Going into the second volume of his history of sexuality, Michel Foucault returns from the speculative nature of n  The History of Sexuality 1: The Will to Knowledgen to the prober histographics that he was known for earlier. Granted, the sources for how sexuality was viewed in pre-4oo B.C. Greece aren't numerous, but Foucault makes use of what he got in a very effective manner.

The purpose of n  The History of Sexuality, Volume 2: The Use of Pleasuren is twofold. First is to demonstrate how the ancient Greeks saw sexuality and second is differentiate this view with the framing of sexuality within the Christian paradigme. And Foucault does manage to do both.
Foucault aptly demonstrate how the Greeks' (or more specifically, Greek men's) view on sexuality was no bound up in the same morality as the later Christians, showing how the Greeks' morality, as it pertained to sex and sexuality, had less to do with the act itself and more to do with how and why the sexual act was performed.
However, I don't think this view of sexual morality is as different from the Christian tradition as Foucault would want us to think. As the subheading of the book would suggest, Foucault's main idea was that pleasure took up a central place in Greek sexual morality, in that pleasures should only be derived and should be enjoyed in moderation. But this same focus on pleasure can be also be found in certain Christian cults and tradition, that either considers pleasure as a necessary part of sexual relations or as a product of the Fall which has to be avoided to live in purity. So, while the framing of pleasure is entirely different, the Greek and Christian traditions do seem to have more in common than Foucault gives them credit for.

There's also an alarming lack of discussion on female sexuality in the book. Granted, I suspect that most writing on sexuality until fairly recently was completely male-focused, but Foucault never writes this. He just only deal with the history of sexuality as it pertain to males. Foucault does recognize that women exist and are dealt with in the litterature of the time, but he never goes any deeper than an acknowledgement. And in a work that set out to this in-depth, that seems strange.

I'll attempt to recap the whole thing in a few hundred words, without looking anything up. If you find something wrong, please let me know, it'll help me remember better.

DISCLAIMER: Foucault mentions multiple times that there are plenty of philosophers whose works have not been preserved, and so he bases his book mostly on Platonic-Socratic notions of sexuality.

First of, there was no notion of proper ''sexuality'' back in Ancient Greece. Of course there were ideas of homo and heterosexuality, but they weren't defined as that. Whatever notions of what we would now call sexuality were mixed together with other bodily desires, such as eating and drinking (named the Aphrodisia) created to sustain a principle of an ''ethical subject'', which, simply put, means that there needed to be a system of rules so you could see how noble of a being you actually were. There were ethical guidelines to conform yourself to, and esteem your (but probably more importantly so) other's worth as ''ethical subjects''.

So we have the bodily desire catalog, the aphrodisia being the sexual one.
Sex was believed to have certain effects on the body, such as cooling it (through ejaculation - they supposed that something heated up and then left your body, which makes sense in the 4 temperaments theory). Because it cooled you, it would be appropriate to have sex when ''overheated'' (for example) this form of theorizing is named ''dietetics'' by Foucault. It's the logical approach to bodily changes through sex, analyzed to fit the circumstances and overall state of the body. This was important because they also believed sperm was some of the most important content in your body (how else could it create a person? it must take something important from you to create a mini you), stemming from the brain, through your marrow, into your balls, etc. Because sex was so vital and dangerous (you can't tap your brain for babies forever, you'd suppose), proper care was taken to ensure that the circumstances were just right to create the right baby at the right time. Age of marriage was 30-35 for men, around 20-25 for women, sex was to be had in the right state of mind, with the right intentions, etc. This had to ensure that Athens would receive an honorable citizen. These rules were there for the Polis, not for the couple themselves.

Then there's the economics:
This was a question of honor, self control, and rightfully enjoying what is yours. Foucault writes that because of the loss of vital fluids, sex was prescribed to be had as little as possible. To give in to sexual desires was a loss of self-mastery, and showed that one was incapable of ruling himself, which would raise doubt about his capability of ruling the city (all this moralizing obviously only applies to free men of Athens). Moreover, a lack of sexual fidelity was disrespectful to your wife, whom you trusted to run your household and your possessions. This is also a major thing in homosexual relations, because you couldn't be greedy for boy butt, you just kind of had to let it happen, but only for the right reasons. Basically, homosexuality was a thing, but nobody really liked to say it was. A ton of moralizing surrounded it, and both approval of natural beauty regardless of gender as straight up gay bashing seem to have been the ruling opinions.

Some interesting other stuff outside of the main theories:
- A woman/girl being raped is not as punishable as a woman being seduced, because rape is damage of property, while seducing is putting into question who's property the woman/girl actually is.
- A woman wearing make-up for her man was (in one story at least) frowned upon, because it concealed the true nature of the woman, and so it masked the product, which is false advertising.
- Some ''boys'' were 28 years old.
- One of the problems with homosexuality was the duality of sex. One was dominant (male), the other submissive (female). If you had sex with a man, one of you was the bitch, with all the contemporary connotations applied. This is why it was hard to just give up your bum to any friendly old man, but why it could be very rewarding for you if you appropriately chose the right man of status to give your bum to, because that meant you completely surrendered to be his object of pleasure, without you having the right to enjoy it.

