The sexual impulse occupies a foundational and contested position throughout the depth-psychology corpus. Freud’s foundational formulations in the ‘Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality’ and the ‘Introductory Lectures’ establish it as a composite, developmentally staged force whose component instincts — oral, anal, sadistic, scopophilic — achieve genital organization only through a complex history of fixation, regression, and sublimation. For Freud, the sexual impulse is categorically broader than the genital and reproductive, encompassing every erotogenic zone and affective process. Abraham extends this framework clinically, tracing the transformations of the sexual impulse through neurosis, perversion, and the libidinal arrest characteristic of ejaculatio praecox and allied conditions. Jung diverges decisively: where Freud roots libido in the sexual impulse specifically, Jung re-conceptualizes libido as undifferentiated psychic energy of which sexuality is one developmental branch, a revision that reshapes the entire metapsychological edifice. Rank further complicates matters by arguing that the creative impulse cannot be reduced to sexualized artistic drive. Panksepp, approaching from affective neuroscience, grounds sexual arousal in discrete subcortical systems, lending partial biological corroboration to the instinct concept while bypassing the intrapsychic dynamics that preoccupy the analytic tradition. Across these positions, the sexual impulse functions simultaneously as etiological engine, developmental marker, and transformative force whose fate — whether repressed, sublimated, fixated, or discharged — determines the shape of character and symptom alike.