Sarcastic Irony in Theaetetus part I

In the first part of Theaetetus, the dialogue focuses on Protagoras' theory that knowledge is perception, so that a perceiver produces it, rather than the world that one perceives. Throughout the dialogue, Socrates reiterates that he knows nothing, and operates in dialogue only to help his partner in conversation to bear the fruit of his own knowledge, just as a midwife, though she bears no children of her own, assists other women in their pregnancy and in the delivery of children. This seems very ironic, since Socrates participates in the dialogue as the primary speaker, who puts forward the brunt of the analysis, while Theaetetus only briefly answers questions and listens. At a certain point, the dialogue seems to offer convincing support of Protagoras' theory, and to concede that the perceiver must have unerring knowledge. At this point, after Socrates has effectively provided the entire analysis, he reiterates once again his lack of knowledge, and that he offers no contribution of his own, but merely extracts answers from Theaetetus. In this way, he likens himself to a mere object of Theaetetus' unerring perceptive knowledge (and therefore objects of perception to the concept of the midwife), in a quite humorously effusive concession that directly precedes a devastating secondary critique of Protagoras' theory, in which Socrates draws particular attention to the theory's absurdity. This part of the dialogue seems to bear testament to a bent for sarcastic humor as concerns Plato. 

Themes in Phaedrus

It seems to me that there is a strong threefold analogy in the Phaedrus. First, Socrates examines the idea of paederastic relationships without love. Then, he examines the idea of rhetoric without truth, and finally, he examines the idea of writing without critical thought. Love, truth, and critical thought all seem to provide vitality and meaning, without which the activities listed regress to nonsense. Any thoughts?