Inside and beyond the myth and the social impact of the subject as One or Substance. Alan H. Goldman’s essay ‘Plain Sex’ is a central contribution to the academic debate about sex within the analytic area, which has been developing since the second half of the ‘90s in Western countries. Goldman’s purpose is encouraging debate on the concept of sex without moral, social and cultural implications or superstitious superstructures. He attempts to define “sexual desire” and “sexual activity” in its simplest terms, by discovering the common factor of all sexual events, i.e. “the desire for physical contact with another person’s body and for the pleasure which such contact produces; sexual activity is activity which tends to fulfill such desire of the agent” (Goldman, A., 1977, p 40). This minimal criterion, according to Goldman, is both necessary and sufficient to qualify normal desire as sexual. The mentioned above “repression argument” is grounded on a critics of the paradigms of ‘morality’, ‘naturalness’ and ‘normality’. They distort the concept of sex per se by ascribing external goals to it, such as reproduction, expression of love or other communicative intentions. These judgments and biases are allegedly intrinsic to sex itself, but they can only be justified through arguments non-related to the sphere of sexual desire. Goldman terms this kind of analysis that we labelled as ‘intentionalist’ as “means-end analyses” or, with a more cumbersome -though clearer-