Rather than giving a complete account of different paradigms on sexual issues, the paper aims to discuss the need for a theoretical development concerning sexuality itself. Thinking sexuality in terms of teleology leads reflection to assume the basic connection between a cause and an end/purpose/scope. Several disciplines have assumed this perspective through history (medicine, theology, psychoanalysis), giving to this paradigm a long life, that lasted undisturbed till the '50 of the last century. The birth of structuralism, at the beginning of the XX century, put an end to this primacy, consenting to those same disciplines (especially sociology and psychoanalysis) the possibility of thinking sexuality in terms of culture, rather than nature. Teleological paradigm has not been erased, but it started to share his space in the intellectual agenda with other perspectives, that enriched considerably the landscape of the knowledge of human sexuality. Between the '60 and the '80, other paradigms emerged in addition: post-structuralism, performativism and deconstruction. Each one of these put his accent on different points such as — following the same order — history, agency and otherness. All those differences put sexuality in condition to reveal different aspects of itself, creating a situation of enrichment, but also confusion. How to orientate oneself among all those perspectives? The multiplication of approaches to human sexuality becomes a problem in the moment when a choice is needed. Having new perspectives doesn't mean that the old approaches are overcome. Every perspective opens to advantages and limits. On the one hand, a good knowledge of every paradigm is necessary, not just for theoretical purposes, but for practical ones. On the other hand, choosing a single perspective can be necessary to build your own life. By consequence, we need to create an ethical criterion, functionally to the kind of good that one intend to pursue.