"the mere fact that one claimed to be speaking about [sex] from the rarefied and neutral viewpoint of a science is in itself significant. This was in fact a science made up of evasions since, given its inability or refusal to speak of sex itself, it concerned itself primarily with aberrations, perversions, exceptional oddities, pathological abatements, and morbid aggravations" (53)

As one of two(?) natural science people in the class, I always feel obliged to address the authors' viewpoints/attacks on the natural sciences. In this case, Foucault questions the objectivity of science in its proclivity for studying oddities and aberrations rather than normal/standard/unexceptional sex. First, it is always easier, regardless of discipline, to understand a disturbed system than a system at equilibrium. Also, studying a system tends to change it (see Schroedinger's cat).

One of my other courses this semester, 'the Human Brain', provides a clear example of this. This course surveys our basic understanding of the human brain. The vast majority of information comes from patients that have undergone some brain trauma and lost normal functioning. These patients allow us to investigate the normal function of brain regions by observing what happens when they are impaired.

Perhaps this example does not directly parallel with the science of sexuality. It may be less invasive to discern the average person's sex habits than to dissect their brain. I just want to complicate Foucault's indictment of science's focus on "exceptional oddities" a bit.