. I have tried in this chapter to suggest how Foucault’s focus on the discourse of sexuality is both revealing and limiting, and in addition how the concern for sexuality as a dispositif ought to be read as something more than sexuality’s cooption within the development of a disciplinary society. It is clear enough that considerable problems remain with regard to the place of sexuality within Foucault’s archaeologies and genealogies. It is equally clear that we should not ask Foucault to assume responsibility for work that remains to be accomplished. The geography of sexuality remains a very young field, whose introduction into the academy is still contested in many places, but there are plenty of indications of the rewards of that engagement and encounter. Amongst the most important has been the work of queer geographers in revealing the spatial codes by which heterosexism is inscribed into all of our lives, and I would like to reiterate that Foucault’s most unequivocally positive influence has been in this analysis of sexual identity and subjectivity.