Speaking About Sex
I am familiar with Foucault’s writings on post-colonialism, but this is my first introduction to his ideas about sexuality, and I find them to be fascinating. Foucault successfully identifies a shift in sexuality during the Victorian era, where sex was relegated to a reproductive function and pleasure in any form was disapproved of. That correlation seems so obvious to me now, but it was the first time I had given any real thought as to what was responsible for the change in attitudes towards sex, what Foucault describes as “economically useful” and “politically conservative” (p. 37). Thinking about the Greeks and Romans, who at the very least acknowledged all of the aspects of sexuality, and promoted most of them, it seems contradictory that the Victorians placed these ancient cultures on a pedestal while maintaining a white-knuckle grip on the idea of purity and propriety as the essence of contemporary sexuality.
Foucault writes in Part One that, “If sex is repressed, that is, condemned to prohibition, nonexistence, and silence, then the mere fact that one is speaking about it has the appearance of a deliberate transgression.” (p. 6). This sentence intrigued me primarily because this class meets to speak about sex openly, despite the fact that our culture represses sex (to a certain degree), and following the above logic, this is a transgression that is wholly deliberate. Who are we offending by speaking about sex? What rule are we breaking? Speaking, sharing ideas, and reforming our opinions on the topic of sex should not be considered a transgression, but because sex is repressed, a shadow of guilt and shame may be cast upon such a conversation. Foucault continues this idea in Part Two: “Without even having to pronounce the word, modern prudishness was able to ensure that one did not speak of sex, merely through the interplay of prohibitions that referred back to one another: instances of muteness which, by dint of saying nothing, imposed silence. Censorship.” (p. 17). Not speaking about sex only gives sex more power; everybody thinks about it, and not talking about sex does not make someone better in any way, shape, or form. The censorship of sex, repressing sex, and shaming sex into submission have never effectively eliminated sex from happening, but began as a way for people to control sex; however, this morphed into behaviors that enabled sex to control people. Speaking about sex and sexuality allows people to be in charge of their natural feelings and impulses, and repressing sex the way Foucault describes it can never effectively give people the self-control and power they are so desperately searching for.
Instead of making sex something that divides people into different categories, the discussion of sex can be used as a tool to bring people together. Whether they’re a prostitute or a housewife, gay or straight (or somewhere in between), by a certain age, everyone has at least thought about sex, or engaged in some sort of sexual activity. Discussing sex in open terms and evaluating the role of sex in society can be a positive thing; Foucault’s writings and this class’s objective are prime examples of how overcoming the obstacles of repression and censorship can empower individuals and open their minds to better understand themselves and the way their sexuality affects their own identity. This sharing of knowledge should not be interpreted as a confession that implies an admission of guilt or wrongdoing, but rather an inquiry into human nature: what makes us tick? I think revealing the answer to that question would, as Foucault phrases it, result in the “pleasure in the truth of pleasure, the pleasure of knowing that truth …” (p. 71). If the human brain is truly a sexual organ, then the most potent aphrodisiac is knowledge, and Foucault encourages us to search for knowledge without shame and ignore the repressive culture that may attempt to censor sexuality.
Tags: Censorship, Confession, Discussion, Foucault, Repression, Sexuality
