Few concepts in the depth-psychology corpus carry greater definitional weight—or greater contestation—than ‘sexual.’ Freud’s foundational move in the Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality was to wrest the term free from its equation with ‘genital’ or ‘reproductive,’ insisting on a polymorphous infantile sexuality that encompasses erotogenic zones, component instincts, and the full arc from thumb-sucking to adult object-choice. This radical expansion provoked immediate resistance, including from within psychoanalysis itself: Jung argued that Freud’s sexual terminology, though logically consistent, was biologically inadmissible when applied to the earliest stages of infancy, preferring to reserve ‘sexual’ for properly differentiated instinctual development. Hillman, writing from an archetypal perspective, historicized the very category, noting that ‘Sexualwissenschaft’ was the last domain claimed by nineteenth-century psychological language and that the imagination of antiquity had already elaborated all sexual fantasies without pathologizing them. Post-Freudian clinicians such as Signell explore feminine sexuality in its archetypal and dream dimensions, while developmental trauma theorists like Heller locate the love-sexuality split as a structural wound of early misattunement. Merleau-Ponty’s phenomenology disrupts the purely drive-based account by grounding sexual being in embodied intentionality. Across these traditions, ‘sexual’ functions simultaneously as etiology, symbol, relational field, and cultural construction.