Michel Foucault & The Age of Consent

In this episode, I unpack the infamous 1977 letter signed by many French intellectuals including Simone de Beauvoir, Gilles Deleuze, Michel Foucault, Félix Guattari, Jean-Francois Lyotard, and others critiquing France's consent laws.
If you want to support me, you can do that with these links:
Patreon: / theoryandphilosophy
paypal.me/theoryphilosophy
TikTok: @theoryphilosophy
Twitter: @DavidGuignion
IG: @theory_and_philosophy
Podbean: theoretician.podbean.com/

[@TheoryPhilosophy]

Relationships between children, teenagers and adults are subject by law to major restrictions: either through the notion of "statutory rape" (which can be as simple as harboring a minor for a night), or through the general prohibition on sexual relations with anyone under 15, or through the special prohibition on homosexual relations involving minors aged 15 to 18, defined as "immoral or against nature". The obsolescence of the concepts underlying these crimes and offenses ("modesty", "nature"), and the changing mores of a youth that feels oppressed by the excesses of meticulous segregation, mean that these legal texts are no more than the instrument of coercion, instead of guaranteeing a right. A recent case has clearly demonstrated the disproportion between the penal system and the nature of the acts it punishes. After more than three years in pre-trial detention, three people accused of "indecent assault consummated or attempted without violence on the person of children of either sex under the age of 15", facts which the law (article 331 of the penal code) qualifies as "crimes", were sentenced by the Yvelines Assize Court to 5 years in prison, suspended. Three years and three months' imprisonment, in a case which resulted in a suspended sentence, was only made possible because the law, by means of the "criminal" qualification, justifies the slow procedure, whereas a "misdemeanor" qualification would have made it possible to have the case tried by the Correctional Court, according to a faster procedure. Since the promulgation of the law of August 6, 1975, pre-trial detention in criminal cases may not exceed six months. But above all, beyond the case of the defendants, the Yvelines case, judged in open court, posed the problem of knowing at what age children or adolescents can be considered capable of freely giving their consent to a sexual relationship. This is a social issue. It's up to the Commission for the Revision of the Penal Code to come up with the answer of our time, as it is responsible for proposing to the Government updated and up-to-date texts, which will then be submitted to Parliament. The signatories of this letter consider that the complete freedom of the partners in a sexual relationship is the necessary and sufficient condition for the legality of this relationship. The Penal Code of 1810, promulgated by Napoleon I, did not foresee sexual repression of acts not accompanied by violence, regardless of the age of the participants. He only considered the case of rape or “indecent assault committed with violence.” It was the law of April 28, 1832 which created the offense of "indecent assault committed without violence against a child under 11 years of age." This text, modeled on the living text of “expectations committed with violence,” gave the facts the same “criminal” qualification. It has remained in force until today, the age of the minority having been raised twice, first under Napoleon III, by the law of May 13, 1863, which raised it to 13 years, then by the Provisional Government Order of July 2, 1945, which increases it to 15 years. This “criminal” qualification today leads to aberrant results. Sticking to the letter of the text, anyone, whether an adult or a minor, who has practiced or attempted to practice any sexual relationship with a minor under the age of 15, commits a crime, which must send them to court. of Assizes and makes him face a sentence of 5 to 10 years of criminal imprisonment. Inapplicable text and inapplicable in most cases, because, if it were, we would see every day boys appearing in the Assize Court, for having "had fun" with a 14 year old girlfriend on some beach or in some public housing cellar. The Legislator himself could be accused of "complicity with crime," since he recently authorized the sale of contraceptives to girls under 15, which presupposes sexual intercourse, therefore a crime on the part of the partner. It therefore appears that it is appropriate at least to "decriminalize" this offense, and essentially take into account the consent of the minor. Furthermore, with regard to adolescents aged 15 to 17, the law already recognizes their ability and freedom to engage in sexual relations, but with the eminently discriminatory reservation that it is involves heterosexual relationships. Their partners, adults or minors, do not commit any crime by having sexual relations with them, as long as they are of a different sex and do not encourage them to escape the authority of their parents or guardians. On the other hand, this partner, adult or minor, if he is of the same sex, is guilty of a possible offense of "imprisonment of 6 months to 3 years and a fine of $6o to $15,000." Indeed, while, from 1790 to 1942, the arsenal of French criminal laws, inspired by the enlightenment of the 18th century, completely ignored any offense of homosexuality, and was only established by the Vichy law of August 6, 1942 aimed at "anyone who has...committed one or more immodest or unnatural acts with a minor of his or her sex." This text, which became article 331 #3 of the penal code, is still in force, and is daily applied, thus allowing a "homosexuality offense" to persist in our country, whereas, in most Western countries, since the end of the Second World War, the evolution of morals and ideas led legislators to remove it from the codes. The signatories of this letter denounce the unfairness and discriminatory nature of article 331 #3 of the penal code. They believe that this text must be repealed, as the texts punishing adultery, the termination of pregnancies, and contraceptive practices were fortunately repealed. Finally, they consider, more generally, that the provisions claiming to "protect" children and young people, such as article 334-1 concerning "the incitement of minors to debauchery", which permits the indictment of any person "promoting" or "facilitating" sexual relations between minors, or article 356 concerning the "misappropriation of minors," are, like article 331, increasingly incompatible with developments of our society, justifying harassment and purely police controls, and must be repealed, or profoundly modified, in the sense of recognition of the right of children and adolescents to maintain relationships with people of choice.

