Aces Full of Links

I have trouble filtering malarky. Perhaps we should brainstorm on malarky levels.

From...
It's me not you I just want to be friends...
To...
It's the end of the world let me sprinkle you with this holy water repent immediately inject this goat urine come meet my faith healer...

And all points between.

Um, Sorry James but it's definately sexist bias. If the roles had been reversed most people would think the punishment was lenient!

> Perhaps it’s sexist bias, but is a lawsuit
> necessary here? OK, he’s not happy about it.
> But nine months in jail?

Why not? You pass out on a couch at a party, and when you come to you find some person performing fellatio on you without your consent?

If it had been a woman on the couch who awoke to find a man performing cunnilingus on her, would a lawsuit be necessary there? Would the nine month sentence seem too harsh?

If the guy had awakened to find another man perfoming fellatio on him without his consent, would a lawsuit be necessary there? Would the sentence seem overly harsh then?

In the age of lethal sexually transmitted diseases, non-consexual sex of any kind becomes an even larger issue.

I thought "rape" was not strictly about sex, but rather control, and had a somewhat violent aspect to it.

I don't see this as all that violent, to tell you the truth.

I guess it's not the lawsuit that bugs me so much, as there are a number of reasons it is definitely a violation. But "rape?"

The list of analogies don't help me much. Heck, we can come up with a bunch of other examples if analogies are useful here. What if he's woken up to find a dog licking his crotch? Should he sue the dog's owner for rape? Was he raped by the dog?

If you folks are sure about this kind of thing, you're wiser than I am.

Chuck,
The situations you describe are different from the lawsuit, or you wouldn't bring them up. You know it in your gut. If you are saying they're the same, you're full of shit. You may want them to be the same, because you chafe under women's "equal rights."

Men and women are not the same.

Here are the equivalent situations to a man waking up to finding out that a woman is performing oral sex on him against his will:

A woman wakes up to find that a man has fed her low-quality chocolate, and she was on a diet.

A heterosexual man wakes up to find that a homosexual man is standing naked in front of him, and he likes it a little bit.

:-P

A man ejaculating is a mere hiccup in his day.

Comments not addressed to Chuck, but in general:

A sexual assault is an act of violence against a woman. I'm disgusted that anyone would compare it to this playful sexual act.

I'm not saying his rights weren't violated. Just that it isn't even close to a violation on the same level as a woman being sexually assaulted.

It is absurd and sickening.

Yes - I didn't intend to say this guy wasn't violated. Clearly, he was sexually molested. If he were an 8 year old kid, this would be horrible. But he's not an 8 year old kid, or a woman, and she's not a dog or a man or what have you.

Oh, geez, I'm gonna comment again. I guess this really pisses me off, because there's such a big difference between violence and sex.

First of all, I don't believe a man has ever contracted an STD from having oral sex performed on him.

Second, men do get raped. A woman could rape a man, by violently penetrating him. The keyword being violence. But men are raped all the time, and if you asked a rape victim, (male or female) what they thought of this, I think they'd throw up.

I disagree. I'm glad that Norway takes sexual violations seriously. I don't care whether they call it rape or not.

>Here are the equivalent situations to a man waking up to finding out that a woman is performing oral sex on him against his will:

>A woman wakes up to find that a man has fed her low-quality chocolate, and she was on a diet.

Are you serious? The report of this crime doesn't bother me that much, I don't know whether to call it rape either (probably not) and of course the any kind of penetration rape is much worse than this. For either gender, not just women.

But comparing a non-consensual act to inferior chocolate just because a man is on the receiving end is borderline insulting. I doubt I could get away with saying something like that if the situation were reversed.

And this is the kind of thing I was thinking of when I made that comment about sexually transmitted diseases.

---------------------------
"My husband gets cold sores. Can I get genital herpes from oral sex?

Yes, you can. The virus that causes cold sores -- herpes simplex virus Type 1 (HSV-1) -- was once thought to be an exclusively "above the waist" virus (unlike HSV-2, which is spread by intercourse). But experts now know that HSV-1 can move below the belt via saliva during oral sex."
---------------------------

Ew.

Mike,

No, I was not serious, it was hyperbole. I was yanking Chuck's chain (har, har), because I think he was either yanking our chains, or kidding himself.

