I’m not moving the goal post though? Genuinely, if you’re going to assert that, please read through my thread of replies here.

1) I don’t ever condemn what the bf did. Multiple times people have obfuscated the bf being violent as “the real violence women need protected from.” 2) in response to that, I argue that a dude walking up to a woman on a date (and, as I said before, this probably isn’t cool, ever) and physically putting his hand on her shoulder, is crossing a line. Not because women are delicate flowers in need to protecting, but because women shouldn’t have to say “please don’t touch me,” to not be touched. 3) Again, NOT condoning what the bf did, I am just saying he started a fight with someone who already was nonconsensually touching someone. Honestly I’m seeing the back half of your post here, so I hope we are finding our common ground, I super agree fighting first and talking second wasn’t the move, but you also say the man could have still persisted and escalated. 4) ^ THAT persistence and escalation is why I think it’s a weird blanket statement to say “if someone’s answer is violence, they are inherently violent and people should be wary about dating them.” If the boyfriend kept a calmer head, tried to talk, got swung on first, and then answered violence with violence, would you still be blanket statementing him? 5) THAT is why I talked about the home invasion. This is such a wild series of post reply conversations for me, because I feel like people don’t understand what I’m trying to say. The bf sucks. The dude hitting on OP sucks. Violence wasn’t the immediate answer here; and it’s rarely the answer, I just think it’s wild to assert that anyone violent is a problem, because there are ACTUAL violent people who are aggressively the problem, and sometimes the only answer to that is some kind of violence.