When testifying in a sexual assault case, does the use of the word "sex" by the victims constitute sufficient evidence for the purposes of sexual arousal or sexual gratification?

they made to defendant. While we agree the ordinary understanding of the word "sex" is susceptible to varying nuances (intercourse, oral sex, anal sex), all of those nuances fit comfortably within the definition of prostitution the jury was given. Thus, even considered in isolation, the "sex" references by the victims when testifying were sufficient for the jury to conclude they engaged in intercourse or physical contact of the genitals, buttocks, or female breast for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification. Defendant's argument to the contrarythat the references to "sex" do not suffice because it is possible some people or a fictional alien from the television show Star Trek might have in mind an idiosyncratic understanding of the wordis inconsistent with both the applicable standard of review and persuasive authority. (See People v. Gilbert (1963) 217 Cal.App.2d 662, 665-667 [ordinary and accepted meaning of the words "testify" and "testimony" is the concept of a statement made under oath; the trial witnesses' use of those terms therefore overcame the argument that evidence for perjury charge was insufficient because there was no proof an oath was administered to the defendant].)