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?

To go along with my previous blog about power as a simulacrum, I want to delve deeper into Foucault's claim that sex is nothing more than an imagined construct. Sex is simply a term used to discuss the discourses on sexuality. Centuries ago, sexual intercourse was nothing more than an activity done in everyday life. There was nothing that needed to be assessed or fixed. Now, sex is an act that requires its own knowledge.

The majority of the second half of the History of Sexuality, when not discussing sexuality and alliance, deals with the relationship between power and sex. While I think the two can be mutually exclusive - you can have sex without a struggle and you can have power without sex - Foucault seems to intertwine them to the point where there is relatively no difference. By the end of his introduction to sex, power=sex. "Sex is without any norm or intrinsic rule...

Foucault raises the interesting paradox that faces our society: sex as something that is secret and taboo, yet discussed everywhere with everyone. We are a "prude" people that talk about sex in order to make it more prude. Society has managed to "hide sex in plain sight" -see where I got my title from :) .