"When I read Freud's essay, "The Infantile Sexuality" I saw two things.

1. his original observations were correct, that children were sexual from birth. So Freud can be cited to prove this."

Well, actually they ARE sexual before birth, and it is the "genital stage" that Freud argues doesn't exist at the time. So, to cite Freud is to site asexual tweens "latency" and to claim that the baby getting pleasure from an erection isn't actually doing what you're seeing because he hasn't arrived at the genital phase yet.

But further, its to demonstrate that your sources are largely discredited and pseudoscientific. There is enough good modern citations that we don't have to roll back the clock nor indicate that we are "desperate" enough to search anyone for citations.

You might as well search for signs of youth sexuality in phrenology or in the sanguine personality type ( of the four humours. )

"2. his moral conclusions were Victorian and repressive, for example, what he says about children who have an erotic response to the passage of feces"

Actually, they were rather advanced and daring........... as well as speculative and nonfalsifiable. Rejecting the legitimacy of the "anal phase" while keeping the theory that gave rise to it sounds like cherrypicking and grasping at straws.

Again, why exhume the corpse of junk Freudianism when there are entire disciplines that haven't rendered themselves ridiculous which support the notion that kids are sexual pre-birth?

Oh, and anyone of an advanced age knows that the "anal phase" arrives late in life. When "regularity" is better than an orgasm ;p

Dante