1. You are not really looking for reasonable standards for consent, are you?
2. You condemned the woman rights organization. It's your right to back off.
3. He is in that case not a reasonable man.
4. We differ here.
5. Victims can defend themselves. Offenders can do it as well. We can believe, like the judges in this case, that a victim is sometimes too stunned to react.
6. No and no. It's not obvious that a hug (any hug) is a sexual signal. And knowing that a kiss is much more evident than a hug, the woman being a non consenting participant, may have been less injured by it, and less likely to complain.
7. You can sue me or ignore me.

Wrong madam, ignoring is *not* answering. But you can try again.

And like I mentioned before, you express your annoyance in this case, and directed it at the woman right organizations. When you were confronted on that logic, you discharged the organizations and went for the court system, thus fulfilling your right to back off.

As for the kiss, according to the account in the court ruling: he held her head suddenly, and kissed her. She backed off and looked stunned. He still asked her twice for her number. If he wanted to get it, he would have gotten it, and would have apologized accordingly.

In our case, there is no law against answering you, though it's not much of an intellectual challenge.

No idea what you're on about, but have a good one.