The man didn't mean anything by it of course, he didn't see anything wrong with grabbing a random woman round the waist and accidentally having a bit of a fumble
And that pretty much sums it up, doesn't it?
To many men, it is a right - they are entitled to have `"a bit of fun", and those women who don't acquiesce are "frigid", or "lezzas", or "can't take a bit of fun". Of course, when we do acquiesce - because we are frightened, or shocked, or out of our depth (as children are) or don't know what to do - we are "tarts' and "gagging for it".
The sense of sexual entitlement of some men is terrifying.
And when a rape or assault case gets to court, not only is the woman dragged over the coals, but everyone is worried about "ruining" a man's life by convicting him of something like rape or sexual assault. It is rare for anyone to even wonder if the woman's life has been affected in any way - let alone ruined. And yet we can see from this thread that even comparatively minor assaults have lasting and dreadful effects.
There is a tendency, too, to minimise the effects of a rape when the woman and man have had (or are having) a sexual relationship, or are even related. Somehow it's "not so bad" - and in some ways it's not - but many women then end up not being able to trust ANY man, because this particular man, who has claimed to love her/care for her, has forced her to do something repugnant to her, and has hurt her physically, emotionally and psychically.
Until we, as a society, get away from the idea that men can't control their urges, so women have to tolerate them (and who a bloody insult that is to men, too, to imply that they treat the mercy of their bollox) we will never take sexual assault really seriously.
Interesting though, that if a man's "hormones'` "force" him to rape, it isn't his fault, but if a woman's "hormones" make her edgy and irritable, then she should learn to control her temper and calm herself down.