[@leninscat6104]

my god it's also such a superficial approach to intellectual thought and theory. like how are we supposed to engage in ANY idea in philosophy if our philosophers also have to be these do-no-evil puritans that twitter wants them to be. we need to be able to navigate the terrain of critical theory and mediate between its content and the potentially flawed personalities of its authors.

[@rodionraskolnikov3853]

A corrupt mind creates corrupt ideas and world views.

[@blu3_fish869]

this is going to get wild

[@marxcherry]

Thanks for making this, it’s really gross how flippantly some people bring up this charged topic just to dismiss philosophers they don’t like and not to actually highlight how they were very seriously wrong!! Maybe this would’ve been outside the scope of the video but when people bring up the petition they also tend to talk about the very suspect Tunisia allegation so mentioning that would’ve been helpful

[@bej6190]

@@RationalistMHThere is absolutely evidence for it, I would recommend looking at the Jeune Afrique investigation. You can acknowledge Foucault's work had merit without denying his crimes in Tunisia

[@RationalistMH]

@@bej6190 Thats not true. From the jeune afrique article, which is by the way in no way an official police investigation but only speculating on what might have happened, they claim that ‘Foucault n’était pas pédophile mais était séduit par les jeunes éphèbes. Des gars de 17 ou 18 ans qu’il retrouvait brièvement dans les bosquets sous le phare voisin du cimetière. ‘ So thats much different than what the accuser accused him of which was of sexual acts with 9-12 year olds. And again, no police report or investigation has ever been filed against him, to this day. The burden is not on Foucault to prove he is not a pedophile but on his accusers to prove that he was. A crime is established by a court, not by a few speculations made by essayists or journalists with no direct involvement in the situation . Either you believe in presumption of innocence or you don’t.

[@bej6190]

@@RationalistMH It is not "speculation by journalists", it is the testimony of the village elder, who was trying to defend him and said that he was "seduced by young (17yr old) ephebes. Of course there is no police report - he was a frenchman in 1960s Tunisia

[@bej6190]

@@RationalistMH I think 41 year old man having sex with a 17 year old boy is pedophilia, especially when this man has written extensively and widely largely in defense of the very acts he is accused of. I obviously do not support child marriage, I am not sure what you are trying to say. Once again, bringing up homophobia is extremely cowardly

[@bushwacka5187]

@@RationalistMH Foucault was a diddler and his daughter Queer Theory is even more degenerate. Doesn't mean that Madness and Civilization wasn't great and that Gayle Rubin's work had no merits.

[@tealeafmissile4849]

Thank you so much for giving a comprehensive deeper look into this whole thing. Its for sure one of those "fun facts" you tend to stumble over when reading foucault but never get a proper overview of which can lead to constructing hasty oppinions on the topic.

