That's pretty bad ass! But I just have to say it: Bathroom doors?

She was also awesome in Resident Evil!

Yeah!! Two thumbs up. And "bathroom doors" was just an awesome extra added fuck you to the puritans.

Um, I was with her except for the bestiality. Fucking dogs is not cool. Too bad she had to go there b/c otherwise she has an excellent point.

Yeah, I have to say that I was really offended by the dog part. I get that she was trying to make a strong point, but animals cannot consent to sexual interaction with humans.

mybabypanda took the words out of my mouth.

What's really cool about this is we just finished watching Girlfight in my Women's Studies class today. I don't think she meant to endorse bestiality here, although she could have chosen her words more carefully because bestiality is not cool by any means. But I think I know what she means here and it's what I've thought so often when people pry into celeb's personal lives to this extent (minus the dog part).

From the context, I think it's safe to say the dogs portion is hyperbole. As in she could have said 'girls, boys, trees'
or 'girls, boys, garden hoses' or any number of other words without people jumping to the conclusion she's a garden toolophiliac. I seriously doubt she was trying to slyly slip advocating bestiality into a quote on her sex life being none of the press' business.

Agreed with Roni. I think most of y'all missed her point...

Tofurific: No where was she advocating having sex with dogs. Nor did she say she has sex with dogs.

Let's not let the dog remark overshadow the statement... It was a just a bad choice in words bc, apart from negating her point (no, it's not just your business if you want to fuck a dog), it kind of fans that ridiculous flame of fear in conservatives that homosexuality is a "gateway" to beastiality and other perversions.

"No where was she advocating having sex with dogs."

Well, I would say that she actually did. Which is unfortunate, because I agree with her intentions.

"As in she could have said 'girls, boys, trees'
or 'girls, boys, garden hoses' or any number of other words without people jumping to the conclusion she's a garden toolophiliac."

I wouldn't have any problem with her being a 'garden toolophiliac;' they have no consent.

"What the majority of (people) want to know is what I'm doing with my vagina, and I think that that's sick."

Is wondering about somebody sexually really sick? I agree that it's kind of fucked if questions about somebody's sexuality becomes an all-encompassing obsession, but I don't think wondering what somebody does in bed is a sick wonder. Calling it such sounds kind of puritanical to me.

Nope, I don't think she's rad. This comment gets no love from me because she's just trying to deflect having to come out. Since when does "I am a lesbian" equal "All reporters want to know about what I stick in my vagina because they are filthy pigs." Sounds like *you're* the one with the dirty mind there.
for MR (or any celebrity) to act
And, no, I don't think celebrities or anyone in the public eye "owes" it to "the public" to come out. I recognize that coming out is a highly personal choice. Yet to pretend that it has NO impact when celebs come out...that's willfully naive. Haven't there been numerous posts here whenever a celeb declares in an interview they're a feminist? Aren't we happy to hear that open declaration, hoping that it will help destigmatize the preconceived notion of what a feminist is?

So, yeah, it's her business, 100%. But to make it sound like the only reason anyone would ask is because they care about her vagina, to imply that homosexuality and bestiality are on the same level of "choices" a person might make behind the bathroom door, that's insulting. Be fucking brave and say you're gay, lie and say you're not, whatever, that's on you. But don't act like it doesn't matter.

Oops! In between paragraphs:

for MR (or any celebrity) to act

is obviously a typo, so ignore it, please. :)

Just to tag on to the great point Angie just made:

"Since when does 'I am a lesbian or BISEXUAL" equal 'All reporters want to know about what I stick in my vagina because they are filthy pigs.'"

Just combatting bi invisibility.

Actually, I don't think the people upset with a portion of her comment missed the point. I already said I understand that she was trying to make a strong statement (although I agree hyperbole is a more apt description of that). The fact of the matter is, even if it's small by the numbers, there *are* people who rape animals. If she had said "a girl, a boy, or a garden hose" that wouldn't have elicited any negativity. You know why? Because you can't actually rape a garden hose. You CAN rape a dog. And if you do fuck a dog, it is no longer just your own business, because it's a crime. And while I'm not conspiratorial enough to think that she was trying to subversively slip in some tacit approval of bestiality, that doesn't make the implication of her words any less offensive.