Men and women are different. I think that needs to be accounted for. There needs to be a way to protect everyone's rights without assuming that their needs are equal. Treating everyone "equally" denies their individual needs.

As far as a man contracting an STD from oral sex, your example went the other way. I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm just saying I've never heard of it. I have heard of women contracting diseases from oral sex being performed on them, as in your example.

I want to apologize for the insensitive comment "Is this lawsuit really necessary."

I was trying to be funny, and missed. I still disagree about it being rape, and I presented the story lightly when it really does deserve a more serious treatment. I think there is a lot of room for reasonable people to disagree about the definition of rape and the level of violation that occurred.

Pthhh. I need a "Think before you post" stickie on my monitor.

The situations you describe are different from the lawsuit...

I can't take this comment seriously without being extremely offended, so I'm going to assume that you are joking. If you'd like to rephrase your comment in a less offensive manner I'd be happy to discuss it, if in fact, a discussion is what you are looking for. At face value, it's both offensive and ridiculous IMHO.

I guess what drives my opinion is imagining what I would feel and do in this situation.

If I fell asleep at a party and woke to find a strange woman's head bobbing on my member I would not be pleased. In fact I would probably be deeply shaken.

Would I prosecute? Possibly. It would depend on the situation and all the circumstances attached thereto (exactly the information we don't have in the case cited by James).

If it was some woman I didn't even know I would probably prosecute. Performing oral sex on an unconscious stranger is not normal, it implies a seriously imbalanced set of values, such a person might be dangerous.

If it were an ex-lover, or a friend with whom I had flirted, I would probably not prosecute, but I would make it VERY clear that if I somehow gave them the idea that it was okay, they misunderstood me. If they persisted I would probably threaten prosecution, and would probably carry through if they didn't respect my wishes.

Various other circumstances would also come into play that I really don't want to delve into because just thinking about it is disturbing to me.

So rather than discuss comparative situations because we are probably going to disagree, I'll just leave it this way: if a man found himself being fellated against his will and chose to prosecute, in the absence of other information, I would respect that choice and would not trivialize his molestation. 'Nuff said.

You know, we really don't know what happened in Norway.

We have a few details about the case, at least one of which is dead wrong if every single news story I've ever read about which I know the truth is a guide. Reporters always screw something up. We have the press statement of a lawyer.

Really, we have nothing.

But, men and women aren't equal. I know I said it before. Maybe it's because I'm a mom, and I'm seeing my kids taught all of the bullshit that we were taught. You can be whatever you want to be. A girl can do anything a boy can do.

Is that true? Of course not. Does anybody disagree? Does anybody honestly think that I could be the center for the Celtics? The person who discovers the theory that unifies all theories of physics?

Of course not. We're biologically different, and it limits what we can achieve.

And as much as we would like to pretend that there aren't biological differences between men and women -- do we actually pretend that? -- there are. Obviously. Suddenly we're doing all kinds of medical studies on women and finding that the results are different from the studies performed on male subjects. Our brains work differently, too.

And our society knows that, even if we're trying to erase the knowledge. In some countries in the middle east, a man is expected to kill a woman in his household if she's raped. How much less barbaric are we on the subject of rape? It's humiliating for a woman. That's part of the violence, part of the power a man has over the woman as he rapes her. There simply isn't the same stigma for a man. It's not cliche, it's true -- boys are congratulated by their friends if they can go to bed with a girl. The girl is not so quick to admit what she's done, because there are labels for girls who do that. Those are the girls you whisper about.

Men biologically need to try to reproduce. Women biologically need to create lasting relationships, because they are responsible for feeding the young (I'm talking about our ancestors, of course, our evolutionary heritage), and it is very difficult to survive alone while you're carrying a breastfeeding child.

What we feel today is based on those evolutionary necessities.

Men are different from women, especially when it comes to sex.

Whatever, Chuck. Be offended if you want to.

I didn't say the man wasn't violated, I said it wasn't rape.

If you're imagining that what you'd be feeling in that situation is equivalent to what a woman who is raped would feel, then I think you should try directing your powers of imagination that way.

a) Imagine that every where you look in the media, you see that you are valued as a sexual object only. b) Imagine that if you have sex with a man because you want to, you're given a nasty label.

Then try to imagine being raped, and having to tell somebody, knowing that you're going to be treated like scum, because of a) and b).

