If you look back in history--we're the same species still--you can find plenty of evidence of vastly more widespread sexual violence than that.

It's not a one-off, now or then. The questions are: what fraction? How bad?

The most likely time, historically, to commit sexual violence was during attacks on enemies: there is a reason why "rape and pillage" is a well-known phrase. It still happens all the time--almost any time you find acts of horrifying violence (Sudan, Bosnia/Serbia, Ethiopia (Tigray), the Rohingya, etc. etc.) you find widespread horrifying acts of sexual violence.

So rules number 1, and 2, and 3 are all: not enemies, friends! As bad as sexual violence is, lowering sexual violence in an aggressive, adversarial situation is a much more difficult problem. I wish it wasn't like this, but this is the reality we find ourselves in.

I want the women in my life to be safe, to be given space to excel when they need space, to be given aid when they need aid, to be protected when they need to be protected, and to be viewed as one of us by everyone around them--the same thing that I wish for everyone, regardless of gender, regardless of whether they're in my life or not, as long as they're not such a danger to those around them that the only safe thing to do is to exclude them.

You don't answer the question of "what fraction". There are a lot of values in between "one" and "very common" in a population of millions. Dominique's actions were absolutely abhorrent, and that he was able to recruit so many men is alarming and depressing. Everyone involved should be prosecuted according to appropriate laws, and if the laws in France don't allow prosecution of things like this, they should be changed.

We--the overwhelming majority of us--should be able to be united in this.

But when I read the your post, and especially when I read the comments your post inspires, I worry. You don't tackle any difficult questions. Horrifying behavior is horrifying--okay, got it! How do you tell when non-horrifying behavior is a warning sign? You don't say. "Every perpetrator should face serious consequences" you say, without being willing to tackle the difficult question of what rate of error is acceptable in each direction, instead insinuating that there is not even one case of an unjust conviction (given your challenge). Any mention of subcultures with different attitudes towards women, and how to reach the most problematic ones? Any mention of sexual subcultures and whether they can be accommodated or need to be squashed due to the dangers of abuse? Nope. It's all easy mode: evoke horror about the horrifying things, throw in some vague insinuations, make calls for things that sound great superficially but are difficult in practice for reasons you don't mention.

So I have to ask: are you pushing things towards a better actual situation? Or are you just pushing things towards a more adversarial feeling, with all the risks that entails?

I'm horrified. I want things to be better. But I want things to be actually better in the real world. So I want greater funding for handling sexual assault cases, greater funding for psychological support and safe houses for victims, funding for psychological support for people who are flagged as a risk-of-becoming-a-perpetrator by someone who feels targeted by them (if there's a way to do this without it feeling too antagonistic), way more attention on how to predict sexual violence (in the hopes that this will allow us to intervene before there's a problem), active identification of various subcultures of all types (sexual and otherwise), attempts at technological innovations that improve our ability to make an objective determination of abuse without eroding privacy, extensive evaluation of all measures enacted for effectiveness so we can quit whatever isn't working and try something better, and a far less adversarial approach to gender relations as a whole.

I want things to be better in the real world. It's clear that you envision a better ideal. But I'm not sure we're on the same side in practice.