There was at least one person on the thread for the original blog post that argued that the incident as described did not constitute sexual assault, and when th

There was at least one person on the thread for the original blog post that argued that the incident as described did not constitute sexual assault, and when the actual statutes demonstrating that it was were given to him, he said basically that while it may be sexual assault in the letter of the law, he did not think it was that a big a deal or that what was described should be illegal. He received plenty of downvotes, but plenty of upvotes too. I know that arguing that something should not be illegal is not strictly the same as arguing that it's not 'not okay', but it is close enough to make me uncomfortable.