There are no eqivalent situations to what happened between that man and that woman. You can't make an analogy to make it understandable. That's what I was joking about.

I have to side with Mike on the health aspects. When I read his initial comment I immediately thought of a news article I read somewhat recently about several infant deaths. I can't remember where I originally read it, but here it is:
http://www.forward.com/articles/2834
I don't think it's far fetched to imagine the recipient of fellatio/cunnilingus to have a cut/scrape/tear in their skin.

I think the legal definitions of terms such as sexual assault and rape will never be perfect; but I'd rather see such offenses be taken seriously.

Sharon and Julie -- are they taking it seriously if they expand the definition to include situations like this?

Again, we don't know what "this" is. The guy could be seriously scarred. Or he could be some asshole, just goofing around with the legal system to be an asshole.

Shouldn't there be a variety of legal terms? I like to see things discriminated. Like hate crimes receiving a different sentence from similar crimes that are not motivated by racial violence. I don't like to see us lose the meaning of a term by broadening it in some false quest for "equality."

When a man performs non-consensual oral sex on a woman that is considered rape, isn't it? I'm not trying to stir up controversy, just clarify a definition.

It just occurred to me that the more we add to this post the more comments James will receive from people who want to return their defective shotguns.

PLEASE SEND ME NEW WINCHESTER ASAP K THANKS

I think there are different definitions. For instance, date rape is not the same as other forms of sexual assault that we refer to as rape. "Different" doesn't mean that both terms aren't valid, it just means the word is used in more than one specific situation.

I think you've put your finger on the disagreement, though. Is all non-consentual sex rape?

Here is a legal definition which is fairly specific.

The carnal knowledge of a woman by a man forcibly and unlawfully against her will.

This definition includes "forcibly" and covers the non-consentual part you mention. It also is specific with respect to gender.

A definition of "date rape" would be much more broad, and include any touching that is not consentual and which occurs on the genitals. A more broad definition becomes necessary when trying to communicate to young people that they are the victim of a wrong if they are subject to these actions against their will.

However, broadening a definition can sometimes dilute it as well, and I think this is a bit of what Maggie was getting at. Do we need terms like "rape," "sexual assault," "sexual molestation." or ought we to just have one term "rape" which covers everything?

Are all these acts equivalent, or is it a mistake to ignore both physiological differences and the role of societal pressure in how these events play out?

Clearly, I think it's a mistake to ignore those differences, even while recognizing that this fellow had cause to be upset.

Certainly, the rapist uses societal pressure/societal roles to his advantage in a number of ways to manipulate his victim, to gain power over his victim, to escape consequences, etc.

Those appear to me be realities of the situation. And, as upset as someone might be that I don't see an equivalence between the act that is the subject of the story, and a man forcing himself on a woman, I am equally dismayed that making such an equivalence tosses aside important differences. And if those issues are tossed aside by quickly accepting the equivalence, they can no longer be considered or discussed.

It may be an "agree to disagree" situation, but I want to hang on to being aware of those differences.

Boy. I got to the blog late today, huh? Wow. Not sure whether I should weigh in or not, but I've never been one to use good sense, so here goes.

We don't know what happened, but have constructed a scenario in our minds based on this through which to discuss it. A man is asleep or passed out on the couch. A woman (known or unknown) takes advantage of him sexually. He wakes up and catches her in the act.

Regardless of whether or not that is exactly what happened in Norway, that is what it seems our collective discussion is about. I don't see a point to theorizing about the specific people. Maybe the man is a jerk. Maybe he knew the woman. Maybe he was severely traumatized. Who knows? There are a number of factors that could influence this. Let's assume, for the sake of discussion, that the man was not trying to cause trouble and was legitimately upset in OUR scenario.

Regardless of definition, I don't think what transpired was rape. I agree with Maggie that terms like rape and sexual assault connote violence and force.

That said, he was still violated. This too sounds like a strong word, but when you consider that he could contract an STD from her saliva if there were any openings into his blood stream makes this a violation.

To me, what she did was a crime and she should be and was punished. Regardless of gender differences, this could be classified as wrong. I think the press are getting more mileage out of it by using the word rape. And I think that has the potential to hurt women's causes.

I don't believe that nonconsensual oral sex fits the legal definition of rape in the US; however, it's still considered a sexual assault. (I saw it on COPS! Really!)

