You're the one making a joke of it. I asked a serious (albeit leading) question; you gave a snarky non-answer with an absurd suggestion.

And now you've given me three posts worth of speculation and anecdote which also don't really get at the question (but that bank needs a lawsuit or ten filed against it).

If you weren't making a joke of it, you'd have pointed me at something that plausibly could be used to "do the math" before telling me to do the math. For example, you could have pointed me at Figure 5.2 on page 56 of the Man Box study: https://www.equimundo.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/TheManBox-Full-EN-Final-29.03.2017-POSTPRINT.v3-web.pdf

Or you could have suggested direct (albeit smallish and not ground-truthed) studies on the topic, like https://jimhopper.com/topics/sexual-assault-and-the-brain/repeat-rape-by-college-men/

That kind of thing might be helpful.

The performative snark, the appeal to triggering and insecurity, the insistence on admission of guilt without evidence--all that is profoundly unhelpful. It's unhelpful because it alienates the persuadable and provides an abrasive target to rally the unreachable in opposition.

Fortunately, it's buried deeply enough that here, at least, I doubt very many people will notice.