Throughout time, scientists, philosophers, and laypeople have debated questions about the complexity of sex. These questions range from what sex is, to what a sexual perversion is and far beyond exploring every corner of the topic. One of the authors well known for this type of discussion of the idea of ​​how to explain sexual desire is Alan Goldman. While writing "Plain Sex," Goldman attempts to define what sexual desire is, what a sexual perversion is, and other statements related to sexual desire, often shaking off previously believed theories. His ideas move away from the idea that sex has a purpose and lead to a more primal basis that sex is a desire for physical contact and the need to satisfy this desire for physical contact. Ultimately I will argue that his definition leaves out our basic cognitive functions and defines humans as a primordial form of being. This brings us to his central arguments about why he sees it as logically necessary for sex to be a need for physical contact and the pleasure that comes from it. One of the first parts of Goldman's arguments is that he believes we have difficulty defining sexuality. perversion is due to the way we define sexual behavior and desire. The main reason he seems to find fault with this is due to the fact that he doesn't see sex as a means to an end. What Goldman means when he argues that sex is not for a “means end” is that there is no specific purpose outside of the sexual action pursued. Goldman doesn't think that sex shouldn't be explained by reproduction, love, communication. , nor as Nagel claims an interpersonal awareness. Instead, as stated before, Goldman wants to separate moral, social, and ethical issues from sex and call it a... middle of paper... I could see him saying that he doesn't argue against my idea of ​​a complex system of human minds and emotions, but that even taking into account that some might deviate from his explanation, the vast majority would fall within his explanation of events. These could be supported by evidence from things like Freudian accounts, and similarities that run through most humans. It would probably use the idea that quite a few relatively simple brain functions are shown to have and that sexual desire might be one of those simple functions or pre-programmed desires. These in my mind would be his strongest arguments against my response. Even with these arguments in mind I will explain why my objection remains valid, concluding and deepening my discussion on how Goldman's idea does not include the "human factor" nor does it take pleasure in taking it into account.