Maybe people are going to take my comments as an indication that I want to excoriate someone for an unfortunate choice of words, but that's really not my intention. I'm not so blind as to let that overshadow the rest of the comment. But the fact that the rest of the comment was awesome doesn't negate the fact that the dog part was offensive, and I don't really see a problem calling out otherwise awesome people for these kinds of mistakes.

OK this is all great except I thought everyone already knew she was dating that woman from the L Word/Painkiller Jane??

To be fair, I think that there's a difference between the gay community wondering if she's gay and reporters repeatedly asking her if she sleeps with women, and I'd guess that the later are less concerned about gay pride and probably, as she suggests, more interested in hearing the sordid details of her sex life.

I don't see any incompatibility between thinking that it's great when celebs come out and thinking that it's sick and shitty when reporters hound them about their sexuality.

"If I wanna f**k a girl, a boy, a dog, that's my business."

Unless one of them is paying money. Then it becomes the governments business. What a crock. Shouldn't "My body, my choice" extend to the exchange of sex for money?

I think feminists are A) beating their heads against the wall, and B) losing credibility with the hypocrisy of their anti-prostitution stance.
While anti-prostitution (and topless dancing) is not necessarily a STANDARD feminist belief it IS increasingly talked about by many feminist leaders as a thing that is to be ended and a thing to be taken up by rank and file feminists. If you're going to contradict yourself and say:"my body my choice, except here, here, here and let's see here" then you're going to lose credibility.

She could have replaced "dog" with "Republican" or any other number of groups and it would have been more acceptable.

"If I wanna f**k a girl, a boy, a member of the Flat Earth society, that's my business."

Offensive? I'm sure she said this on-the-fly and "dogs" was the first thing to pop into her mind. I'm not one to usually tell someone they are being too sensitive, but in this case ... you are.

Also, Tofurific, I agree with what roymacIII said -- the paps ARE just trying to get the sordid details of her sex life. Paps will hound just to get a story. They don't give a crap about the "gay community" and her coming out. Her being annoyed by the constant questiosn about her PERSONAL life are, indeed, valid.

Jabes1966: What? Off-topic, much?

"I think feminists are A) beating their heads against the wall, and B) losing credibility with the hypocrisy of their anti-prostitution stance.
While anti-prostitution (and topless dancing) is not necessarily a STANDARD feminist belief it IS increasingly talked about by many feminist leaders as a thing that is to be ended and a thing to be taken up by rank and file feminists. If you're going to contradict yourself and say:"my body my choice, except here, here, here and let's see here" then you're going to lose credibility."

Umm Jabes...

1) Are you yourself a sex worker?

2) Are you aware of the horrible conditions under which many low-level prostitutes work? (e.g. just for one example, doctors in Utah where prostitution is legal, have found that many of the prostitutes show signs of trauma akin to someone who has been repeatedly raped...)

3) What does that have to do with this thread?

Re: bestiality-- Hyperbole or not, unintentional or not, the idea of raping animals is abhorrent. I really wish she hadn't said that, as everything else was so on point. I especially wish she hadn't listen same-sex sex and bestiality in sequence that way. Really poor choice.

Angie:

she's just trying to deflect having to come out.

Right, let's assume her sexuality. That'll be very feminist of us.

Yet to pretend that it has NO impact when celebs come out...that's willfully naive.

When did she say this? Or even imply it?

But to make it sound like the only reason anyone would ask is because they care about her vagina

Are you seriously asking us to believe that the paparazzi are actually out to promote queer visibility? Ffs, her vagina is exactly what they care about. Sure, they'd take her relationship(s) with women and run with them, in the name of hot, sexy scandalousness. That? Is not the visibility we need.

Be fucking brave and say you're gay, lie and say you're not, whatever, that's on you. But don't act like it doesn't matter.

First of all, if you're going to ride this high horse, can you stop talking like gay and straight are the only two things she could conceivably be. If she is queer, that doesn't obligate her to be a token/beacon of queerhood. You don't know her at all; there are so many variables you're failing to consider. Maybe she's neither, maybe she's questioning, maybe she rejects labels, maybe she can't come out to her family; none of these scenarios obligate her to lie just so she can fit into the kind of binary glossy magazine readers can wrap their minds around.

And she didn't say it didn't matter; she said it was no one's business. Which it's not.

