For the record, I am horrified by the thought of child abuse and molestation. But I am a critical feminist as well and felt I should point out that you quoted Foucault out of context. However, I enjoyed reading this and think it’s important to engage with these important historical texts and am certainly glad you are doing so.

I think that if you look at my commentary more closely, you’ll see that we don’t disagree very much. I’ve read History of Sexuality (all 3 volumes) several times. I’m not quoting out of context because I know that this passage isn’t about abuse. However, it is still trivializing of it to a certain extent. – Ellie

also, please update! i know you’re a busy gal, but i want more! more! more!

but i also guarantee you that you will find more men. people would be outraged if it were a male teacher who did it to a female child, both because of the way we’re socialized, the apparent power differentials (they exist too when females are the sex offenders), but I also feel that it’s unfair the amount of attention that’s placed on somewhat attractive female teachers/sex offenders. they get disproportionate press and it’s sensationalized and sometimes trivialized–we need more accurate media that provides us with ways to protect our children from sexual abuse, more ways to empower our children and equip them to protect themselves. instead we pretend sex doesn’t happen until your 21 and that you’ll never need to learn about abuse, gender relations, self-defense, STDs, baby-making, contraceptives–until you’re an adult.

sad, sad, sad.

It’s sexist because people think fair play to the little guy, rather than thinking he might be hurt, confused and upset. They find it funny because he’s pulled a teacher and is hey, he’s doing man stuff, and he’s a boy, so it’s all good.

If the teacher had been male people would be outraged, society has double standards galore.

To me the point of this passage is the dichotomy of trivializing child abuse vs. understanding that the social repression of sexuality has harsher consequences then isolated incidences.

“One can be fairly certain that during this time period the Lapcourt schoolmaster was instructing the little villagers to mind their language and not talk about all these things aloud.”

The repression of sexuality, lack of sexual education and lack of basic healthy respect for ones body takes an act that can be almost innocent and make it life changingly traumatic.

It is the perversity of society is what Foucault is speaking about. If society did not secretize sex, if it didn’t sanctify and at the same time demonize sexuality, if it didn’t form guilt traps and unlivable systems of thought then these little girls who were “caressed” in the woods could run away and not be forever scarred.

Then there is the whole question of what social constructs placed the man in the position of needing to feel empowered by…

Eh. Why bother. Fucking Foucault. Mental masturbation… sort of literally. That bald French sadomasochistic genius. I wonder how much more condescending that passage sounds in perfect French.

I’m sure its quite condescending, I haven’t read it in French, though ;) I partially agree with what you are saying except perhaps the bit about repression is a misreading. The chapter on the repressive hypothesis is that repression is actually impossible. Acts to stiffle something, inevitably lead to a torrent of chatter and creation of talk about it. That is what he is getting at with the part about making the simpleton talk about sex. But, it all leads to the same point, that power flows in unpredictable ways but isn’t taken or given per se. – ellie

Thank you for saying something many of us think but haven’t had the courage to say.

I’m sure it has been said before but it bears repeating. – Ellie