Sexual symbolism occupies a contested and generative position within the depth-psychology corpus, functioning simultaneously as a hermeneutic tool, a theoretical battleground, and an index of broader disagreements about the nature of the unconscious. Freud established the foundational lexicon in the Introductory Lectures and The Interpretation of Dreams, cataloguing a cross-cultural repertoire of objects — sticks, rooms, water, wood — that encode genital and reproductive meaning in dreams, mythology, and colloquial speech. For Freud, this symbolism is both psychically economical and epistemically privileged: it permits interpretation without the dreamer’s cooperation, though he cautions against displacing free association as the primary method. Jung accepted the reality of sexual symbolism but resisted its reductive sovereignty, arguing in Symbols of Transformation that when sexual imagery recurs monotonously in dreams without producing new insight, it is operating as ‘a façon de parler’ — a dream-language rather than a revelatory content. For Jung, sexuality is one among several analogical vehicles for libido, alongside sun, fire, and phallic cosmological symbols drawn from antiquity. Abraham’s encyclopaedic index of bisexual symbolic registers, and the critiques mounted in Aion against Eisler’s fish-as-sex-symbol readings, further mark the field’s internal tensions. The corpus thus reveals sexual symbolism not as settled doctrine but as a site where the scope of psychoanalytic interpretation — reductive versus constructive, personal versus archetypal — is perpetually negotiated.