Er, that is, I wish she hadn't she hadn't listed same-sex sex and bestiality in sequence that way. Sorry.

Offensive? I'm sure she said this on-the-fly and "dogs" was the first thing to pop into her mind. I'm not one to usually tell someone they are being too sensitive, but in this case ... you are.

Because endorsing bestiality is totally fine, so long as it's "on the fly." Rape: now totally cas. And, thanks for the decree.

She was not endorsing bestiality. Period.

You know, repeating your sentiment and then putting "period" at the end doesn't actually make it more valid.

I'm not saying she set out to "endorse bestiality"; I think it was probably an unfortunate misstatement. However, the fact remains that she asserted her right to "fuck" (read: rape) a dog. That's incredibly wrong, she shouldn't have said it and there's absolutely no reason to excuse it.

3) What does that have to do with this thread?

We're not paying him enough attention! It's all about him! Can't you silly feminists tell that from the headline?!

Yeah when I saw she made that statement, she totally went down a couple levels in my eyes. I don't care if she didn't mean it. She said it, it was, I guess, the first thing she thought of (ewe, much?), and is simply horrid.

I agree w/ her that it's nobody's business as long as she keeps it human.

But while I don't care if she's queer, I do think she's a total asshat for equating it with raping dogs.

And also, though I get that she was throwing that in there to be ridiculous, just by saying that she thinks it is okay, and totally within her right... she is endorsing bestiality, at least in the way that it's apparently not a big deal to her.

Whether or not she was endorsing bestiality I think her unfortunate phrasing potentially turned a great moment into one that harms the cause she was advocating. It would have been gold without it.

“I just keep it to myself and it's nobody's business. If I wanna f**k a girl, a boy, a dog, that's my business. That's why there's bathroom doors."

cant she just say "im not answering", because a comment like that makes her look really stupid. well, at least it pretty much answers the question of which genitalia she prefers.

BTW, i think bestiality is okay as long as the animal is consenting. HAHAHAHAHA

Dogs can't consent? Ha! The dogs I've known have all been more than willing to hump furniture, but if you swap the sofa for a human it becomes rape? Hell, they can't verbally consent to petting either but that doesn't stop people from putting their hands on them. Is that sexual harassment now?

Dogs are slaves. If we keep dogs we are slaveholders. Dogs can not consent to anything.

If you think dogs can consent to petting, you are probably pro-porn, and pro-prostitution, because petting a dog is just like a male hooking up with a prostitute on craigslist.

We at PETA very much love the animal companions who share our homes, but we believe that it would have been in the animals' best interests if the institution of "pet keeping"—i.e., breeding animals to be kept and regarded as "pets"—never existed. The international pastime of domesticating animals has created an overpopulation crisis; as a result, millions of unwanted animals are destroyed every year as "surplus." This selfish desire to possess animals and receive love from them causes immeasurable suffering, which results from manipulating their breeding, selling or giving them away casually, and depriving them of the opportunity to engage in their natural behavior. Their lives are restricted to human homes where they must obey commands and can only eat, drink, and even urinate when humans allow them to.

Because domesticated animals retain many of their basic instincts and drives but are not able to survive on their own in the wild, dogs, cats, or birds, whose strongest desire is to be free, must be confined to a house, yard, or cage for their own safety.

This is a "best case" scenario. The truth is that millions of dogs spend their lives outside on heavy chains in all weather extremes, or they are kept locked up in tiny chain-link pens from which they can only watch the world go by. Millions more are confined to filthy wire cages in puppy mills—forced to churn out litter after litter until they wear out, at which time they are killed or dumped at the local animal shelter. Even in "good" homes, cats must relieve themselves in dirty litterboxes and often have their digits removed by "declawing," and dogs often have to drink water that has sat around for days, are hurried along on their walks, and are yelled at to get off the furniture or be quiet.

Most compassionate people never think that someone would throw a litter of kittens out the window of a moving car, and they would certainly be shocked by PETA's inches-thick files on cases of dogs and cats who have been shot with arrows, blown up with firecrackers, doused in gasoline and set on fire, cooked in microwave ovens, used as "bait" in dogfights, tortured in satanic rituals, beaten with baseball bats by bored kids, dragged behind cars to "teach them a lesson" for running away, or bound in duct tape to silence their barking. Abuses such as these happen to many animals every day.

