The majority of the second half of the History of Sexuality, when not discussing sexuality and alliance, deals with the relationship between power and sex. While I think the two can be mutually exclusive - you can have sex without a struggle and you can have power without sex - Foucault seems to intertwine them to the point where there is relatively no difference. By the end of his introduction to sex, power=sex. "Sex is without any norm or intrinsic rule... it is subject to the unrestricted law of a power which itself knows no other law but its own." (149) Sex derives power from sex; therefore, sex is power. I buy this in certain situations, but as an overarching idea of power, I see this hypothesis on shaky ground. I feel one runs a muck when one attempts to sexualize everything; not everything is sexual by nature. The origin of this power is the ability to create and destroy.
"Sex is worth dying for." (156) True. Therefore sex=absolute power? Not so fast. I don't believe I have ever made the "Faustian pact" that Foucault refers to, but if I did it would be over love, not sex. The two are completely separate ideas that happen to converge in a happy place, but Foucault wants to call them the same thing. I want to say that the most power sex has is when some greater power, namely love, is involved. Sex can be bought, love has to be found. Something as fleeting and trivial can never have the power Foucault associates with it. There is some fundamental flaw in Foucault's argument that just does not sit well with me. The Foucaultian sex/power relationship just does not come easy to me and I, therefore, can't give it a legitimate value.