[@whereisawesomeness]

A useful video overall, but I have a disagreement with your reading of the letter. I don’t believe it calls for the decriminalisation of sexual relations between children and adults. There are four concrete statements that are relevant here. First, they say of the age at which a person can consent that ‘It’s up to the Commission for the Revision of the Penal Code to come up with the answer for our time’. To my reading at least, that would suggest that the signatories are not proposing any specific age, but believe that there should be one. The second concrete statement they make is ‘that the complete freedom of the partners in a sexual relationship is the necessary and sufficient condition for the legality of this relationship.’ The word ‘sufficient’ here could be read as implying that age should not be relevant, but it could simply be that cases where the age of the partners is relevant cannot be considered completely free. The third concrete statement: ‘It therefore appears that it is appropriate to “decriminalise” this offence, and essentially take into account the consent of the minor.’ This is immediately after a) having pointed out that sex between minors would be a crime, and b) the point about the culpability of the legislature. Those two would be the referents of the word ‘therefore’. Thus, the reasoning for decriminalisation is unrelated to sexual relations between minors and adults. Further, to ‘take into account the consent of the minor’ would seem to require the creation of a replacement law. Note that to ‘account for’ a minor’s consent is not necessarily to disregard all other matters. The matter of ‘the consent of the minor’ would seem most applicable in cases where all parties are minors. Finally: ‘The signatories of this letter denounce the unfairness and discriminatory nature of article 331 #3 of the penal code’; most likely this refers to the discrimination between heterosexual and homosexual relationships. They also denounce article 334-1 on the basis that it could allow the prosecution of ‘any person “promoting” or “facilitating” sexual relations between minors’, as well as ‘article 356 concerning the “misappropriation of minors”’. Regarding 334-1, note that they specify ‘between minors’, not ‘between minors and adults’; ‘promoting’ and ‘facilitating’ can of course mean any number of things, as the history of legal censorship of sexual education shows quite well. On article 356 they say essentially nothing. I can see how the letter could be interpreted in the way you outline, but, in my opinion, it could just as easily be read in the way I’ve outlined.

[@TheoryPhilosophy]

I think that you provide some much needed extra nuance to understanding the letter's scope. I should have mentioned this, but I was also influenced by Foucault's interview after signing the letter in which he states that consent - no matter the ages of the two (or more) parties involved - should be the only criterion with which to gauge the act's legality. I think that his perspective clouded my ability to apply the same nuance that you do here. Cheers!

[@adamlagerqvist8111]

​​@@TheoryPhilosophywould this not still mean that a relationship between an adult and a minor would be illegal since the minor in this scenario would be unable to consent?

[@millanee-san]

@@TheoryPhilosophythis is a miss… even if you read Lee Edelman or so other critical thinkers u are comitting huge basic hetero normative morality bias… and you are welcoming “the good laws” on your discourse… that’s bland.. I unsubscribe. I don’t want to feed my algorithm with u, i was wrong of u and in a now bad way.

[@floralia01]

Hey, I just wanted to say that I really appreciated this comment. It’s some much needed context written in a very concise format, and expertly/charitably specifies a proper response to the systemic controversy. Thanks.

[@kolliwanne964]

​@@millanee-sanWhat are you even on about?

[@theo7627]

Thank you for this important video. I’ve heard so many contradictory things about this case but now you clarified it, thanks again!

[@Edmonddantes123]

Much more important than this letter was that both Foucault and Mazneff (and other French intellectuals) allegedly assaulted children (in Foucault’s case, there’s also a racial component…). Mazneff even wrote openly in his published diaries about it. In the French discourse, these crimes seem to be minimised, see also the long silence about Gauguin’s abuse of minors in Tahiti

[@robertcarpenter8077]

