I found this book really quite difficult to get through. In retrospect, perhaps it was a mistake to start on it Saturday. Still, I did finish the thing, and now that it's Sunday evening and I've more or less finished digesting it, I think I can say a bit about it. Like I said, I found it difficult to get through, but I think I did manage to pin down one or two of his important points. The first main argument, that he makes early in the book, (most of the early parts of the book, but specifically in pages 44-49) is that our society is, despite its claims to the contrary, obsessed with sex. This is demonstrated not by a direct embrace of pornography, but by a weird obsession with anti-pornography. Parents are instructed to observe their children for any tendency towards masturbation or other perversions, and stamp them out instantly. Similarly, teachers must guard their students, and so on and so forth. But the net effect of this, Foucault claims, is not to eradicate masturbation and sex from society, but instead to cause it to flourish. It is like the small child (or not-so-small child) who doesn't want the cookie until you tell her she can't have it.
In a way, the other main point I'm coming to is related to the previous one. This one, found mostly from pages 83 to 91, discusses power. Power, according to Foucault, must be secret to be effective. Furthermore, more interestingly, he denies Power any power but denial and negation. Power cannot force you not to have sex. It can merely threaten you with the withholding of sex if you do not decide to not have sex by yourself. In his words: "..do not appear if you do not want to disappear" (p 84). I believe it was said before in the bulimia readings, the idea of control being forced onto the individuals until they self-control, and no longer sin because they no longer allow themselves to.
I'm not sure if I would accept the argument, but it would be an interesting hypothetical discussion to make the connection between eating disorders and the second point that I mentioned. Consider the similarities: both sex and eating are forms of consumption, absolutely necessary to keep the population functioning, and so both absolutely necessary to be controlled by those who would control the population. Thus, we have an ethic of self-regulation created for each. Given that, other parallels easily emerge. The overeater with the school slut. The anorexic with the ice queen. I am sure it is no accident all these stereotypes are usually or always female. And, Foucault would add, it is no accident that these stereotypes are all treated similarly. Look on a talk show and see how overweight people get talked at by the audience. Flip the channel and see the audience talking the same way to the nymphomaniac. Simple, secret, total regulation, Foucault says. If you will not regulate yourself, we will regulate you until you do.
Contextually I hesitate to question Foucault, since I don't know if perhaps the problem was just my reading comprehension (but then again, I think titles such as "Rule of the tactical polyvalence of discourses" are his fault). I do think he overestimates the Sexual Conspiracy at some points. Certainly, it seems to me there are people who are not sexually obsessed. Then there are other people who are sexually repressed. There are people who are sexually repressive, but not for any ulterior motives. But on the whole, I think Foucault was more or less right on in most of his comments.