Contrary to myth, PETA does not want to confiscate animals who are well cared for and "set them free." What we want is for the population of dogs and cats to be reduced through spaying and neutering and for people to adopt animals (preferably two so that they can keep each other company when their human companions aren't home) from pounds or shelters—never from pet shops or breeders—thereby reducing suffering in the world.

Keep your filthy PETA out of my feminism and my animal welfare advocacy. PETA is a lying, misogynistic cult that would rather euthanize a healthy, well-socialized "companion animal" than find it a good home. Of course, that's because you'd rather see a dead puppy than one enslaved by an uncaring master who forces it "to drink water that has sat around for days, are hurried along on their walks, and are yelled at to get off the furniture or be quiet."

And don't get all high and mighty about porn and Craigslist prostitution, PETA-peddler. Your organization routinely profits from the naked, sexualized bodies of women primarily by comparing us to meat. And let's not get started on the overt references to pornography and pornalized women in PETA promotional media.

If you want to advocate radical animal rights and the abolition of companion animal ownership, then fine. But don't you dare try to co-opt feminist arguments to support PETA. Because I will harass you about your fucking hypocrasy every time I see it. (I suggest that if you really want to help improve the plight of animals without sustaining the plight of women... go find a worthier organization to shill.)

I go away for a few days and... wow. I think PETA boy needs to take a chill pill and calm down.

While I understand the sentiment, I can get behind the people who are concerned she used "dog". I don't think she meant she'd ever actually fuck a dog and that she was trying to be ridiculous but she could have just said "whatever." And people ARE obsessed with her sexuality and what she "is" it's part of our culture where you have to fit into a box and if she were gay it'd probably go a long way to calming people's fears/issues with overly masculine women, which she also brought up in that answer. Yes, she was "rumored" to have been dating the actress from Painkiller Jane, but they are no longer together (*if* they ever were) as that actress is now getting married.

Xana:

You're absolutely right. Thanks for catching that.

Sandinista:

I wasn't trying to apply *I* assume anything about her sexuality except exactly what has been stated and implied by both the queer press and her very close friend, the openly bisexual actress Kristanna Lokken.

And I stand by my feeling that she implied that we should care less who she is dating, even if that person happens to be the same gender as her. "What do you care who I'm dating?" is a direct quote and, to me, that implies that no one in the public should ever have any cause to care, wonder, or feel impacted by a public figure's declarations. And, PERSONALLY, I *do* think that's willfully naive. Yes, I wish that it didn't matter if some actor or politician was gay. I wish that gay people and teens and kids all over the world said, "Who cares! I'm gay and happy no matter what!" but that is simply not the case. There's an impact when a public figure comes out, like it or not.

And many of the publications that have asked Rodriguez AND Lokken about their relationship are not actually, you know, US WEEKLY. They are publications like The Advocate and AfterEllen.com. Are they all paparazzi who want hot, hot pictures of them kissing? Really? Every publication EVER is just in it for the salacious details? I guess to some degree that might be true but, on the other hand, that's part of the "celebrity game" from the get-go. However, implying that ANY question about her sexuality is from someone who wants ONLY to know what she sticks in her vagina because they are a dirty pig, well, that just seems silly, in both reality and in "celeb-reality."

Also, I conceded in my post (and I was trying very deliberately to not make it sound like some simple matter with no strings, so I am sorry if that didn't come across clearly enough) that coming out is a remarkably personal decision that only one person can, in the end, make. But I *won't* apologize for thinking it's important for people in the public eye, celebrities, athletes, politicians, etc. to try to expand the binary thinking that traps so many of us so frequently, glossy magazine readers or not. (like my inadvertent exclusion of bisexuality.)

Trying to do this by being honest, not aggressively defensive, not listing homosexuality as a "choice" that might happen behind closed doors same as bestiality, is an act of courage. It expands our definitions. It opens eyes. It reminds us that GLBTQ people are not invisible. No one in the public eye has to be (can be for everyone) a "token/beacon of queerhood" but coming out, making the declaration, difficult though it is, that MATTERS. And if thinking that puts me on a "high horse" then...giddy-up.

Angie's not wrong; it does matter, though it shouldn't. But as between the lying, denying form of closet and "none of your damned business," the latter moves the ball forward better. The former reinforces heteronormativity; the latter says, "you don't know, and I won't say."

