No, I disagree that he is a twit for applying the societal rules as currently defined and concluding they would be classified as sex assault perpetrators.
Under societal rules as currently defined (no matter how outrageous they are), he is arguably correct in his conclusion.
The problem is that societal rules are currently defined in a manner that is stupidly outrageous.
And thank you for avoiding any ad hominem attacks in your post, FRiend. Merry Christmas to you and yours!
Actually, I would counter that a twit in tall grass is still a twit.
The changing of the “rules” that constitutes the tall grass? ... feh!
The mavens of the new abnormal often don’t know which rest room to use.
It is perfectly legitimate to just not change with the times (by accepting or tolerating their new abinorms). It is also legitimate to push back against them.