That's basically it. Once again, feel free to comment whatever important thing you think I missed.

The level of hatred that I have for Foucault and his bullshit really cannot be overstated.

better than the first one.

In Ancient Greece, it was less a question of who, slightly more of a question of who did what, but primarily, a question of moderation because of anxiety about the violence of the act of sex. Consequently, in some ways, making a show of restraint in desires was somewhat contrived. Food had a relationship with sex. The main question, though (in Ancient Greece), was how to make a boy a man- from a shadily and aggressively pursued submissive object to a dominant man in control of his own pleasures?

A good book for those already interested in Foucault’s work, with some interesting development of his ideas regarding the self, knowledge, and practices, but nothing mind-blowing. It mostly works as a preface to his other discussions of sexuality. Won’t blow any minds

تاريخ الجنسانية و احد من أكثر الكتب الفكرية التي استمتعت بقراءته. بالتأكيد يرجع الفضل في ذلك لجدارة الكاتب في طرح و تحليل هذا الموضوع بالإضافة لإهتمامي الشخصية في الموضوع كحالة إنسانية و فكرية.
يقدم هذا الجزء من مجموعة تاريخ الجنسانية المنظور اليوناني لها. حيث يوضح فوكو الفضاء الذي تعامل فيه اليونان (بصفتهم أجداد للثقافة الأوروبية و المسيحية المقبلة) معها، مؤكدا أنهم بالرغم من إقرارهم بالعلاقات المثلية بالإضافة للزواج الشرعي، فإنهم عاملوا الجنسانية كموضوع للمتعة و إنشغلوا بسبل أستعمالها الصحية و الضارة، و ليس بكونه موضع للرغبة المباحة أو المحرمة كما تتناوله ثقافتنا الحاضرة.

ينفتح الكتاب على مصرية لمسائلة مفهوم الجنسانية و استعمال المتع في الفكر أو المجتمع اليوناني. يصف الإحتراز و الإهتمام الذي لونه للموضوع بصورة تحررية نسبيا إذا ما قارناها مع مجتمعنا. فهم يأخذون الممارسة الجنسية كشكل طبيعي لإنجزاب الإنسان نحو كل فرد جميل، بغض النظر عن نوعه. من جهة أخرى معالجتهم له بصفتها جزء من إحتيياجاتهم اليومية بالإضافة للأكل و الشرب، و يعالجونه وفقا للحاجة و الضرورة مقدرين خطورة الإسراف في متعة ترطبت بشكل وثيق لتقدم مجتمعهم و بقائة.

ما أثر أنتباهي في هذا للكتاب كان؛ أولاً: دور المؤلف فقد كان يعرض بإتقان وجهة النظر الأثينية و يحتل مقعد خلفي رصين في كتابه، فلا يتدخل صوته إلا لتوضيح أو صياغة مسار الكتاب بطرح الأسئلة الصحيحة. ثانياً: كان في تكون الفكر اليوناني بحد ذاته، فهو فكر صفوة بجدارة، حيث يتحدث فيه أفلاطون عن مدينة فاضلة لمواطنين زكور بالدرجة الأولة و أحرار، فهم بذلك يخرص باقي الأصوات بكل بساطة بمن فيهم من أطفال و عبيد و شيوخ، و على رئسهم صوت المرأة التي تعامل كتبعية و ملكية بحت، حيث أن الفكر الأثيني يدو على دولاب السلطة السياسية و الإقتصادية المولاة لهذه الصفوة.ثالثاً؛ لوهلة بدت لي الأفكار اليونانية فيها الكثير من الإطناب المثالي عن "ما يجب أن يكون عليه" السلوك و الجنسي الذي تحول شيء فشيء بالنسبة لهم لمادة أخلاقية يقاس بها إعتدال و أهلية الفرد من بينهم. فنجد في فكرهم شيء من الغرور و السمو لكمال لا يمت بكثير من الصلة للأرض الواقع، الشيء الذي جعلني استذكر كتاب نيتشة (المأساة في العصر الإغريقي) حيث يؤكد أن الفلسفة قد ظهرة متممة و خاتمة لتلك الحضارة تسير نحو انهيارها وزوالها.

أخيرا، اود أن اقر بأن (استعمال المتع) قد اشبع فضولي، و يدفعني أكثر نحو الجزء الأخير لهذه المجموعة. لقد نجح بطرح أسئلة أزلية ببساطة متزنة بأستعانته بالإرث الأثيني فأعط كل سؤال وزنه و شكله الأولي. عندما بدات في كتابة هذه المراجعة لم تكون في نيتي تلخيص الكتاب، ففي نظري أن الكتاب بعينه هو ملخص لا يمكن الإستفادة منه سوى بقطع رحلة قراءته من الغلاف للغلاف، و بذلك وضعت انطباعاتي و أفكاري عنه، و انصح به لكل من رغب بقراءة عمل فكري مثير.

