The History of Sexuality Vol. 1

This book was a slog. This guy talks in the most verbose and overly convoluted way possible, but he's also French. A French Philosopher even. So thats kinda to be expected, and he talks like he's come up with the greatest ideas anyone has every conceived, but again, hes a philosopher, so that kinda comes with the territory. Regardless, I've procrastinated every single thing about this book since starting it.

I procrastinated reading the book, I procrastinated finishing it when I had only 3 pages left, I've procrastinated writing this blog post by redoing my entire site. I even wrote a whole other blog post while procrastinating. Hell, I'm even procrastinating actually writing about the book by writing this. (whoa, meta)

Anyways, lets actually get to it. This book has some good theories, I would not immediately disagree with his theories, and I do think they're applicable today, especially with the political climate in the Western Powers concerning sex, sexuality, gender, and pornography lately.

His theory, at least to my understanding, is that where there is an increase in puritanical culture, and thus a repression of sexuality, we actually see an increase in discourse about sexuality. Discourse being both political discussion, and medical analysis. The things that are repressed are an object of fascination for all of us, we can't help but to think about it, to talk about it, to analyze it, because we believe it to be 'evil' to express it. My personal belief is that there is no inherent good or evil, no cosmic forces, no balance, I think those are concepts we make up to justify our realities to ourselves, they're nothing more than comforting lies, however, these lies influence all of our lives, as they influence the politics informing our access to our basic rights and needs.

I'm not saying I believe religion needs to be eliminated, but I don't think it should affect the lives of those who are not religious, unfortunately, I live in a country founded by religious extremists, so it's to be expected.

Anyways, Foucault posits that when there is an increase in repression, there is an increase in discussion of sexuality, both what is considered normal and what is considered deviant. It is medically analyzed, its pathologized. One example of this is Hysteria, a diagnosis applied to women until 1980, the diagnosis covers a wide variety of symptoms, and a diagnosis could be used to further strip rights from women, and even get them forced into mental asylums.

Another thing that was pathologized was the sexuality of the child. This is a very uncomfortable topic for western society, but children are humans, and they can begin sexually exploring their own bodies as early as 3 or 4 years old, but we as a society believe that children cannot be sexual beings without us sexualizing them. We can't acknowledge that teenagers will masturbate, because that would require thinking of a child in a 'sexual' way, because we've been so thoroughly convinced that sexuality is

1. evil
2. something that needs to be stamped out
3. a sin that needs to be confessed

In fact, that last one, the 'sin to be confessed' is reference to another part of Foucault's theories, wherein he posits that the religious aspect of this social control is one of the most insidious, because it convinces us that a completely natural human instinct is some dark part of us we must repress and remove from ourselves, aside from a few exceptions, but even those are removed from a focus on pleasure. Foucault posits that the guilt and pressure surrounding sexuality in the context of christianity creates an environment that will foster anxiety, further alienating us from the pleasure that can come from sexuality.

He also talks about how these systems and structures are used to create a wield power over the masses. The social pressures, the influence wielded by the public figures we look to for advice, the power they wield over public opinions, and how their opinions often become the opinions of the masses. How these tools of social control are used to sway public opinions toward more conservative ways of thinking and being.

Overall, I would say his theories still have application in today's society, but I don't think it's necessary to read the book, honestly, the sparknotes would be more concise and comprehendible.

In other news, since redoing my site it's become a lot easier to post blog posts, and make updates and changes, but it's also made me a bit paranoid at how simple it is to post something. I also find myself constantly making tiny adjustments, but I did learn a lot while redoing my site. I might even try to jump back into learning JavaScript or C.