If there's one thing I can't stand, it's when people mischaracterize what is said on this blog. The only thing worse than that is when such mischaracterizations are used to harm someone else.

Which brings me to the topic of my latest rant. While the subject can be considered funny in a way (because it is funny) in another way it's not funny at all.

This is sometimes a humor blog, and sometimes a serious blog. I engage in satire on a regular basis, and whenever possible I try not to take myself (or other bloggers) too deadly seriously. I try my damnedest to avoid insulting people or engaging in profanity or obscenity, although as I admit, I am not perfect.

But when another blogger's job worthiness is being attacked (in the course of a threat to report him to the authorities!) because of "a picture of two dogs having sex," well, I must protest.

It is obvious that the complainant (who claims to be a teacher named "Sandy Smith") did not read the post she is mischaracterizing, did not look at the pictures very carefully, and hasn't much understanding of the mechanics of canine sexual intercourse. The pictures show nothing more than ordinary "humping" behavior, which is not "dogs having sex" and which any dog owner will attest goes on all the time. If "humping" constitutes "having sex," what does that suggest about the many dogs that will hump human legs if they get the chance? Is that bestiality? If Sandy Smith's definition prevails, I guess so.

While I may have done so in an overly cute manner, I made it quite clear that no penetration ever occurred. Indeed, it would not have occurred, for penetration can only occur if the following conditions are present:

an unneutered male dog;

an unneutered female dog; and then,

only during the receptive period of her heat cycle -- a window of opportunity of just a few days which arises only twice a year.

the two dogs must actually copulate during this period by "tying up" together -- an immobilizing condition for both animals which usually lasts for twenty to thirty minutes.

And even if I had featured pictures of dogs having actual intercourse (or "tied up"), would that have really been inappropriate for teenagers?

MORE: I have to admit, stuff like this (the "Breasts not Bombs" demonstration which so offended "Sandy Smith"), is pretty tough to look at. As I've said before, disgusting displays like that make me want to vomit. But Darren was objecting to it, for God's sake. (It's no more pornographic than a medical textbook on pathology.)

Adults only are encouraged but not required to read a standard definition of sexual intercourse which follows below.

UPDATE: Via the Carnival of Education, I see that another teacher (in The Daily Grind) has weighed in on Darren's predicament. :

Frankly, I am tired of living in a world where we cannot speak if it doesn't match-up with what others are looking for. It doesn't matter to me whether you are religious or not, politically to the right or to the left; we need to be able to have a voice of affirmation or dissent.

As teachers, we should be a representation of the world around us. Our administrators and central offices should not expect mindless lemmings. Our students and parents should not expect us to be the same as them.

(Or blogging.)