“…This leads to the third contribution of the paper; that is, bringing back sex itself into the core of the analysis within geographies of sexualities, notably one of the practices that has created most controversial public debates in recent years in many countries around the globe. Geographies of sexualities have increasingly become a legitimate field of studies, but despite its popularity, the engagement with sexual practices has remained limited (Bell, 2007; Binnie, 1997; Brown et al, 2011; Brown & Di Feliciantonio, 2022; for some exceptions see Bain & Nash, 2006; Bonner‐Thompson, 2017, 2021; Brown, 2008a; Di Feliciantonio, 2019; Gurney, 2000; Langarita, 2019; Misgav & Johnston, 2014; Sanders‐McDonagh, 2017), its main focus being on identities (Binnie & Valentine, 1999; Brown, 2012; Browne et al, 2007; Johnston, 2016). Conceptualising spaces and subjectivities as always emerging and provisional (Jones, 2009), the relational understanding of place adopted in the paper allows us to explore what bodies can do in the ‘messiness’ of sexual desire (Brown, 2008a; Lim, 2007), reaffirming the spatial character of sexual practices as they are ‘assembled through a myriad of materials (human and non‐human, organic and inorganic) and expressive forces (moods, emotions, intensities and affects)’ (Bonner‐Thompson, 2021, p. 452).…”