History of Sexuality

Michel Foucault's "The History of Sexuality" offers several intriguing viewpoints. His main points consisted of a list of a couple statements regarding "the power exercised" in culture and sexuality. I will establish my reaction in the order that the labels are addressed and how he suggests they run the power structure of how sexuality is perceived. Marriage and adultery are positively ideas of the church and although it definitely still dominates today's western ideology I think the point about trying to distill the children and the secretive nature of sexuality and children is becoming overturned. With the increasing advertising in today's culture, children are becoming predisposed to sexy images and Americans are having to be more open with their children and educating them about sex rather than hiding it. I am not saying that this has completely enveloped our culture but it is a change occurring simultaneously. Secondly, "the new persecution of the peripheral sexualities entailed an incorporation of perversions and a new specification of individuals. Being meticulous about categorizing what type of sexual fantasies one may have does not open new avenues for accepting sexuality but rather just announces it. Some may say that solely announcing to describing a sexuality is not the same as accepting and embracing it. The author states, "The machinery of power focused on this whole alien strain did not aim to suppress it, but rather to give it an analytical, visible, and permanent reality". The showing of these categories is neither a positive or negative attribute but rather an educational moment. Next, his third point reminded me of the binaries that must exist with every sign (Derrida and Saussure). With every act, there is a secret, and for every secret there must be attention to it. Different institutions offer varying relationships with sexuality and therefore have the power to offer perspective without being judgmental. The fourth point discusses, "devices of sexual saturation" and divisions of society and sexual acceptance. The "high society" often faces more microscopic observation and especially into something so privatized as sex. I think this perfectly relates to our discussion about radical culture because looking at it from a humanistic viewpoint, I doubt that it SHOULD change our behavior but it undoubtedly does. Lastly, sexual repression occurs as an effect of societal views and still holds true today. Now we seem more open to discussion about sex yet it is explored more like a science than a fun, humanistic behavior. Since there are more structures of power today, is that why sex causes commotion it does today?