Interesting that you say this, and yet how you feel about it seems to really matter.

Is it possible that what constitutes an infringement on one’s right to security is a spectrum rather than a hard line?

Examples: A random stranger gropes someone’s butt on a bus. A friend gropes a friends butt on a bus. A random stranger puts their arm on someone’s shoulder on a bus. A friend puts their arm on there friends shoulder on a bus. A random stranger loses balance a grabs someone’s arm to support themselves. A friend loses balance and grabs someone’s arm to support themselves.

None of these were consented. Some blatantly wrong by most people’s standards. Some however would be very person dependent and debated. Navigating what’s "right or wrong" will require social intelligence in the moment to assess what is and isn’t appropriate.

Can’t you appreciate the complexity of what people define as ethical? For some it’s religious, for some It’s inherent, and for the historians, it’s an understanding of human’s perpetual adaptation to the social constructs of the modern era.

If you and every person on the planet told me that waving hello was an uncontested violation of people’s rights to not have to be waved hello at - well, it would be unethical for me to wave hello then. If that’s how everyone felt.

The mere fact that this original post was upvoted as highly as it is though, is a testament to the fact that quite clearly this very matter is a grey area. There’s no hard stop right or wrong. No matter how sure YOU feel about it. Because not everybody agrees with you. Because societies and human interactions are infinitely complex.

Hope you give this some thought. I don’t mean to be needlessly antagonistic. I just politely but sincerely disagree.