This paper examines psychoanalytic assumptions that take as given a psychosexuality of normal heterosexual development. I suggest that because heterosexuality is taken for granted, its origin and vicissitudes are not sufficiently described. We do not have a developmental account of “normal” heterosexuality that compares in richness and specificity to those we have of the development of the various homosexualities and perversions. Insofar as we have a developmental or clinical account of heterosexuality, it seems either to be relatively general or to make heterosexuality into whatever we want to say homosexuality, perversion, or any sexual outcome or practice is, namely, a compromise formation, a symptom, a defense, a neurosis, an identity, an orientation, or anything else. Subjecting our accounts of heterosexuality to scrutiny gives us a greater sense of its contours and of the questions we still need to ask in order to understand heterosexuality as well as we understand other sexualities.