That is exactly how I am using it - more accurately 'offended' is a set of behaviours, some of them passive, some of them aggressive, some of them passive aggressive and motivated by emotion. When your friend was asked if she had another baby in her stomach she was likely emotionally affected, but she was able to rationalise that emotion away and not behave in a way that was either confrontational or punitive. In short, whilst she was initially upset she made the choice not to be offended.

That's of course on an individual level - and yes, like all humans (and Penguins) we have to carefully navigate the collective landmines of not upsetting people. Social bonds rely on both giving and receiving appropriate emotional signals at the right time. That's why something said at one point can be not-upsetting but the same thing said by a different person or by the same person at a different time can be. Humans are adept and adapt round these things.

On the social level though - it is very difficult to be actually emotionally upset, it lacks that interpersonal malice. I think much of the emotion is manufactured and then acted upon as though it were real. That isn't about emotional expression, it's about controlling a particular set of behaviours you disagree with and using micro-interpersonal human traits as though they exist on a macro-society wide level. I don't think that is entirely legitimate and I think we need to be very careful about adding that into the collective social contract.

The thick and fuzzy line you have alluded to either needs to be made less fuzzy, or removed all together. :o)