system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
Why did Foucault believe that sexuality was not repressed in Victorian times?

So, I've read several articles, books and  wikipedia-entries describing Foucaults view on the "repressive  hypothesis". The basic notion, as my little brain can comprehend it, is  that we now have the wrong-headed belief that Victorians were sexually  repressed and that in "modern" society we have become more liberated and  free, being able to openly discuss sexual matters. But Foucault  believes this is incorrect and that in reality the Victorians werent so  sexually repressed and talked a lot about sex, though only in scientific  and academic terms.  
But isn't this still sexual repression if it is  only discussed in medical terms (talking about perverts and homosexuals)  and by academic, the general public still being unable to talk about it  or even deal with it socially.

I really  hope this falls under a question permitted, though most of my questions  posted here get deleted post-haste for not being philosophical  enough...
gpt
> But isn't this still sexual repression if it is only discussed in medical terms (talking about perverts and homosexuals) and by academic, the general public still being unable to talk about it or even deal with it socially.

Even the way you've described it here shows that this isn't so.  The general public could talk about sex quite a lot, though the talk itself was given within the context of (then) medical/scientific language.  The repressive hypothesis (as Foucault describes it) entails that public talk about sex was repressed, not just filtered through some institutional discourse.