They both go up to her room. They talk for a while, they start making out on the bed. He starts getting handsy, she starts refuting him.
In that situation, the one to which your replied, it is stated explicitly that the parties were initially in mutually welcome contact. However, you are not arguing against this. You are effectively stating that we should accept that what she has said occurred happened exactly as she stated and we have no reason to do so. If you have any reason we should do so, besides the fact that she is a woman and is making the claim, I would love to hear it.
I would also like you to confine your arguments to the situation to which you replied, but I seriously doubt that will happen.
Do you even understand what you are saying? She said "no". That means, no touching. It sure as hell is attempted rape when he continues the "handsy" business.
In some cultures, it is expect that a woman will say that even if she wants it to continue. You also seem to have missed the part in the example where they are "making out" on the bed, thus touching. And, there is no guarantee how the "no" was stated or taken. The "no" could have been taken as "no, don't do stick your hands down my pants" and, because they continued to kiss, he tried something else such as sticking his hands up her shirt. At that point, she might have, as the GP states, "physically assaulted" him.
As to him being in her room, you are assuming that her physical attack to him becoming "handsy" during the make-out session wasn't to hit him with the coffee cup. From his point of view, things could have gone from making out with a cute woman to having same said woman trying to kill him.
So, he starts getting handsy, she starts refuting him. He then does or says that she dislikes (moves his hands down her pants, says something offensive in her ear), and then, pay attention, she physically assaults him. Maybe she bites him, maybe she punches him, knees him on groin, whatever. And then he loses his temper, and hits her. Maybe the violence continues in some way, maybe not, he eventually leaves. So he hit a woman, and that's assault, sure. But rape? No.
Did you actually read what you wrote?
she physically assaults him. Maybe she bites him, maybe she punches him, knees him on groin, whatever.
At that point it would be assault and/or battery depending on local laws.
So he hit a woman, and that's assault, sure.
Why is it, in your example, that it is only assault when he hits her? Hitting her back could be an act of self-defense on his part, especially if her initial assault involved the coffee cup mentioned in her account.
"Security is mostly a superstition. It does not exist in nature... Life is either a daring adventure or nothing." -- Helen Keller