What is the Volokh Conspiracy? Apparently to get chicks to consent to being groped.

Eugue Volokh, who is not an unintelligent man, posted an article on his blog discussing the difference between unwanted touchings and unwanted touchings of a sexual nature. Since this topic merges my two favorite topics (law & sex), I felt obliged to throw my two cents into the jelly jar. Here's an excerpt:

...Say, on the other hand, that someone intentionally touches your genitals,or intentionally caresses your breasts (if you're a woman). In many circumstances, this would be considered a crime. Why the difference? I think that here too there is a connection with sexual arousal -- either the
possibility that you might be involuntarily sexually aroused, or the
likelihood that the other person is deriving some sort of sexual arousal
from touching you....

Some might argue that the distinction has to do with a pure implied license theory: (1) The law should prohibit touching that is unwanted and offensive to the touched person. , (2) We can presume -- regardless of the reason for the distinction, but simply as a matter of empirical generalizations about people's actual preferences -- that shoulder taps and pats, and parting hugs, are wanted, while touching of genitals and breasts (without some more specific reason to infer permission) is unwanted. (3) Therefore the former shouldn't be outlawed but the latter should be. Yet can that really be right? Say that someone makes clear that he doesn't like hugs or pats on the back; even if we might punish
someone who hugs or pats the person over the person's objections, should we
really punish him to nearly the same degree as someone who touches another's
genitalia over that person's objections?...

My response is this:
The problem with involuntary touching is the lack of consent. Certain batteries (such as hugs) are not criminal because there is an implication that a reasonable person would consent to such a hug, even if unexpected or disconcerting. However, a person who makes it clear to the would-be hugger that she does not want to be hugged, DOES in fact have the ability to press charges for it. Plus, that person can sue for tortious battery. Whereas, with involuntary touching someone sexually, a reasonable person would not impliedly give consent to such an act. If the person who is touched makes it clear they would like to be touched, no crime has taken place and no civil suit would be valid. The reasonableness test is based on how the majority of Americans would like to deal with each other on a daily basis. Volokh's formal reasoning is sound, however, it removes from the equation cultural norms that we have decided for ourselves as a society.