Well, yes—but we could also give the benefit of the doubt to the parties involved and assume that the situation is exactly what they say, however vaguely: a crossing of boundaries that his position probably drew more narrowly. Sure, we’re curious, but those involved don’t owe us a detailed explanation, and this may or may not serve as a cautionary example of metastatic “purity culture.” I read about this first in the NYTimes (!) where no more details were given. It seems like a symbol in search of a significance.