Very good review of the three issues addressed in the letter. Now my understanding of Foucault and sexuality is encapsulated in his notion, paraphrasing, that 'sexuality can only be deployed'. It is much more the produced effect of culture rather than a trapped secret which can only be sussed out by the techniques of psychiatry. In fact for Foucault, psychiatry functions as one of the means by which sexuality is deployed. As you say for almost all of human history age of consent laws were clustered around 12 years and were for the protection of girls from men. The criminalization of sexual relations between women and boys seems to be of very recent origins. Finally as I understand Foucault, raising the age of consent comes about only after psychiatry, for a variety of reasons including arrogating power to itself, reworks the problem of identity such that one's fundamental identity was coerced into being his sexual identity. At the same time this newly coerced identity was imbued with great fragility needing if you like to be carefully 'chaperoned' until it adequately matured, with psychiatry only too happy to participate in the chaperon role. This quality of fragility which psychiatry invested sexuality with at the end of the 19th century has had a gestation period now running into generations. What it has mutated into is a baroque, florid tree which continues to foliate sexual identities at the same time these identities become ever more delicate, require that ever greater levels of protection be afforded them by the state. This has of course manifested in the guise of laws mandating the use of correct pronouns and harsh state mediated punishments for pronoun transgressions. What is noteworthy is that it is exactly this manifestation of sexuality which Foucault warned about. Where this sort of modern sexuality has led man down a blind alley, has produced a medico-juridical sexuality which functions primarily to incite conflict, for Foucault the point was to steer clear of such a blind alley and to focus on the problem of how to make oneself more susceptible to pleasure.

[@rayan5150]

Great video, thank you for translating and posting the letter. This is the first time I read it. 1- We need to acknowledge that “pedophilia” has been weaponed, specifically in America (usually, and ironically, by the right against the left and especially against homosexuals). Discussing the age of consent and questioning it became a taboo. The age of consent has become off limits, no one is allowed to talk about it without being cancelled at best or prosecuted at worst. This is quite ironic to happen in a supposedly free society. Even you, you had to exaggerate and repeat yourself in order to make your position clear. For me this only highlights an issue within the United States. Why is this topic almost banned and people have to censor themselves when talking about it because of fear that they might get misunderstood! 2- I agree with what you said in the beginning of the video. Using “pedophilia” to attack gay men happens ALL the time. Again, ironically by the religious right. So, bringing up this letter every time anyone talks about Foucault is NOTHING but an attempt to cancel his work instead of discussing it. They make it sound as if he advocated for himself to have sex with minors. 3- Based on my understanding of Foucault’s work, he has an issue with the state regulating and policing sex in general. And specifically based on what is deemed as “natural” and “moral”. So, I find that letter consistent with his position against the state being the new pastoral power. Therefore, I read the letter as a call against the state’s arbitrary policing of sexuality rather than a call to have sex with minors. The letter focus was NOT on adults having sex with minors (as some people would love to believe), but rather on “consent” to be the only legal requirement for people to engage in a sexual relationship. Now, what is the minimum age at which people can give consent? The letter does not specify an age. The letter deals precisely with a specific law and does not engage with the question of who is capable of giving consent and at what age. The letter also focuses on the injustice and harmful consequences of that law on minors who have relationships with each other. It is clear from the letter that it wasn’t rare in France at that time for minors to be in relationships with each other. That law makes them vulnerable to discrimination and oppression. Now, why did he choose to sign a letter that deals with this kind of injustice instead of children inability to vote? I guess we will never know the answer. 4- As a non-American who has lived in the US, I think one should consider the cultural differences regarding the age of consent. Americans have to acknowledge that they are not the world’s moral compass. You definitely can have your own opinion on this subject, but you should never decide this matter to be off discussion. In other cultures, discussions around the age of consent is way less controversial. 5- Finally, Foucault could not be more radical. If he wanted to say that adults should be allowed to have sex with children, he would have wrote about it clearly.

[@luiscrespo9902]

Excellent discussion of such a powder-keg subject. One could argue that the letter just couldn't flat out ask for the age of consent to be lowered. That particular request (lowering age of consent) needed a "vessel" for it to have a remote chance of success--- thus the other arguments. You should've briefly cover the issues surrounding Foucault's activities in Tunisia; it helps put the letter in context, I think. Also, it would've been helpful to discuss the available science regarding brain development in adolescents. In any case, this is a very complex topic to cover in 22 minutes in a podcast. You did a great job!

