Sexual Discourse

Sexual Discourse

Michel Foucault is a tricky guy.  He completely fools the reader while he is summarizing the history of sexual repression, beginning with the Victorian Era.  He steadily goes through the thought process of what we all believe to be the true political history of our sexual attitudes.  He calls these ideas the repressive hypothesis.  After he is assured that his reader is clear on what he is saying, he throws his curve ball – three of them to be exact.  Foucault raises “three serious doubts” about the repressive hypothesis, mainly questioning why sexuality is discussed so openly and freely, despite our repression, and how those discussions affect “the regime of power-knowledge-pleasure that sustains the discourse of human sexuality in our part of the world” (11).

A key word in The History of Sexuality: Volume 1 is “discourse”.  In “Part 2: The Repressive Hypothesis”, Foucault is intrigued by not only our sexual conversations, but also what we are saying during those conversations.  Silence, censorship, and the use of euphemisms were not enough to influence a person’s relationship with sex.  According to Foucault, intellectual dissection controls our relationship with sex and sexuality.  Constant conversation and examination is what keeps sex and sexuality from becoming nameless, natural, and intractable entities.  It is through discourse that we define proper or deviant forms of sexuality.  It is through discourse that we examine sexual behaviors and thoughts – rationalizing them, criticizing them, categorizing them, medicating them, and condemning them.  Frank language is rarely used, but the sexual discourse is encouraged in all of its confessional forms, in as much detail as possible.  It is almost as though stripping ourselves of our private and intimate association with sex, and making it available for public scrutiny is a way of depersonalizing it.  Your sexuality is no longer you own: confessors, writers, doctors, parents, politicians, etc, all have a say (and therefore power) over your most basic self.  As Foucault says, “A policing of sex: that is, not the rigor of a taboo, but the necessity of regulating sex through useful and public discourses (25).

The topic of limitations through unlimited discourse is amazingly provocative because even though The History of Sexuality was written in 1976, it goes against many popular ideas about modern sexuality. Thanks to the sexual revolution of the 1960’s and 1970’s (and perhaps even the 1990’s), one would not assume that pornography, talk shows, mainstream films, music, and fashion are tools of regulation.  Could Foucault be right? One issue up for inspection is the gay rights movement.  The sexuality of gays and lesbians determine the quality of marriage, family, medical care, and social respect they receive.  Stereotypes, accusations of pedophilia, and an implication of being “other” (as opposed to a normal heterosexual) keeps homosexuals from being accepted as equally participating members of society.  How is this done? It is done through discriminatory discourse – conversations about whether homosexuality can be cured, the proliferation of diseases caused by gay sex, the destabilization of the family unit, and why homosexuality is condemned by one religion or another.  In the age of gay pride parades, LOGO TV, gay priests and politicians, and Adam Lambert, anti-gay sentiment is just as out, loud, and proud.

Homosexuals are not the only group to feel the restrictive sting of open discourse.  Another group ruthlessly monitored by conversations on sex and sexuality is adolescents.  If ever there were a group of people defined and restricted by sex, then it would have to be teens.  Adolescence is the only phase in a person’s life where external forces ruthlessly mold their sexual selves.  Sexual discourse among teens is controversial because it at once goes against the belief that teens are too young, and therefore too innocent, to have a sexual self; and to include teens in the sexual discourse is to imply that teens have something worth saying on the issue.  Many parents, religions, and organizations are against true sexual education in schools.  That is to say that it is okay to have impersonal scientific discussions on the reproduction system, menstruation, hair growth, and voice changes.  Intentionally left out are the lessons about orgasms, birth control options, STDs, safer sex practices, and detailed child birth/delivery.  Candid conversations about sex are initiated and conducted amongst teens and their peers, but even within their own social structures, there are rules about what is said and how it is said. This is a form of adolescence having a small form of control over their sexual lives.

Open sexual conversation is not wrong.  It can be healthy and informative, and indeed, it is essential for any healthy, progressive, modern society.  Nevertheless, it also has a dangerous power that can affect the way we see and relate to the world, each other and ourselves.  With discourse comes the ability not only to educate but also to manipulate.  Adulterers, unwed mothers, spinsters, children, prostitutes, pop stars, politicians, mental patients and seniors are all affected by society’s open, and very vocal, idea of sexual etiquette, education and health.  A discourse on sexuality can be applied to any issue of the day that relates to who humans are morally and physically.  Are we sex mad?  Are we liberated?  Are we so repressed that we have to keep the topic of sex at the forefront of our minds and conversations so as not to unconsciously (and naturally) give in to the very things that we are trying to control?

Tags: adolescence, conversaton, discourse, education, gays, homosexuality, repressive hypothesis, restriction, teens

This entry was posted on Monday, February 8th, 2010 at 10:19 am and is filed under Foucault: History of Sexuality, Sharon Watson. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.