Just because She's Topless

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Topless does not mean "touch me without my permission" :

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/woman-ze...26080.html

Good for her! We need more hippies with attitude right now!

I have a question, from some previous conversations.  I apologize if this is too far off topic, but this came to mind from this post.

This stems from some talks about harm as a basis of objective morality.  I felt there was some disconnect, in what was meant by objective in those discussions, epistemology vs ontology and so on.  However this illustration has me curious if I understand correctly for those who view harm as the foundation for what is immoral.


Now I am making some assumptions here.  First that the boob grab was just a touch.  Second it's difficult to tell how well the punch was landed by the woman (as some commented it should have been more); for the sake of the discussion, assume some damage such as a black eye.

I can't remember who I was talking with about harm and morality.  But for any who hold this view, then would the girl be in the wrong, since the objective harm was done against the man?

Minimizing harm doesn't require the abrogation of self defense. I don't much care that the boob grab was 'just a touch' - to any sensible person, it qualifies as assault. Her boobs, her body, her right to stomp this guy flat.  THAT is the moral justification for what she did. 

Boru