WARNING: THIS BLOG CONTAINS SEXUALLY EXPLICIT INFORMATION. READER DISCRETION IS ADVISED
Last month we took our standard poodle Zora to the Juneteenth celebration at Institute Park. A young black woman approached me and patted Zora, and she told me she was the proud owner of a labradoodle. That’s a part-labrador retriever, part-poodle mix. There are a number of dog breeds that are mixed with poodles—golden doodles, schnoodles, cockapoos, peekapoos, yorkipoos, etc.
When I taught social justice and diversity classes at Quinsigamond Community College I used these dogs as an example of the SOCIAL CONSTRUCT, a theory which postulates that society decides what is good or bad, acceptable or unacceptable, moral or immoral, even beautiful or ugly.
Not that many years ago a puppy that resulted from the accidental breeding of a poodle and a lab was called a “mutt” or a mongrel. (Barack Obama once jokingly called himself a “mutt”). Those dogs became euphemistically referred to as “mixed-breed,” but they were virtually worthless candidates for the dog pound’s rescue option.
Today they’re designer dogs worth upwards of $1500 and are intentionally bred in an attempt to bring out the best qualities of both breeds.
The social construct made them acceptable.
What does this have to do with sex? Everything. Do you remember when Bill Clinton said under oath, “Ah did not have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky”?
He shouldn’t have been found guilty of perjury because he’s a Southerner, and because what he participated in with Ms Lewinsky was oral sex. In the South oral sex is not considered sex.
How do I know that? Because my wife and I had a winter home in Southern Mississippi for four years, and because I’m an affable bloke I talk to people. One of my neighbors told me her 20-year-old son Alan was out working on an oil rig in nearby Louisiana, 10 days on and 10 days off. He couldn’t leave the rig when he was working. He was engaged to a 27-year-old divorcee named Yolanda. While he was out on the rig making big money, Yolanda was playing around. My neighbor saw her with another guy one night, and she called her on it. In her defense Yolanda said, “Wasn’t no big deal. We only had oral sex.”
You see, it was the social construct.
You know those evangelical teenagers and college students who take a vow to remain virgins and not have sex until their wedding night? They engage in every kind of sex imaginable: oral sex, anal sex, manual sex, digital sex, sex with electric or battery-operated devices, you name it, they do it, but they consider themselves virgins so long as they don’t have vaginal sex. Only vaginal sex is sex. It’s the social construct.
We’re friendly with a gay married couple who are expatriates now living in Costa Rica. They told me that in Costa Rica there are a number of horny heterosexual men, some of whom are married, who after a few drinks go out looking for sex with gay men. Our friends have been hit on by these guys, and there are so many of them they’ve been nicknamed “pegamachos.”
Are you ready for this? Pegamachos don’t consider themselves gay as long as they only receive oral sex or give anal sex. If they stick by these guidelines they don’t lose their hetero card. It’s the social construct.
I had a friend who was teaching English in the Peace Corps in a mountainous village in Turkey. On weekends he would walk several miles to the train station and travel two hours to the city. Teachers were highly respected and given the title of “Hojah,” which means “wise man.” One Saturday morning he was crossing a field on a farm, and he came into a clearing. A shepherd was there engaged in sexual congress with a sheep. He saw my friend and smiled, and without pausing in his romantic endeavor, without missing a beat, said, “Good morning, Hojah,” as if this was the most normal thing in the world.
On another weekend my friend was walking down the street in a Turkish city. A young man was walking in front of him. An older man passed my friend, put a gun to the young man’s head, and pulled the trigger.
There was a trial, and my friend was called as a witness. The judge said, “I’m sorry, Hojah, that you had to be involved in this. “ The defendant was acquitted. Why? Because the victim was accused of making a homosexual pass at the defendant’s younger brother.
I’m willing to bet that the sheep-loving shepherd would agree with the verdict of innocent in the murder of the man who allegedly suggested a romantic liaison with a person of the same sex. A man and a sheep, no problem. A man with a man, an abomination. It’s the social construct.
It just goes to show how stupid and inconsistent human beings all over the world are when it comes to the subject of sex.
I have much more, but I don’t want to overwhelm y’all. To be continued—maybe.
by 
