Sexuality and American Culture

The Museum of Sex successfully showcases various “local centers of power” or sources of “resistance” in the power relations that constitute sexuality.  Though not quite as Foucault discusses them, we can break the resistances represented in the museum into two categories:  Scientia sexualis and Ars erotica, or just science and art. 
First, there is medical science.  In the museum’s permanent collection there is a brief discussion on the influence of medicine on sexuality.  On one hand, “popular ideas about what is healthy and natural have led to narrow definitions of appropriate sexual behavior,” and on the other, the museum presents the vibrator, an object now sold to empower and liberate women, but one that was initially invented to treat hysteria.  Then there is zoology.  As one of the placards read, “we have many preconceived notions about what is ‘natural,’ which we often invoke to help make sense of our world.”  It may seem strange initially, but the study and discovery of certain sexual behaviors in animals (i.e. homosexuality) can reveal new concepts of what is “natural” or “normal” in terms of human sexuality, and perhaps bring forth acceptance of sexual practices once considered “deviant.”
Then there is art.  “When viewed trough the veil of art,” one note reads, “sexualized bodies can become desexualized and more socially acceptable for a general public.”  I would argue that art does not necessarily desexualize, but simply proliferates the discourse on sexuality, making it more available.  In the world of film, “social mores about sex” find outlets.  Even when the production code forced sex beneath the surface, it survived through metaphor, innuendo and humor.
Professor Quinby was right in adjusting my response:  we are not simply mental robots.  And we can resist regulation in many ways, through various “local centers of power.”