[@augustmericle6776]

I don’t think the complaints against Foucault in particular are primarily because of the petition. As you mention many other intellectuals supported it, and what they are supporting about the petition might be more ambiguous. What is not ambiguous is the interviews (especially The Danger of Child Sexuality", Foucault's dialogue with Guy Hocquenghem and Jean Danet) where he argues against the policing of all sexuality, especially that of adults preying on children. This not only has a more direct goal, but it explicitly has his name attached providing and endorsing the words spoken. It is also worth noting Simone de Beauvoir is not straight, and also has a specific accusation against her (her suspension after an underage student’s statements, talk about abuse of power!). I think she gets off easier than she should in some of these conversations.

[@RationalistMH]

Simone got fired cause she was grooming a teenage girl. That has been proven. There are no substantial accusations that Foucault himself was a pedophile, nor has he ever been credibly accused of grooming minors. The only reason he gets all the flack from the letter is because homophobes ( and no, it is not at all the same thing when it comes to lesbians) love to associate gay men with pedophilia, and are not actually concerned about pedophilia, only about the ‘gay’ part. Thats the truth

[@bostonteapartycrasher]

To say that he argued against policing of adults "preying on children" is highly dishonest. That's like labelling feeding a child a grilled cheese sandwich child abuse. Then, when someone argues that feeding kids grilled cheese is not inherently abusive and that children have a right to eat grilled cheese if they wish, you go around saying that person is advocating for child abuse.

[@colonelweird]

I'm glad to have this historical background, but I also think the issue needs to be viewed with a critical eye both towards the general culture atmosphere of changed, "liberated" attitudes towards sex in the 60s and 70s, and the much more rigid attitudes common today, especially when sex and minors are mentioned. The reason it's so easy to use "pedophile" rhetoric today against Foucault is precisely because today no one is permitted to question a certain set of fixed judgments on the topic; it is truly taboo. I'm sure you're aware of this, which must be why you felt the need to state again and again in this video that you support the current dogmas on this topic. I'm not using "dogma" to say you're wrong, just to suggest that there are areas where questions ought to be asked. The people who signed the letter you're discussing were asking those questions, though I agree some of their answers were wrong. Today, however, asking the questions is often seen as tantamount to advocating pedophilia. This has become so extreme in some circles that I've seen people on twitter try to imply that a relationship between a woman in her early 20s ("before her brain is fully developed" which modern mythology claims happens only on her 25th birthday) and a man in his 30s is at best suspiciously similar to pedophilia, and thus worthy of condemnation. The area I find most questionable is the idea that every sexual relationship between someone over the age of majority and someone under it is inherently abusive, an express of domination, because the minor has no capacity for consent. While I understand this may be a necessary legal fiction (or is there a better approach?), we should also be aware that in real life, it's not always the case. Usually I'm sure abuse is occurring. But the gap between the legal adult and the legal child is not always as wide as everyone thinks we must believe. This dogma results sometimes in absurd legal situations, which I'm sure most people by now have heard of -- excessive sentences, minor crimes being treated as major, actions which are technically crimes but on examination are not harmful at all, etc. But then, I realize all this is beyond the scope of the video. I just felt like a little rant, lol.

[@bostonteapartycrasher]

What power imbalances are you talking about? How exactly do these laws protect young people? Protection from what? Why What evidence is there that these laws are necessary and effective in their stated purpose? What evidence is there that people under 18 having their right to consent taken away from them are any better off than places in which grant this right to 12 year olds?

[@user-kd7ku6ys6y]

