It also makes his previous email on this - sanctioned for publicity or not - bizarrely worded. "No, what happened wasn't rape, the definition you gave me isn't correct. It WAS a bad thing though."
I mean, why mention the definition if no intercourse or extreme intimacy occurred?
At a guess because it's two separate parts of the paragraph. It wasn't rape AND and the definition given wasn't correct either, BUT it was a bad thing in it's own right.