yeah... though... i'm not sure how many theorists accept the freudian notion without modification. i guess there is a lot of controversy and different theorists have different takes on the situation...

the one i like... is fairly non-sexual, though it is erotic. but you can have erotic attachment to BOTH parents though of course you might be more attached to one than the other. i mean... the infants bond to the mother is usually the strongest though i guess sometimes infants turn to their father if the mother is a source of distress... i guess i don't really buy the 'opposite gender' assumption. i also don't really buy the 'homosexuality is a developmental failure / perversion' take, either. different individuals will have their different attachments.

and the notion is then that the infant longs for a special relationship with the attachment figure / figures. but the infant notices that they are excluded from some things. the parents have a bond that the infant is not part of. the parents need alone time away from the infant. the infant has to come to terms with the fact that they are not the centre of the universe / of their parents lives. this is helped by the infant having a special bond with each of the parents which excludes the other parent. so... everybody has special connections...

the initial idea was that the infant literally wanted to have sexual contact with the opposite sex parent. i'm not sure i buy that. then the infant fears that the same sex parent would castrate / kill them if they were to have sexual contact with the opposite sex parent. the infant has this conflict... and the resolution is for the infant to internalise the values of the same sex parent (the social norm that incest is prohibited) and this is the identification with the norms of the same sex parent. the super-ego is supposed to be about norms...

but... i don't think i buy this story...