How does suppression imprint the moral facility of human being?

Ancient masters assured that human being is by nature a moral entity. They did know, however, that moral is no easy task. Many things in life makes it impossible to follow one's moral nature. Ancients already knew that suppression yielded by society plays the main rôle in immorality. Society, although well and rational, immoralize people.
Much later Sigmund F opened our eyes to realise that suppression of sexuality is the source of all moral deprivation. Michel Foucault made a living out of that by giving us the history of suppression, date by date, humiliation by humiliation, violent act by violent act. What is sad, however, is that none of these had helped anyone to free oneself from suppression, on the contrary: the new discussion on sexuality and suppression mainly strenghtens common relativity and one is not allowed to speak out loudly one's particular sexuality and place of suppression. Everyone of us has his/her own particular sexuality experienced by living one's daily life; suppression grows out of that. Therefore there is no generic suppression that could be wiped out by laws, better undestanding, or opening the society toward a new freedom. One is entitled to free oneself from suppression via longer way.
Suppression of sexuality heavily imprints one's morality. From early childhood one learns to lie about oneself: one's why, how and wherefore cannot be articulated the way they are since every one of them would reveal one's mind and body like an open wound. And fellow people are standing there with their salt shakers ready! Innocence is killed in the craddle. Innocence, however, is the source of moral dignity; educating the innocence is no easy task later on when one already is civilised and relativised into a non-being.
Mario Mieli, an Italian revolutionary from 70s, clings into Freud's idea of real "trans-sexual" nature of human being: we are all "trans-", none of us is monosexual although we are taught to believe so. In his Elementi di Critica Omosessuale (1977) Mieli sees the suppression of sexuality in the one-way channeling of sexual desire into reproductive activity, and - at the same time - into its counterforce, in the prevention of reproduction. The sterile output of non-reproductive monosexuality opens up a delutional dream of freedom where there is no target, no goal, no objective - and therefore just a void with no responsibility. But morality needs a society, or a community, where future is articulated in a way or other. It may be our future, or the future of generations to come. The responsibility is made of speaking out the truth of oneself, not by disguising one's self in gestures and coutures of public sphere. Future only grows out of truth; the lie gives birth to sheer coincidencies that can't tangent each other.
Morality may depend on trans-sexuality of human being. Every kind of monosexuality steers toward a lie: the so-called "identities" seen in hetero-, homo-, or bi-sexualities are results of suppression of the one or other. They are, however, desirable in capitalist and new liberalist society since they end up in a want: if one is in a way monosexual, she/he needs something to be scared of, to hide, to be devoid, to desire, to conceal in order to be able to read her/his "identity", as in contrast to what one is not. This permanent want makes it impossible to act morally: one is always a claimant, a demander of something that one does not have - and that one does not advertise to need, namely one's sexual integrity. A child already finds out how to hide one's needs and how to disclose the other. A child already behaves confused of that since he/she knows that he/she will never manage his/her life because of the lie born in that closure/disclosure put upon her/him.

JV