Sensuality occupies a contested and generative position within the depth-psychological corpus, appearing variously as a primary instinctual force, a shadowed pole of the spirit-flesh opposition, a gateway to erotic vitality, and a spiritual obstacle requiring disciplined renunciation. The tradition does not speak with one voice. For Freud, sensuality is grounded in the erotogenic body and affective arousal, the very substrate from which psychosexual development unfolds. For Jung and his successors, sensuality functions as one extreme of a transcendent-function dialectic, necessarily paired with spirituality as its unconscious counterpart; the individuation task requires neither capitulation to nor suppression of sensuality, but its integration into a mediatory synthesis. Andrew Samuels makes this polarity explicit: where the ego cannot hold the tension between sensuality and spirituality, the psyche remains split. Von Franz, drawing on alchemical symbolism, frames sensuality as the ‘goat’s blood’ that threatens to dissolve the adamantine core of personality. Hillman, by contrast, reclaims sensuality through Voluptas and the Eros-Psyche myth, insisting that authentic psychological development is Epicurean rather than Stoic. The ascetic tradition, represented by Climacus and the Desert Fathers, treats sensuality as morally proximate to fornication and a condition requiring active suppression. Campbell and Nietzsche raise the stakes philosophically, asking whether Western idealism’s war on sensuality constitutes a self-cancellation of creative life itself.