I'll second that. After reading the history of sexuality by Foucault in college, I remember coming to the frustrated realization that the point of this jargony disaster of a book could have been made in a couple pages, possibly less. In essence, it says that to be free in one's sexuality, putting words on things which may feel rebellious is actually just trying to define practices and feelings that don't need this to exist. So, talking about sex is actually not rebellious and freeing in any way but rather normative and constraining. This was actually an interesting point to consider as a young adult, and I am glad I encountered this when I did, but a whole book for this is beyond overkill.
What got me is that he spends the very beginning of that book being like "People in the Victorian era thought that they were sexually repressed... They aren't, but let's spend 300+ pages on why they thought that they were sexually repressed."
Between this and his BS explanations for why Leprosy disappeared from Europe I realized that Foucault was a charlatan.
