily administrated by the Supreme People39。s Court of the People39。s Republic of China. It was the first time that a clause about the interests of marriage intruders are proposed in the authority’s printed materials since the first and the second version of interpretation draft for ment. (People’s Court Daily, 2010, November 16), it was deleted after discussion in the annual convention of marriage law. The Xiaosan clause in the latest marriage law interpretation draft for ment refers to: when a married person cohabits with the other, after agreeing on financial pensation for the dissolution of the cohabitation, if one party requires the other to pensate or one party requires the other to return the pensation, the People’s court shall not force the claim。 if the legal marital litigant claim the return of the financial pensation in the names of infringement of the legal marital couple’s munal property, the People’s court shall handle the case. (People’s Court Daily, 2010, November 16)According to the explanation above, the Xiaosan clause protects Xiaosans’ right to obtain pensation that has been promised by their boyfriends. Thus, the clause was considered a defense of Xiaosan. Yet it was deleted, and it was criticized fiercely during the annual convention of marriage law. Most of the people attending the convention frowned upon on this clause, because they thought the wife’s legal rights should be prioritized over those of the Xiaosan. One researcher of Chinese Academy of Social Science said during the convention: “Isn’t that ridiculous if our legislation and enforcement practices do not first protect the lawful spouse but the Xiaosan?” (Ding, 2011, August 30). Additionally, the Women’s Federation participated actively to municate and coordinate with the Supreme Court, in order to delete the Xiaosan clause (Ding, 2011, August 30). Even if the socalled Xiaosan clause was enacted, however, it would not defend Xiaosan very effectively. The Xiaosan clause prioritizes the legitimate marriage status of the wives and the husbands, and is utilized by the state as a means to reinforce the Xiaosan category and construct the public discourse of Xiaosan. According to the deleted clause, Xiaosan could only acquire the pensation their boyfriends promised them, and even if their boyfriends paid the pensation, the wives and the husbands could ask for the money back if it concerned the couple’s joint property. As a result, only the wives’ and the husbands’ legal property and the marriage status are protected by the court. Hence, even if the Xiaosan clause, which astonished the general public, could be considered as legal protection for Xiaosan, the clause bees the state’s method strengthening its construction of Xiaosan as a category, resembling France’s reinforcement of the discursive construction of sex in the 18th century: “A control over enunciations as well: where and when it was not possible to talk about such things became much more strictly defined。 in which circumstances, among which speakers, and within which social relationships”(Foucault, 1990: 18). The state constructs the discourse of Xiaosan and decides when, where and how people should discuss Xiaosan. The current Chinese government raised the Xiaosan issue by proposing the Xiaosan clause in the draft for ment. Consequently, both the clause and Xiaosan were attacked by public criticism. Thus, Xiaosan were given close attention by being attacked orally。 they are the weakest when pared to the wives and the husbands, and their identity as immoral intruders was consolidated through the public critical discourse raised by the state. Moreover, the increase of criticism of Xiaosan “intensifies people’s awareness of it” as a danger to legal marriage and “this is in turn created a further incentive to talk about it” (Foucault, 1990: 31). Consequently, both Xiaosans’ unethical identity and the public criticism of Xiaosan are reinforced. The state constructs Xiaosans’ identity though both the public discourse and current social values.The government implemented current social norms indicating the priority of the lawful marriage in the Xiaosan clause to consolidate Xiaosans’ negative identity and to administrate Xiaosan. The deletion of the clause implies the public’s opposition to Xiaosan and the encouragement of current social value: two make a pair from which a family could be formed via marital connections (Gates, 1996: 122). Thus, current marriage value still indicates the pattern of women’s life: moving from their fathers’ oversight to that of their husbands (Jay, 1999: 30). In contrast with the current social values, Xiaosan are “against the law” (Foucault, 1990: 38)。 they possess no legal marriage status with their boyfriends. Thus, the proposal and the deletion of the Xiaosan clause are “not the rigor[s] of a taboo, but the necessity of regulating [Xiaosan] through useful and public discourse” (Foucault, 1990: 25). The state limits the public discourse of Xiaosan through the discourse of legitimate marriage and property, administrating Xiaosan by creating the Xiaosan category through the public discourse construction. Last but not least, the Xiaosan clause reflects the marriagecentered patriarchal family structure in current Chinese society. According to the clause, when pared to the women, men are the powerful agents in this tripartite relationship. Xiaosan are the marginalized outsiders of their boyfriends’ patriline because they only possess emotional connections with their boyfriends. By applying Jay’s (1999) idea of paternity, Xiaonsan lose their economic connections with their boyfriends easily due to their lack of s