I was left with a nagging question in the wake of today's class. Where does Foucault (and where should we) draw the line between the innate aspects of sexuality and constructed ones? Unless you believe that biology is so integrated into society's ideology that there is absolutely no causal relationship from objective body (as in something fundamental and epistemologically vague that underlies and legitimates our construct of a 'body') ->politics, there has to be at least some predisposition to certain patterns of stimulus producing pleasure that the methods of power have to co-opt. I was never exactly clear on where this line was drawn; Foucault's focus is more on separating a highly constructed sexuality from the act of sex itself, and revealing how society has constructed this act and its connotations partially, as we addressed in class, by generating a great deal of mystery and excitement around the act of sex itself. But there seems to be something in his description of how sexuality becomes a complex and potent conduit for power flow suggesting that there is something innate, predating ideology, to be made use of: "each of them corresponded to one of the strategies which, each in its own way, invested and made use of the sex of women, children, and men" (105). Plus as someone (I lost the blog sheet) mentioned in class, the experience of the act of sex is very complex when you try to really make sense of it in light of Foucault's arguments. It's difficult when focusing on experience and trying to give it a full and honest accounting not to feel that there are at least some elements there which predate or fall outside of ideology, no matter how co-opted they may have become into this act of sex that hides the politics of sexuality.