I, for one, have been thoroughly amused by recent developments in the Daily’s Letters to the Editor.

Specifically, I was amused last Friday when a young woman wrote in to announce that she was a virgin and was offended by sexually suggestive ads in the paper.

My hope is that this will lead to the Daily opinion page becoming a combination editorial/personal ads kind of section.

Just think how much more interesting every letter to the editor could be …

“I’m a perky, 5-foot-10-inch brunette, who enjoys holding hands and the outdoors, and I think that anti-flag burning advocates are missing the boat completely …”

Or …

“I’m a 26-year-old SWF, who seeks a 20-52-year-old SWMN/S for fun, possibly more, and I’m outraged by President Clinton’s recent sexual antics.”

It seems ridiculous, but in a lot of ways it’s no more ridiculous than the ways that a lot of people already try to justify their opinion.

“I’m a virgin, and I was offended by your ad” is no less justified than “I’m a naughty nurse, and I was offended by your ad.”

Being a virgin makes you an authority on one thing and one thing only: not having sex. It has little if not nothing to do with virtue.

Have you ever had someone come up to you and say, “I’m a Christian, and I believe …”

Identifying yourself as a Christian doesn’t validate your opinion on anything. The only time it make sense is as: “I’m a Christian, so I believe in Christ.”

Maybe in your mind the fact that you’re a Christian also implies that you’re a pillar of moral integrity, but that’s just not the case.

By identifying yourself as a member of some group before saying anything else strips you of your individuality and simply makes you a number.

Many people spend their entire life trying to avoid being stigmatized; why is it other people bring it upon themselves willingly?

Take the kid in elementary school who peed his pants in second grade. That’s what people knew him as for years, and I guarantee he tried to shake it.

“Murray, I’d like you to meet my friend Cedric, who peed his pants in the second grade.”

Still, unlike urinary dysfunction, some labels are things people take pride in. Many people are proud of being virgins or Christians, and ain’t nothin’ wrong with that.

However, it is rare that someone’s inclusion in a particular group has any bearing on a moral argument. What it comes down to is generally, people don’t like to listen to each other, and we all like to feel morally superior.

So, any time we can find a reason to not listen to someone we usually take advantage. Take presidential candidates, who are almost always the victims of smear campaigns.

Remember poor Gary Hart? Sexual improprieties knocked him out of the race in a hurry. Still, it would be tough to show that infidelity would have much bearing on his foreign policy decisions.

For a more recent example, we have George W. Bush. It seems the fact that he used to be a junkie has a lot of people questioning whether he will be a good president.

People, George W. Bush’s alleged drug use will have little or no bearing on his ability to run this country. The fact that he’s an inhuman stooge of special interest groups would be a better reason not to elect them.

Much as we might hate it, everyone has an opinion, and on many issues, no ones opinion is more or less valid than another; regardless from whom it came.

Sure, there are people in society who are considered immoral by most. Hookers, drug dealers and Charles Manson come to mind. And don’t think that the shift to the right in this country has left them out.

I guarantee you there are plenty of hookers who think that there’s too much sex on TV. However, when they send a letter to the editor they won’t qualify their opinion by saying “as a hooker,” because they know that it’s not socially acceptable.

But hear this: A hooker is no less capable of being a moral agent than a virgin.

So if anyone else out there wants to purport his or her morals in the Daily, please do so. However, I will ask that you let your beliefs stand for themselves and not try to validate yourself with a trite symbol of purity.

---

Ben Godar is a senior in sociology from Ames. Although panned by the critics, he feels “Joe vs. The Volcano” was a clever examination of the freedom with which one can live only after accepting that he or she will die.