Infantile sexuality, a paradigm of psychoanalysis, is sometimes eclipsed by child psychoanalysts. It is true that with both users and administrative and political authorities, it is easier to emphasise traumas than intraspsychic conflicts. In particular, as the clinical vignettes reported show, emphasising the early failures of the environment is less awkward for psychoanalysts than giving meaning to the instinctual drive expressions of the child in the actuality of the session. This is why some authors reject the study of interactions as a path of development for psychoanalysis. And yet forms of auto-eroticism manifest themselves well before the advent of language which develops as a figuration of affects that are themselves derived from bodily expressions: “prototypical, general hysterical attacks”. If conversions in the adult objectivise subjective phenomena, early interactions reveal how apparently objective phenomena are subjectivised.