Moderno čitanje grčkih učenja o prirodi tela, režima, odnosa, braka

"no podría haber deseo sin privación, sin carencia de la cosa deseada, y sin mezcla por consiguiente de cierto sufrimiento; pero el apetito, explica en el Filebo, sólo puede provocarse con la representación, la imagen o el recuerdo de lo que da placer; de ahí concluye que no podría haber deseo más que en el alma, ya que si el cuerpo es alcanzado por la carencia, es el alma y sólo el alma la que puede por el recuerdo hacer presente lo que se desea y así suscitar la epithymia."

In this book, Foucault seeks to show how sexual acts and sexual pleasures were problematized in classical Greek thought, specifically by the doctors and philosophers of the time period beginning with the Pre-Socratics, and continuing until shortly after Aristotle. Foucault begins with an extended discussion of how the Greeks talked about sexuality, and how they viewed morality in relation to sexual relations. He then goes on to discuss what he sees to be the three primary areas of problematization in Greek thought about Sexuality: Dietetics (how one should pursue the sexual pleasures--timing, amount, etc.), Economics (the sexual pleasures in the Household), and Erotics (which he characterizes primarily as the love for adolescent boys that men expressed). He then looks at how the Platonic tradition developed the notion of a true love which is a pursuit and desire for truth--bringing about the idea that true love eschews the physical, preferring the spiritual. In his conclusion, Foucault argues that contemporary occidental (and even Christian) views on sexuality, found in occidental moralities, find their roots not in Christianity, but in early Greek reflections on dietetics, economics, and boy-love (erotics); and, in how they problematized the various times, places, and uses of sex acts, desires, and pleasures. It is here, thinks Foucault, that we see the development, in occidental thought, of freedom as a "power game".

O capítulo um, Problematização Moral dos Prazeres, com aphrodisia se refere a moral sexual da Grécia antiga, assim como chresis trata do uso dos prazeres propriamente dito, ou seja, o grau de temperança mantido, enquanto enkratheia trata do autodominio necessário para atingir a mesma e liberdade e verdade trata do homem viril que se coloca em posição ativa de temperança em oposição a passividade pelos desejos da intempérie.
No capítulo dois, Dietética, na parte intitulada Do Regime em Geral, Foucault aborda o tema do regime como intrínseco ao saber médico. A Dieta dos Prazeres trata das regulações cronológicas para as atividades sexuais na Grécia antiga. Riscos e Perigos trata sobre o lado negativo dos excessos sexuais, enquanto O Ato, O Dispêndio, A Morte demonstra o quanto os gregos não sabiam nada sobre a sexualidade, com especial ênfase na sexualidade feminina.
No capítulo três, Econômica, na parte A Sabedoria do Casamento, Foucault trata da moral que exigia a fidelidade da esposa, enquanto o marido poderia ter as concumbinas (destinadas as amenidades do dia-a-dia a dois) e cortesãs (destinadas exclusivamente ao prazer sexual) para além das esposas oficiais (destinadas a oferecerem uma descendência legítima). A casa de Isômaco trata dos deveres femininos na casa, ou ainda os alicerces intelectuais do patriarcado. Três políticas de temperança trata de tanto homem quanto a mulher eram pautados na política da temperança, a mulher de uma forma que ficasse submissa e o homem numa posição de dominação.
No capítulo quatro, Erotica, na parte Uma Relação Problemática Foucault delineia os trâmites das relações homossexuais na Grécia antiga, de como não havia nenhum problema moral em relacionar-se com adolescentes, ao mesmo tempo em que estes crescidos deviam naturalmente deixar a sua passividade de lado. A Honra de um Rapaz esmiuça o quanto era mal vista a passividade e promiscuidade homossexual na Grécia antiga. O Objeto de Prazer traz o interdito da prostituição masculina e de como se era praticamente proibido sentir prazer numa relação homossexual passiva.
No capítulo cinco, Verdadeiro Amor, trata sobre o Eros platônico muito mais próximo de uma Philia do que o Eros clássico.

In this, it is proved that sexuality (or rather the frequency of its practice, and between whom) was not considered to be a moral sin as it is indicated in Judeo-Christian (and even current) mores. But sexuality was so closely intertwined with asceticism within Greek culture that to practice a sort of dietetics was necessary in order to be considered a capable man; to know when, how, how often, who to practice one’s sexuality on was indicative of one’s ability to be a functioning political actor. Put simply, they didn’t give a fuck who you fucked just as long as you used your drive to perform society’s functions which so demanded self-mastery. Asked simply, the Judeo-Christian ideals of sexuality (between married men and women) have so been embedded in our current society but has so fucked up in many ways, how did it come to dominate over the Greek’s ideas on sexuality?

Gotta keep reading Foucault’s next instalment in order to answer that question. BRB.