But, again, I don't care whether Norwegians call it "rape" or something else; according to the news story, all nonconsensual sex acts are considered rape in Norway. That doesn't mean that all rapes are considered equal and receive exactly the same punishment, and it doesn't mean they were punishing a woman for the equivalent of hitting a teenaged girl over the head with a hammer and dragging her into a barn and raping her. Sure, if that's what the court decided, that's crazy. But that's not how I perceived any part of the story.

I *completely* agree with Chuck that it is extremely serious to handle any part of a person's body in any with without that person's consent. More so if it is sexual or violent in nature and most of all if it is both.

I cannot say whether or not it is appropriate to this specific case, since I don't know the specifics. But I don't think that the law should offer men less protection, or offer women less punishment, based on the observation that a sexual assault *may* be less upsetting to most men than to most women.

Some of my last post appears to be redundant. I didn't realize so many people had responded to the thread (because of the way I was reading the posts in email).

I wonder if this woman was a serial drunk fellator?

And, I'm curious to know if anyone here has ever had cause to use the word "fellator." Because this is almost certianly my first time.

Perhaps she was a serial stealth slurper.

Ok, here comes the post you knew was coming.

Rape is rape, regardless if it was against a man or a woman. Yes, rape is an act of violence, and it is also an act of control, which can also be an act of violence.

With regard to the comment/question whether penetration must occur for the aciton to be considered rape, the answer is no.

I refer, for example, to Massachusetts State Law, as neatly summed up by MIT at http://www.mit.edu/activities/safe/writings/date-rape-policy/council-crit-of-rape-pol-1:

"Massachusetts law defines rape in relevant part as 'Sexual intercourse...by a person with another person who is compelled to submit by force and against his will or by threat of bodily injury.'

"Annotated Laws of Massachusetts, chapter 277, section 39. 'Indecent assault and battery,' banned in chapter 265, section 13H, is defined by Massachusetts courts to include any sexual contact the perpetrator knows is unwanted.' See Commonwealth v. Mosby (1991)."

Whether he was asleep or awake, he was the victim of a sexual assault, and I'm pleased as punch that she got some jail time. Just because he's a man doesn't mean it's not rape.

Speaking of being asleep and being sexually assaulted, there was a case this past month where a Peabody woman was digitally raped by a piece of scum sitting next to her. From http://news.findlaw.com/prnewswire/20050406/06apr2005130221.html:

"A Scottsdale, Arizona man was convicted today in federal court for the sexual assault of a woman sleeping in the seat next to him aboard a Delta Air Lines flight from Dallas to Boston.

"United States Attorney Michael J. Sullivan; Kenneth W. Kaiser, Special Agent in Charge of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in New England; Colonel Robbins, Superintendent of the Massachusetts State Police, announced today that DEEPAK JAHAGIRDAR, age 55, of 11270 N. 128th Way, Scottsdale, Arizona, was convicted after a 6 day jury trial of sexually abusing and having abusive sexual contact with a 22 year old woman who was asleep on the aircraft. The jury returned the verdict after deliberating for approximately five hours. After the jury verdict, JAHAGIRDAR was ordered into the custody of the United States Marshals Service, and will be held until sentencing.

"He was subsequently indicted on February 11, 2004, and charged with sexual abuse in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 2242 for penetrating the victim's genitals with his hand, and sexually abusive contact in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 2244, for touching the victim on the groin and inner thigh.

"JAHAGIRDAR faces a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison on the sexual abuse charge and a maximum of 3 years in prison on the abusive sexual contact charge. He also faces a total maximum fine of $500,000. Sentencing has been set for June 24, 2005."

Good. Rape is no laughing matter. It's nice to see that people all over the world are finally recognizing rape for what it is.

Here are links to the USC cited above (it's good reading, and I encourage you go do so):

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002242----000-.html

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002244----000-.html

I'm missing out on more than I thought by not watching COPS more closely. Now there was a real reality TV show for you. Back before there was a term for it.

As anyone who has been fondled by a drifter knows, it is not a pleasant experience. Surely worse than being slapped and probably worse than having to sit through "Hitch" a second time. And drifters, by their very nature, are hard to pin down for a lawsuit.

Bit if we could, I think we would all condemn those fondly, gropy drifters, hobos and women at parties. No matter how drunk we are at the time.

