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.

This is some deep genealogy, something that is a far cry from the more wild, theoretical-level writings of the young Foucault. He turns his attentions to the Greeks, arguing that they viewed sexuality more in terms of dietetic regimen, one to be conformed with for maximum health. A point which he repeats ad nauseam. Now, I enjoyed the examples given but -- and this shouldn’t be a surprise given Foucault's rather androcentric view of sex -- he seems to leave female desire almost completely out of the equation. One could argue that the heavily patriarchal nature of Greek society made this an inevitability in terms of the available sources, but that's no excuse for a researcher of Foucault's caliber. Onward, a bit more cautiously this time, to Volume 3.

لا أشعر بجدوى المراجعة بسبب عدم قدرتي على تخيّل مراجعة مختصرة و الاختصار عندي شرط صحة لا شرط كمال..فإذن أقول :إن فوكو اقتصر هنا على أدب اليونان في الافروديسا "متع الحب" و الغذائي و الاقتصادي بما هو إدارة البيت و حكمة الزواج و فرّق بين مبدأ الاعتدال- في متع الحب- عند اليونان ومبدأ التنقيص و التطهير عند المسيحية حول الافروديسا.
_
ينقل فوكو عن سقراط هذا المعنى : "إن الاعتدال في استعمال المتع هو ثمرة نظام أنطولوجي تنتجه علاقة الفرد مع الحقيقة ". هذا والسلام.

I DID IT

really interesting, but it took me a lot of effort to get through. the last chapter on ‘true love’ was beautifully written and i do have to say that the conclusion got me excited for volume three.

This book contains interesting reflections on how subjectivity was formed in ancient Greek culture around (sexual) pleasure as a result of relations men had with oneself in terms of moderation, selfmastery, selfstylization and domination. As such, Foucault shows, the Greeks developed an ethics of the self through selfcare.

A criticical note: the book contains alot of redundancy and repetition, which usually isn't the case with Foucault.

What further strikes me is that Foucault doesn't give women a voice in his book, while a history of female (sexual) pleasure can also certainly be written, or at least be given a place in a book such as this. Think for example about works and reflections on female (lesbian) pleasure in poems of Sappho and Alcaeus to name just two examples from ancient Greece. He calls his book 'The History of Sexuality', yet in my opinion he only offers a very selective and limited reading of this history, making this book as masculine as the culture and its practices that it's trying to describe.

Foucault answers questions I had about sex and sexuality. Conservative Christians do not want to think about the question of sexual pleasure, they are afraid of their sexuality, in particular, they are afraid of female sexuality. Conservative Christians attack Foucault for being a homosexual, they are afraid of his ideas. The best way to describe Foucault, the western world before Foucault, the western world after Foucault. Foucault’s thought has heavily influence feminism. He is the most important philosopher of the 20th century.

I keep thinking about the abortion issue while reading Foucault, “History of Sexuality. He makes the argument in “Discipline and Punish” that the modern western world is more concern with punishing the soul rather than the body. I would agree with Foucault on that point in regards to the abortion issue. The conservatives are using fear, and the threat of violence or death to punish women for their sexual behaviour.

En Historia de la sexualidad II, Foucault continúa el proyecto investigador sobre la sexualidad, sólo que esta vez se centra en cómo la actividad sexual fue problematizada por los filósofos y médicos de la Antigua Grecia, para quienes no interesaba tanto el objeto de la actividad, sino los modos y convenciones que giraban alrededor de dicha práctica.
En términos de lectura es un libro con una escritura menos pedregosa que el primer volumen, por lo que se hace más fácil de seguir; pero no por ello es menos complejo en torno a las temáticas que presenta. De hecho, me atrevería a decir que multiplica las complejidades en torno a las mismas, lo que me parece sencillamente estupendo.
Ahora si, un par de novelas más y me mando con el tercero.

A staple in understanding the relation between self-inquiry, power dynamics and social hierarchies to defining and exploring sexuality as an object of concern. In this volume, Focault breaks down the ancient Greek conceptions of sexuality on health and moderation, social structures (namely, the institution of marriage and household management) and love and self-mastery. He covers common misconceptions about Greek "bisexuality" or pedophilia and instead demonstrates how these practices contributed to the broader context of social, physical and spiritual life.

Truly opened my mind to the varying dynamics at play in defining sexuality in the past as well as the present. The gears continue turning.

Va bene che rispetto al volume 1 il taglio di quest’opera è nettamente diverso, ma mi sembra che sia stata scritta da una persona completamente diversa (sarà forse che ho letto il primo volume in traduzione?).
Il volume 2 è scritto in maniera estremamente comprensibile, la scrittura scorre; Foucault presenta le sue idee, poi le argomenta, poi le corregge, e infine le riprende e le sintetizza. Ma soprattutto si ricollega sempre a problematiche successive, più o meno attuali, confrontandole con lucidità, senza cercare corrispondenze misteriose e senza erigere barriere insormontabili.

The first chapter, on morals, is the clearest overview of the Ancient Greek ethical system / debate that I have ever read. Why wasn't I assigned this in college.

En el segundo volumen de la historia de la sexualidad, foucault se centra en la antigua Grecia, partiendo de sus discursos prescriptivos, sus relaciones prácticas con los sujetos de la realidad y, sobre todo, de una construcción de una moral de los hombres y jóvenes libres (sí, hombres, porque básicamente las mujeres y los esclavos quedaron relegados a un segundo plano).

El libro recorre el ejercicio de la sexualidad como una problematización de los tres ejes centrales de la antigua Grecia (la dietética y sus tiempos de avidez o inanición, la económica como fundamento familiar, el dominio de sí mismo y los demás, y la erótica o el uso de los placeres frente a los amantes -el sujeto y el objeto- del deseo, el amor y el placer), así como también la relación de una moral que no se centra exclusivamente en la prohibición o permisión de determinadas conductas, sino en la determinación del sujeto masculino frente a aquellos que le rodean. Una lectura que ayuda a comprender de dónde vienen algunas de las instituciones y creencias del mundo moderno, entendiendo que lo contemporáneo comprende también al mundo clasico griego.

It does indeed seem to be the case that many of the ancient Greeks and Romans were oblivious to what we see as the ethical issues pertaining to human sexuality. Of course, given our limited sources, it is difficult to generalize with a high degree of certainty. What we have was written by elites and filtered through elites over centuries when women were regarded as inferior, adulthood started earlier, marriages were frequently arranged and various forms of slavery (often including a sexual component) were taken for granted. Yet within this milieu existed Judaism and arose Christianity, both of which did promulgate ethics of sexuality.