Victorian Standards Of Sexuality In The 20th Century

This critical; analysis will define the theme of the “repressive hypothesis” of Michel Foucault’s analysis of the Victorian standards of sexuality in the 20th century. Foucault argues that the 19th century Victorian bourgeoisie has defined the moral and ethical values of sexuality through the restrictive confinement of marriage. In the 20th century, Foucault critiques the history of Victorian sexuality as an oppressive regime through a Marxist and Freudian analysis that confines sexual relations to marriage, while, at the same time, makes non-marital sex a deviant or an illegally immoral act. In this case, the issue of morality challenges the established notion that sex has become demonized outside of the institution of marriage, but Foucault

Certainly, the patriarchal aspects of Victorian sexuality define a one-sided view of sexuality that is confined within the home. Certainly, the view of sex outside of marriage has been excessively promoted through Victorian oral standards as the “moral” approach to sex, but surely, there are many unmarried people that may not share this view of love and sex through the validation of the state or church: “But we must also ask why we burden ourselves today with so much guilt for having once made sex a sin” (Foucault 9). However, the institution of marriage does provide a gauge for intimacy (getting to know and love another person over time), as well as the notion of knowing the health history of the individuals that have become married. In this manner, the premise of Foucault’s argument against the institution of marriage as a conduct of bourgeoisie is correct in the institutional propaganda of the Victorian era, yet he does not define the benefits of marriage in terms of intimacy and the stability of long-term marital commitments as a practical means of sexual intimacy. In this manner, Foucault does not address the practical aspects of sexuality that define marriage as a long-term commitment to sexual relations, which go

Of course, the intimacy of sexual relations does not always have to be based on trust or forethought, but the benefits of sex in a martial context would provide greater background information on the individuals in terms of disease and other sexual behaviors that obstruct healthy sexuality. In some ways, Foucault only argues through the class-based or cultural framework of sexuality through the institution of marriage, which does provide many forms of sexual repression (especially for women in a patriarchal society), but he does not address the benefits of marriage in terms of public health. For example, the perceived immorality of hiring a prostitute may be a form of liberation from the institution of marriage, but it certainly does not guarantee that the individual will not catch a contagious disease. Without prior knowledge of the prostitute's health status (or that of a causal sex partner), the issue of public health is an important factor in critiquing marriage. Marriage can also be beneficial to those individual that want transparency and trust in sexual relations, which provides a practical framework for marriage outside of Foucault’s Marxist and Freudian ideological analysis of class conflict and sexual repression. This is an important critique of Foucault’s argument on