Some days I wish that what happens in Norway would stay in Norway. Do you know what I mean?

Some days I wish that what happens in Norway would stay in Norway. Do you know what I mean?

No, I can't say that I do and frankly, I'm a bit shocked by some comments made here today.

Whatever, Chuck. Be offended if you want to.

Your concern is overwhelming.

I didn't say the man wasn't violated, I said it wasn't rape.

What a coincidence. I never said it was rape. James' question appears to have been (a) is a lawsuit even necessary, and (b) is nine months in jail an appropriate sentence. These are the questions I was responding to.

None of my counterexamples used the word rape, the point of the counterexamples was to jar those who might actually be so foolish as so believe that a typical man in this situation is just going to think "Hey a freebie! All right!"

Yes, it is possibly inappropriate for this particular crime to be treated the same as violent sexual assault, but then, I never said it should be.

But to me, in the absence of other information, a lawsuit is probably in order if the victim feels it is.

As far as the length of the sentence goes? How do you put a price on the effect of being the recipient of unwelcome oral sex? I just don't have enough information about this specific case to say either way and I'm not an expert in Norwegian law. But it is probably safe to assume that those charged with adjudicating sex crime cases in Norway have a fair expertise in the matter. In the absence of further information, I see no reason to question the sentence.

If you're imagining that what you'd be feeling in that situation is equivalent to what a woman who is raped would feel, then I think you should try directing your powers of imagination that way.

First, I never said it was.

Second, for all you know I might be a victim of sexual assault--there's no reason to assume you would know either way--so why don't you direct your powers of imagination to how a comment like the one above would make a victim of sexual assault feel?

There are no eqivalent situations to what happened between that man and that woman.

Our society attaches a pretty nasty stigma to homosexuality. Do you think that a male receiving unwelcome oral sex from another male wouldn't seriously consider keeping it a secret? Wouldn't be traumatized by it? Might go through life without telling friends, spouse, or family about it?

Clearly I feel that non-consensual oral sex is equally bad no matter what the genders of the persons involved are. Clearly you don't.

Either way, I know two things for sure: (1) I respect your right to feel that way and (2) I am not "full of shit" for feeling differently.

If people could just keep their hands to themselves, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Where did these people go to kindergarten?

At this point, I feel responsible for starting this all off by my lack of tact. Unfortunately for all of us, my only defense mechanism is humor. So until this thread dies you're going to be on the receiving end of more fondly, gropy drifter references.

Here is something else that occurs to me. As we become a more equal society, it is certainly true that the definition of rape (and different levels of violaiton) changes. It has to. It becomes more reversible if the societal component shrinks. That's what equality means.

While we might have a desire for equality in our society, we have a continuing reality of inequality. We should have equality in rights, but I'm talking about certain societal patterns and roles. I continue to assert that this inequality is the sorce of pressure in rape cases. Of course, we will never be completely equal in reality (including physical, etc) unless evolution or genetic engineering make some serious changes. But the other aspects do change over time (and from society to society).

So perhaps it is quite different in Norway, and we have taken this out of context as well.

Huge details are missing. We don't know how the judge ruled out consentuality, for example.

Thanks for the links, Patti. I hope my own comments didn't make you feel you needed to assert that a man can be raped or sexually assaulted.

We have a pretty good idea of how the judge ruled out consensuality. The law in Norway says that if you are unable to "oppose the act," you've been raped. Can't oppose anything when you're asleep; since this man was at a party and presumably other people were around at the time, there would have been witnesses who could vouch for his being asleep.

Our society attaches a pretty nasty stigma to homosexuality. Do you think that a male receiving unwelcome oral sex from another male wouldn't seriously consider keeping it a secret? Wouldn't be traumatized by it? Might go through life without telling friends, spouse, or family about it?

I can't speak for Maggie, but I think the societal difference lies greatly in the shift in the sex of the perpetrator. You've offered an example that shows that shift. One might compare the example you give with the example of a woman being date raped and see lots of equivalence, but Maggie's comment was in reference to the example in the news story, not what we think of as "traditional" (ugh) date rape.

I sense (and, well, read) a lot of shock and disappointment in (I can only assume) the opinions I have expressed here. I'm trying to remain clear on what I think are reasonable distinctions to make for the sake of understanding what to me is a complex and challenging subject. And I'm trying to also explain where I agree, and what the common ground is.

