That's the point I was trying to make. One person's interpretation can be wildly different than another's interpretation of the same event. If we are going to assign preference to the interpretation that is the most damaging to both parties involved--she is traumatized, he is fired--then perhaps it is better to completely separate the sexes.
* The guy _followed_ her onto the elevator.
* The guy explicitly invited her to his room for a 4 AM coffee.
* She didn't identify the guy at all, just mentioned this as an offhand example of something it would be nice for men to avoid doing.
Women who don't want that sex of course will tell you to stop, but other women who do want that sex will tell you to do it more and that men are too reserved. Men can't read minds so women will just keep having to say no.
(Many of those commentators then went on to exaggerate or outright lie about what the original story was, and I wonder whether it wasn't one of those distorted versions you heard, since you seem to agree that it's reasonable for someone to decide they personally don't like this kind of thing.)