In many democratic societies, the issue of consent for minors under the age of 18 is approached in a structured manner, especially in contexts such as medical care. There are stages of consent for minors when it comes to medical care, for example: minors who are unable to give consent rely on their parental caretakers to make decisions on their behalf. Legal tests are in place to assess the minor's intelligence and maturity, both through common law and statutory regulations. These tests are crucial in determining the minor's capacity to provide consent for medical care. Upon reaching the legal age of consent, typically ranging from 16 to 18 years in most countries, minors are considered competent to give consent. However, courts retain discretion, especially in cases involving mental health or incapacity. It is essential to ensure that consent is informed and given without any coercion, particularly in medical settings, to prevent any allegations of forced touching. Given the increased access to information technology and online social connections among today's children, there is a growing need to reevaluate the age of consent for medical care, although this should be considered on a case-by-case basis. However, unlike in medical treatment, the same analogy of consent cannot be applied in the context of sexual relations with adults. Consent obtained from a child for such relations may not necessarily be informed or educated, as the levels of sexual maturity greatly differ, regardless of physical maturity. Additionally, as you pointed out, the thrust of Foucault's argument can be countered with what Foucault himself always argues for: power imbalances. In other words, the imbalance of power between adults and minors is certainly key to why there are these laws not to engage in sex or groom a child. Thus, the age of the minor and the adult is indeed relevant in determining that the adult holds an advantage of power. Thus, the age of a minor, for example, whether 12 or 17 yrs old, and an adult being even 19 yrs old, is still considered reprehensible for an adult to take advantage of a minor.

[@bostonteapartycrasher]

The need for informed consent for certain procedures in the medical field is because there is a risk of dying or sustaining severe life-altering complications. Sex/relationships are nothing like that. They are a perfectly normal, natural, and healthy part of life. It's also very bizarre and logically inconsistent that parents can provide their consent to a potential fatal surgery on behalf of their children but cannot consent to a consensual relationship that makes their child happy, else they be arrested. The underlying assumption for the concept of informed consent in regards to sex is that people younger than the age the age of which they're deemed capable of informed consent will be seriously harmed by having the sex they want to have (sex that they deemed consensual) if, and only if the sex is with an older person. We're talking about something that would result in millions of people being sent to prison and having their lives ruined because of this concept, so it would be irresponsible, at best, to make these claims without first doing research that shows at least a strong correlation between sex at an age younger than whatever arbitrary age of consent you are arguing for and negative outcomes, regardless of their own perception of consent, and irrespective of societal attitudes in order to establish that this is an empirically valid concept. Sophists have been making this claim for almost half of a century, now. Have you ever even heard of any of them conducting (or even proposing, at the very least) any research of this nature? You haven't? Why not? Because they're full of shit. The actual research done on this (not by any of the people making these claims, mind you) disproves their claims. "Informed consent" (age of consent law) has no correlation with outcomes. Only simple consent, willingness - the perception that they had engaged of their own free will and felt that they could withdraw at any time -, has predictive power on outcomes. The research shows that "minors" are indeed capable of consent. It makes sense, this had been common knowledge everywhere throughout all of human history until the 1980's when certain people deliberately started push the idea that teenagers are fragile and incompetent little children in need of protection instead of tenacious young adults. People have gone on and on about power imbalances for just as long. What exactly is this power of adults over minors they speak of? We're not talking about parents, teachers, or authority figures here; the claim is that all adults have power over all minors with the underlying assumption that adults are highly likely to abuse such power. What power does a 25 YO stranger hold over a 13 YO he just walked past at the mall? What power does a 25 YO hold over his 13 YO girlfriend who closes her legs and refuses to have sex with him until he starts listening to her and treating her the way she wants to be treated? What power does he have when either his girlfriend or her parents can have him arrested and destroy his life whenever they feel like it? For as long as "child advocates" have gone on about these power imbalances in our society between legal minors and legal adults, what have they done about? In the past 40ish years, what initiatives have they launch to combat this problem? What efforts have been made (or even proposed, at the very least) to empower young people so that they can have the relationships they want? None. Why? Because they're full of shit.

[@okradokrad]

Wow. So many pedo apologists here. Astounding!

[@markadams8041]

My understanding is that Foucault wanted the age of consent lowered to zero. I did know about other French intellectuals signing on for the lowered age of consent.

[@autumnleaves5973]

Hmm. One of Foucault's main thesis is that power is not a thing, it is a relation. So by his thinking, just by being older/being a certain age or sex does not give anyone automatically more power over someone. And moreover, even if there would be power imbalance (the ability to limit someone else's actions more than the other person can), this does not necessarily mean realising this power or abusing it. So by Foucault's thought, maybe it could be concievable to imagine a situation where a minor and an adult could both consent to sexual acts together. Obviously Foucault erred to the wrong side of caution here signing the letter and failed to protect the overwhelming majority of underage people. But having read his works this seems an understandable position for him to take, even though all in all highly questionable and dangerous.