Unfortunately, I feel my efforts at reaching a common point are for some reason or another not working, not welcome, or not being returned. And I'm leaving room to blame my lack of articulation.

Having not reached the stage of being upset about this, but having passed being disappointed, I'm going to get back to other things and revisit this later with a new eye, I hope.

While stumbling through this sort of discussion where I certainly allow room for my opinions to change when tested by the experience of my friends, I only ask that I be given whatever benefit of the doubt I've earned. And if that's slim to none, I only have myself to blame, I suppose.

Good afternoon, all!

Wow! I needed some time to absorb all that. A couple of things about inequality and some points that were made. No Maggie you can't be center for the Celtics. Then again neither can I or 99.999+% of the male population of the world. However it occurs to me that Rebecca Lobo can kick my ass in a game of 1-1. So you can't really make those kinds of statements within gender either. This person may have been (seemingly was) horrified to awaken in the state he was. I bet there are women out there who wouldn't mind.

The issue here is the law. I don't know the law in Norway but if it was an unwanted sexual encounter I've got to beleive it was sexual assault and a punishment of nine monhs seems reasonable to me wihout knowing the situation. If you look at Patti's example which seems to me to be similar the guy got 20 years!

The point is you can't do whatever you want to someone elses body, male or female.

The point is you can't do whatever you want to someone elses body, male or female.

The point in a nutshell.

I'm off for a series of well-deserved drinks. Have a great weekend, everybody!

While stumbling through this sort of discussion where I certainly allow room for my opinions to change when tested by the experience of my friends, I only ask that I be given whatever benefit of the doubt I've earned. And if that's slim to none, I only have myself to blame, I suppose.

Don't beat yourself up buddy. You've made it clear that at least the bit about the lawsuit is something you said in an offhand unserious way. The discussion has since gotten a life of it's own and that's nobody's fault.

IMHO nobody is more deserving of the benefit of the doubt, than you are my friend. I know few people of such integrity, and besides, you're my best friend.

Giving someone the benefit of the doubt takes real discipline sometimes, especially when something angers or upsets you. It's always a good idea to keep in mind that if what your friend is saying/doing hurts you deeply, the most likely scenario is that you are misinterpreting them.

Pobody's nerfect.

So if I offended anyone, I apologize.

James - I'm sure this is not what you intended when you posted the story. It was a bizarre and quirky thing. Seriously. A woman performs oral sex on a sleeping man AT A PARTY? Nobody on the list can tell me that you hear that every day.

I haven't seen any say that it was wrong or that a man can't be raped. We are just differing over what to call it and on degrees of wrong.

In other words, why can't we all just get along? ;)

Er. That should be "any say that it was NOT wrong". Heh.

Bob, just to clarify, I meant that I can't be center for the Celtics because you can't be whatever you want to be, not because I'm a woman. So yeah, you probably can't either. Did you think that I meant that only a man could be a physicist??

My point, which probably wasn't clear because I was rushing off to a meeting, was that I think we are all somewhat brainwashed as children into thinking we're equal when we're not. You can't bring your own crayons in to school because the kid next to you might not be able to afford crayons.

I was brainwashed for a long time, although I always had my own weird interpretation because it was very obvious to me that we weren't equal. I was getting all the A's and other girls were getting all the dates... some got both... clearly we weren't equal. But it wasn't until recently that I started trying to really scrub away the brainwashing and figure out what's reality and what's baloney. And I certainly don't pretend I have it figured out. It's hard to tell what people are thinking in this emotional thread, but it seems that many do not agree that men and women are biologically different, are treated differently in society, and so perhaps there should be different treatment when one performs a sexual assault on the other. Women are disadvantaged. That is separate, of course, from my idea that what happened to this man is a different act from a violent rape. Those are two different ideas. The first relates to Chuck's comment that this is equivalent to a man doing the same thing to a woman. (Skipping over the homophobic thing completely.) The second relates to the lawyer's remark.

I'm rushing off to another meeting, so I probably didn't articulate myself very well here, either.

But, I didn't take this personally, which is why I was half-joking about it in my first post (thus the :-P), but other people seem to be getting very, very upset and for some reason taking it personally, and not coming down.

I hope we can agree to disagree.