Alice, that post was awful.

You can all hate her for making light of bestiality all you want-- I'm going to hate her for being an abusive partner. If you read between the lines, she suffered defensive wounds while her "friend/roomate" was subjected to classic power/control/abuse. It was later revealed that Rodriguez used a telephone to beat her "friend"-- likely the cause of the black eye and lacerations.

"Michelle Rodriguez is breathing a sigh of relief after the assault and harassment charges against her have been dropped. The tough-girl actress' roommate Louise Ann Ward, 21, filed the charges on March 16, claiming Rodriguez attacked her in their Jersey City apartment, punching her, pulling her hair and refusing to let her leave the apartment. Ward suffered a swollen right eye and a laceration, while Rodriguez was treated for a bite wound on her arm. But on Thursday she told the Jersey City Municipal Court she did not want to go forward with the charges. The two women walked out of the courthouse together, with Rodriguez telling journalists, "Friends fight and then they make up."

source: http://www.imdb.com/news/wenn/2002-04-08#celeb3

"Also, Tofurific, I agree with what roymacIII said -- the paps ARE just trying to get the sordid details of her sex life. Paps will hound just to get a story. They don't give a crap about the "gay community" and her coming out. Her being annoyed by the constant questiosn about her PERSONAL life are, indeed, valid."

I'm not sure why this part of your comment was directed at me, marileec, since I never even commented on this?

Anyway, you can think I'm oversensitive, it doesn't really bother me. I know how I feel about the comment and that's not going to change. I'm actually more offended by some people's attempt to negate the negative portion of her comment just because a) the rest of the comment was so good, or b) it was off the cuff and in response to some invasive media jerks.

It's the same type of ploy that people try and use to excuse all kinds of offensive things (read: rape jokes...he didn't really mean it!, rape allegations...but he's such an upstanding citizen!, etc.), and it makes for a really poor argument. And no, I'm not equating the dog comment with rape jokes or rape allegations, but if you look closely, some people really are using the same type of argument to write it off, which is pretty lame. Just because the dog comment is less offensive to you doesn't make that type of argument fly any better than it would for a more offensive situation. Just sayin'.

"to me, that implies that no one in the public should ever have any cause to care, wonder, or feel impacted by a public figure's declarations. And, PERSONALLY, I *do* think that's willfully naive. Yes, I wish that it didn't matter if some actor or politician was gay."

so what you are trying to say is that just because the rest of the world likes to poke their noses into other peoples private business we might as well do the same 'cause no one is stopping them?

"However, implying that ANY question about her sexuality is from someone who wants ONLY to know what she sticks in her vagina because they are a dirty pig, well, that just seems silly"

I do realize that people give celebrities these god-like complexes and it's therefor exciting to know every detail about their private life as a result of the fame they receive from their job. But does that mean it's appropriate for some stranger to go up you or me and interrogate us on our sexuality?

the bottom line is, I think that sex is an extremely personal and private matter. If a reporter went up and politely asked "so michelle, have you been seeing anyone lately" and her reaction was like the one above then I would think that, that was an extremely inappropriate response to a non-prying question. But we all know what the paparazzi is like and I doubt that they take boundaries into account for anything.

I still think the dog thing is really gross.

Actually, I thought she might have heard Gerard Butler's recent comment (when asked if he was involved with Cameron Diaz), which was along the lines of "everytime you're seen with someone people assume you're fucking. When I walk my dog in the park, will people assume I'm fucking my dog?" I thought that was pretty funny, and perhaps she had that on her mind when she went off.

I don't take offense to the dog comment at all....I know she should have probably said something else but I get her point. I think that we are nitpicking it too much and we should really be happy that she said something feminist at all. I'd rather take a little than none at all.

I think this statement is horrendous, not rad -- the use of "dog" is wildly inappropriate for obvious reasons, but I also think that it's very offensive that she said "girl" and "boy" rather than woman and man.

It is NOT okay to f* a) a girl, b) a boy, OR c) a dog. And it's not just your business, it's also the other person's business. This was such an unfortunate approach for her to take.

Imagine if a man (straight or queer) had made this statement! Everyone would have a field day attacking his horrendous attitude and choice of words - and they would be absolutely right. If a gay man had said this, the world would be up in arms over his mention of sex with children and bestiality - both for their awful nature at face value and for the damage they inflict on the perception of gayness.