[@augustmericle6776]

If anything this interpretation stands as a glaring criticism of his works then. If his conception of power is so narrow and inflexible to allow people to be taken advantage of like this without condemnation.

[@yesssirr6999]

⁠@@augustmericle6776 Well Foucault himself wouldn’t really view this as a criticism given that this accepts a premise he is against: the idea that age is the indicator that decides who is taken advantage of and who isn’t. He views even this as an unjustified use of power and it is exactly there he thinks (as much as his apologists in these comments deny it) it should be perfectly possible for an adult to have sexual relations with a child given no one is taken advantage of.

[@augustmericle6776]

@@yesssirr6999 by criticism of his works, what I meant is that if this interpretation is correct, it points to a massive issue in his framework for understanding power. Also the person above is massively understating the degree to which he endorsed this (interviews in which he explicit called for the elimination of any age of consent). It wasn’t some momentary mistake leading to a signature.

[@yesssirr6999]

@@augustmericle6776 I think we are talking cross-purposes. You and I totally agree on what Foucault really thought about this topic. To say it frankly: he was a pedophile in belief and there is no way around it. My point is that even given this interpretation (which is indeed very understating of what Foucault really thought about this), Foucault simply doesn’t see the problem you pointed out as a problem. He would view the fact that you view that as a problem, as a problem itself. Of course to you and I, this view is abhorrent but to Foucault himself it would be you that is being abhorrent.

[@user-ff4xk9fb7y]

​​​@@yesssirr6999His rhetoric is gaslighting 101 and reminds me of my time in a cult,when I was a child.they came up with similar rhetoric stuff.i m currently doing my Master in philosophy and not even once has this "uncozy" issue,that goes way deeper than this said letter,been spoken about at seminars or lectures.he is still treated like a rockstar in academia so I don't know what the guy in the video meant by saying he's getting lots of hate..def not in academia lol (but i ve read some great critical analysis of his bs coming from feminist theory while looking into it outside of uni)pardon my English btw

[@juliusaugustino8409]

The reason why Foucault is always brought up is not because he was gay, but because he has been accused of SA:ing children in Tunisia. See for example: kzbin.info/www/bejne/eV7EiHulmdabiposi=Zr-uBgoJU_Q0mneD Or kzbin.info/www/bejne/sHnIlXtsicabo9Esi=pa_QDodSl3LEucU0 Does this make Foucault's intellectual contributions not important? I don't think so. His work is nonetheless important.

[@TheoryPhilosophy]

That accusation emerged in 2021 while the broader hatred directed toward Foucault has been around for decades. Nice try, though

[@bej6190]

@@TheoryPhilosophy The accusations have been around literally forever. Edward Said for example mentions how widespread the rumour was in the 1990s when he was told the Tunisia case by one of the biographers of Foucault

[@TheoryPhilosophy]

@@bej6190 I'd love to read about Said writing on it in the 90s if you'd be willing to share! (Or, at least name the text so I can dig it up). I'd heard about Said's claims, but that it was about college students (still something I find deplorable obviously, but I think we'd all agree is better than pedophilia if it's possible to hierarchize such moral evils)

[@bej6190]

@@TheoryPhilosophy He writes about it in the diary entry "My Encounter with Sartre"

[@bej6190]

@@TheoryPhilosophy His diary entry is mostly to show that the allegations were nothing new and that the rumours were around forever - his account is not as damning as the Jeune Afrique investigation in which the village elder who was trying to defend Foucault claims he was seduced by "young ephebes".

