Letter to the Editor

Jeremy Provance
2/17/12

To the Editor:
This letter is in response to “The Mating Call: What Counts as Sex?” written by Edward Scott, Jr.
I would first like to point out that the definition used in the article to define “sex act” was the secondary definition according to Webster’s online. The first definition is coitus, or, the “physical union of male and female genitalia accompanied by rhythmic movements.” Sticking with the precedent, I’d also like to define “virgin.” Webster’s gives three of three relevant definitions that a virgin is an individual never having had sexual intercourse. No definition suggests any sex besides intercourse, but please check for yourselves. Those clarifications were not the aim of this letter, but I wanted to point them out.
My point is, we are all people with skewed desires and broken hearts. Unhealthy appetites of the flesh are only a few of the many flaws we have as human beings. We may find temporary gratification through acts we might do, but I see little difference between this appetite and, say, an addiction to alcohol or money. The damage doesn’t have to be physical for it to be real.
I agree with the article’s agreement with the statement “loss of virginity requires another person,” I cannot think of a single act that doesn’t require another individual whom the first individual finds physically attractive; physical participation or physical presence isn’t required. “I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” Being left with a “V-Card” is hardly the issue. We are getting tripped up on a technicality and, in doing so, we are missing the plague ravaging us.