Trying to unpick the arguments here but am struck (is it just my imagination?) by the conflation of 'men' and 'rapist' referent. At face value, the man she describes in this passage is very likely a sociopath, but she seems to be saying that this is a trait of masculinity itself - I think.
There is an unequivical grey area with rape which is absent from other crimes. For one, a person does not generally meet someone, feel an attraction, then proceed to share out the contents of their wallets with that person - change their mind - and then get mugged. In other words, in no other crime does the victim climb into bed with the attacker (as with aqualintance rape, the most common rape in the West). Right there is the 'grey area'. It isn't a grey area when a sociopath targets a victim; it is when humans misread signs.
It also occurs to me in her discussion of social signals and misreading of signs that women also misread the signs these men are giving out. Why else would they put themselves into such vulnerable positions with men, if they did not trust them?
It would be nice to discount the grey area in rape, but in human terms, it simply is not possible.
Also the statistics used in the piece aren't sourced and are not reliable.
We also need to take the title with a pinch of salt as when cases come to court (in the UK at least) jury's convict over 50% of the time. I really have no idea why many feminists don't want to publicise this as it would be very likely to increase incidence of reporting.
Comments most welcome!
The Stern Report