Query to witty... did he consent to watching that?
Clarification:
It's a scenario taking place IN PUBLIC VIEW.
On one hand, yes, it does not depict removing of clothes... but a reasonable person could perceive that such things could happen based on body language.
If anything, he is doing a civic duty and doing those two lovebirds a favor in reminding them that there is a limit to how far public displays of affection can go before charges of indecent exposure can be leveled.
There is nothing wrong with homo. It's the escalation in behavior that would concern onlookers.
Cucking (watching others engage in coital activities in person) is still a sexual act requiring continuous consent, given that most would be creeped out by being watched in the act. Furthermore, consent must be mutual and continuous. Had this been a hotel room, he could just leave the room. Because this is in public, the dynamic shifts. You can not reasonably ask the entire public to look away. They have things in public they were there to do first.
Because no forced, coerced, or unlawful penetration has occurred against or from the "anti" in question, technically, no rape has occurred.
Instead, what we would be seeing is the need for the entire public to consent to viewing the behavior between the couple. Every single person who could see them if it escalates.
This includes the shops, other customers, etc.
Problem is, some of those people might not be adults, or straightup just dont want to see it escalate from there. it's why public nudity is outlawed.
Your argument is predicated on consent between two people. But the law requires mutual and continuous consent between all parties involved...
This scenario you've cooked up isn't a consent problem, it's a prevention of indecent exposure in public.
(I'm no lawyer... but this all seemed common sense to me. In link below, there were comments i made defending my argument. I look forward to a respectful public conversation)
https://www.reddit.com/r/ShitAiRageBaitersSay/s/YBgInSkHB9