This, of course, opens up a whole new avenue for interpretation. And, when we think about it, it makes sense. I mean, if I'm at a bar and, because of the crowded conditions, my, well, let's say, derriere, accidentally brushes up against an opposite member's, uh, well, backside, would that constitute a "sexual encounter?" Of course not. Phew! Had me worried there. My hands would have had to have been involved some how. Similarly, if I'm at a wedding celebration, and I dance with the bride, and in the course of the gyrations, I find that my, uh, let's say, "frontside", happens to brush up against my partner's, uh, thigh, does this constitute a "sexual encounter?" No, naturally not. So the Investigation definition is truly a wonderful thing. It clearly discriminates between a true "sexual encounter" and all the rest of the irrelevant casual contacts that inevitably take place between the genders. So, our world is still safe. The sanctity of marriage is restored, and our faith in humanity still soars to all time highs. Right? Well, maybe.

To answer this question in a truly scientifically rigorous manner, I took to the streets of Washington recently, clipboard in hand, and interviewed a 100 Metro riders as they emerged from Metro Center. I asked them a simple question:

"If I tied your hands behind your back, would it still be possible to have an encounter that you would characterize as 'sexual?'"

The results were interesting. 90% said "yes;" 5% said "no;" and 5% didn't understand the question. The results did not differ for the married or unmarried subject or for male or female. This would suggest that the necessity of the "use of hands" in the "Webster" definition of a sexual encounter is an invalid assertion. Clearly, there must be something more involved which has escaped our attention so far.

So, clipboard again firmly in hand, I interviewed another sample of Washingtonians who, of course, represent a true slice of "Americana," this time as they emerged from the parking garage at a well-known Washington-area shopping mall. I asked them the following:

"Did you ever have an encounter with a member of the opposite gender that involved some kind of contact with any of the following body parts (and here I listed them as in the definition), that you would not characterize as a "'sexual encounter?'"

The results were equally interesting. 85% said "yes;" 12.5% said "no;" and 2.5% didn't understand the question. However, for the married subjects and all females interviewed, 100% answered in the affirmative.

It would appear from this exhaustive and scientifically sound research study (which was, by the way, not supported by any government funds of any kind), that a large majority of us have had this very same experience. So, it does seem that, again, our country is safe for democracy. Safe sex is a wide-spread practice as we asserted last time, and the sanctity of marriage is preserved and we can again breathe easier in the knowledge that all is well.