There are a couple of problems with your argument, Leopard. First, the definition of “sexual assault” is not objective or trans-historical. We can judge past behavior by our own standards, but we cannot understand their behavior (verstehen) by imposing our standards. So it is possible (even likely) that no one involved would have described this as sexual assault. There is an arrogance in your willingness to impose your own interpretation of events on those involved (an arrogance which the Nietzchian in me appreciates), which needs to be acknowledged. But imposing your own (emic) definitions onto other (etic) social situations is simply an error of understanding; it is not, in itself, ethically incorrect.