None of the other events she describes have an obvious sexual undertone, even if we accept the paper did. She appears to be describing a friendly person who enjoys talking to his colleagues about things he's interested in when he gets in to work. Let's look at her complaints:
1. He asked her to comment on a scientific paper involving sexual behavior in animals.
2. He told her about a book he was reading on Casanova — specifically that he admired Casanova's adaptability to different situations and skill at gambling (Note: This is the emphasis she herself gives; I'm not downplaying any sexual component)
3. He said he would like to do a course on "sinful" behavior such as gambling, in which he might dress like the devil on some occasion
4. He asked her out to dinner, saying she could bring her husband and he would bring his girlfriend. He showed up without his girlfriend, but did bring another companion in her place. At the end of the night he gave her a hug and kissed her cheek "in the presence of [her] husband"
5. He likes to come into her office in the morning and chat, often about technical fields outside of his degree
6. He initially complimented her along the lines of "You look good in that outfit," she told him she didn't appreciate that sort of talk, and since then he has been more distant and kept his conversation with her strictly to scholarly matters
The picture she paints of him is very much that of a friendly guy who likes to talk to his peers about the things he's thinking about. Particularly the incident where she was scandalized that he hugged her and gave her a kiss on the cheek in front of her husband combined with how upset she was that he'd thought about dressing as the devil makes me think this is a culture clash between somebody extremely conservative and somebody much less so.