Alice -- I have no idea what you mean by this:

"If you think dogs can consent to petting, you are probably pro-porn, and pro-prostitution, because petting a dog is just like a male hooking up with a prostitute on craigslist."

I do not follow your logic.

katita37: Alice -- I have no idea what you mean by this:

If you think dogs can consent to petting, you are probably pro-porn, and pro-prostitution, because petting a dog is just like a male hooking up with a prostitute on craigslist."

I do not follow your logic.

I'm not the one who wrote that.

Oh, I'm sorry! Guess the poster's name goes below the post, not above it :) That was J Pierpont Flathead.

I guess all ya'll who are concerned about her comment advocating dog-rape never drink milk or eat beef? Because, y'know, they artificially inseminate cows on farms. I don't see how that's any different.

I'm really surprised that anyone took her comment so literally and so seriously though.

It is an unfair and pointless comparison to equate the girl/boy/dogs remark to a rape joke or an offensive statement in a press conference.

Ill-chosen words in defense of a larger point in an off the cuff remark, as the article seems to portray it, are frequently out of context and have no forethought behind them. We have no idea what sort of questions were likely being yelled at her. If they were like "Do you like girls or boys?", "Do you fuck anything that moves?" her response makes perfect sense. At worst she may have stopped 10 seconds later and thought "Oops, I could have phrased that better." It's something that happens to everyone. Celebrities don't have some kind of superpower to make witty, flawless, spontaneous statements at all times regardless of the situation. Have you ever seen video of the yelling, flashbulb-wielding, surging paparazzi horde celebrities have to contend with? I'm glad I'm not famous because I would be in jail for punching someone.

In contrast, something like a rape joke or a bigoted statement of opinion are offensive in concept as opposed to execution. The problem is the rape joke, not how poorly or well it was phrased. If you hate "X" people that's inherently a problem, regardless of the eloquence of the statement. Particularly if it's a case of a politician at a press conference, the whole point is picking an approved time to make a prepared statement. If people take questions they have to improvise an on the spot response, but it's a choice, they had the opportunity to prepare.

How to interpret her statement is a subjective exercise where we can't prove exactly what she meant. It's really up to the reader to use context and common sense to interpret her statement something that again can't be forced, but is really the best choice in trying to be taken seriously.

Michelle is awesome. And I love that she said "bathroom doors". Maybe that was a shot at the police who spend their time in public bathrooms a la the Larry Craig scandal?

I don't think being terrified that someone might know you're queer qualifies as "rad." It qualifies as closeted. There's a difference.

Her blog post here kind of sums that up: http://www.michelle-rodriguez.com/frommichelle_05_07.htm

Moral of the story, you don't get cool points for being "too cool" to openly date women.

Ninapendimaishi wrote:
Umm Jabes...

1) Are you yourself a sex worker?

2) Are you aware of the horrible conditions under which many low-level prostitutes work? (e.g. just for one example, doctors in Utah where prostitution is legal, have found that many of the prostitutes show signs of trauma akin to someone who has been repeatedly raped...)

3) What does that have to do with this thread?
--------------------------
1) No I am not a sex worker. ARE YOU?
2) Do you have a a link regarding the vaginal abuse of Utah prostitute?
As far as danger to prostitutes is concerned I consider it akin to the danger involved during prohibition. When alcohol was made illegal, organized crime came in and that's when you had tommy guns and killings, and gangs infiltrating into the mainstream through speak-easies etc.

Prostitution is dangerous BECAUSE of it's illegality. We're NOT going to end it, so why don't we REALLY help the prostitutes as they did in germany:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_Germany
by making it legal and CONTROLLING it.
Even if you're right about the sex workers in Utah regarding the raping or near-raping it's probably because prostitution was ONLY made legal with no oversight. I imagine something equally bad would happen if pot were SIMPLY made legal with no controls (such as smoking and driving, or age restrictions, etc..) I myself believe pot should be decriminalized to the point of alcohol.
3)No, I don't consider it off-topic at all. The introductory text to this article was CELEBRATORY of Rodriquez's declaration that her sexuality was HER business.
So, I'm asking why feminists say that that ENDS (and a person's sexuality becomes GOVERNMENT business) when money is involved? I don't think it's off-topic at all.