[@S3rios]

Good video. One thing I’ll note, however, is that the shit Foucault specifically gets for this isn’t entirely unfounded. While other intellectuals signed the letter, Foucault in particular had made numerous other statements spelling out his opposition to the age of consent: “In any case, an age barrier laid down by law does not have much sense. Again, the child may be trusted to say whether or not he was subjected to violence.” This is taken from “THE DANGER OF CHILD SEXUALITY”, and interview with him and two other thinkers I’ve not heard of. In it, he also elaborates on the reasons why he holds this stance. As best I can tell, he sees denying the ability of children to consent as itself being a kind of power, in that what the child says about the nature of their relationship is straightforwardly ignored. Foucault thinks that a child is perfectly capable of accurately assessing their own feelings about sexual encounters, and thus denial of this constitutes a denial of their voice. “…it is supposed that [children] are not capable of talking about themselves, of being sufficiently lucid about themselves. They are unable to express their feelings about the whole thing. Therefore they are not believed. They are thought to be incapable of sexuality and they are not thought to be capable of speaking about it. But, after all, listening to a child, hearing him speak, hearing him explain what his relations actually were with someone, adult or not, provided one listens with enough sympathy, must allow one to establish more or less what degree of violence if any was used or what degree of consent was given.” If you do a follow up to this video, I think it would be worth covering this interview, especially because it outlines his personal reasoning more than the letter does.

[@digitaurus]

It wasn't Foucault's letter. It is likely he agreed with some of the points made in it but disagreed with others; he had just the binary choice of signing it or not, and chose to do so. Perhaps he felt he couldn't stand by silently while others protested about discrimination against homosexuality. It is notable that he did not sign the January 1977 letter, unlike, for example, Simone de Beauvoir who signed both. As a philosopher, Focuault should have known the moral of this story: words matter precisely; if you have something to say, don't sign someone else's letter, write your own.

[@robertcarpenter8077]

I would say that your call for enhancing 'sex education' is symptomatic of what Foucault termed 'the medicalization of sex'. In The History of Sexuality, Foucault goes to great pains to show that whereas in the West we have the medicalization of a sexuality, in the East they have, to the contrary, an art of Eros. In the East sex is kept a mystery not because it is subject to repression but because keeping it so serves to potentiate pleasure. As well sexual relations in the East serve to dramatize Foucault's notion that institutions are contingent rather than natural or necessary. Take the Mosuo of the Na speaking region of China. Where in the West monogamy functions to trap, to confine, to 'foreclose' on the possibility of sexual pleasure, in the society of the Mosuo it is monogamy which is forbidden. And where in the West bigamy is forbidden, in the Mosuo it plays the role only of a lower bound - and for paramours rather than wives. Mosuo society is matrilineal where kids live with their mom their lifelong. Any kids born to daughters stay on the matriarchs estate. Mosuo society is very careful to separate the utilitarian aspects of living from the romantic aspect whereas in the West, monogamy / marriage functions as a mechanism to coerce the fusion of the two - very uncomfortably as a rule.

[@delcoburn1359]

I tend to think that most thinkers who evoke sex do so because it is such a shocking and taboo thing. I don't think Foucault was advocating for the sexualization of children at all, but pointing to the dissonant ironies of power structures and how control is hegemonized. I think a nuanced understanding sees this as quite in line with Foucault's thought, I see echoes of the same mindset used in the Maoist debate that opens power/knowledge. I appreciate your breakdown! Love this podcast so had to hop on KZbin to comment 🙂

[@kimcosmos]

Consent needs knowledge. If that knowledge is forbidden its because we want to keep children powerless and obedient. What can sex education teach about the age of consent??? Contraception - yes. Sexual hygeine - yes. Thats all. Consent requires knowledge. Children can't consent unless they become criminals to teach themselves... How to enjoy yourself? Where to get a rape test kit? That police will take the kids for adoption unless they renounce consensual sex and report their partners (for "the greater good"). Will they teach the real dangers of employers and teachers who can abuse their power over their grades. Will they teach that they have a lot more power than strangers? Will they teach the going rate for sexual services so they are not exploited? Will they teach why children are only allowed to work for a small fraction of the minimum wage? Or... will they demand that they stay powerless and innocent/gullible under threat of destitution. The real problem is simply child labor. That can't be taught without banning family farm child labor and cadetships. 2 things the USA requires innocence for.

[@bostonteapartycrasher]

Well said. Our system here in America is unbelievably corrupt and directly harmful to young people and by extension, everyone. You can't have a rational discussion about this; people have become brainwashed, and the victim industry has grown so powerful that it's been able to enact censorship policies on pretty much every social media platform to protect its hegemonic control over people's minds.