I'm not dodging anything. I've responded to your comments as quoted. I wasn't quoting her words when I was she was focusing on the physical contact, nor did I purport to be. I still think it's completely reasonable to say.

Why you did that, I do not know

It was a response to someone who equated it to masturbating with the pets in the room. Different from being in the same bed, different from being in physical contact, and different from specifically recounting the event as masturbating while the pets' sticky muscly bodies thrashed against him/her. I pointed out the difference in a way though I thought was humorous and they took it as such. That's why I said what I did.

Using your sentence as an example, it would be like me saying that You rode your bike to work because the rain was pouring.

It would be like saying "You focused on riding your bike to work while it was pouring rain." Yes, the sentence does not say that, but if someone told a story about riding their bike to work, or told a story about sleeping in the same bed as their sister, and they mentioned something that is highly related to the main subject of the story, the fact they are telling a story about it and noticed it at the time tells me they were focused on both things happening.

You're getting on me about my interpretation of something which I have never denied is an interpretation. I am happy to talk about and defend the legitimacy of the interpretation. In the meantime, we're literally having a very semantic argument in a word by word fashion, and through our very direct linguistic allegory, you have substituted my words of "masturbating while focusing on the physical contact" to "masturbating because of the physical contact"

Do you really think that's an honest representation of what I've said? Was that an accident?

I mean, come on.