And if you think. "All men are rapists" is a sane and reasonable statement you're definitely a misandrist and just as wrong as the misogynists.

Sure but there's a world of difference between "women need to be cautious around men" and "all men are predators". One is an unfortunate but reasonable statement while the other is a discriminatory generalization. The former could honestly just be rephrased as "people need to be cautious around strangers" and it would be just as accurate.

The problem with statistics like "There's a sexual assault every 68 seconds" is that they sound really bad but you can do essentially the exact same exercise with any sufficiently large population and come up with similarly scary sounding numbers. E.G. There's a car crash every 13 seconds.

As for the bear analogy, while I'm sure there are plenty of circumstances in which a individual bear wouldn't attack someone, as you spend more time around any given bear the likelihood of it attacking you approaches 100% even more so when taken as a population. The same does not hold true around men. There are billions of men on this planet the vast overwhelming majority of which are not a danger to women.

I don't know this man, or those men, but statistics say 92.1 % of sexual offenders are men

Just like the example of African American crime there's a lot more to this statistic. For instance is that number so high because most men don't report sexual assaults therefore skewing the number of women sexual offenders down? There are lots of complicating societal factors there. Regardless that doesn't justify the sweeping generalization that "all men are predators" or even the slightly weaker "most men are predators", as very obviously the majority are not.

Here are the verses I could find with some quick searching: Deuteronomy 22:28-29 "28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; 29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days." Exodus 22:16-17 "16 And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife. 17 If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins." Both of these require the rapist/seducer to marry the woman and to pay the standard dowry amount to the woman's father. The exodus verse gives the father the option to reject the marriage, which is a good addition! (IMO since the Deuteronomy version was written later, the rejection clause might have been left out in later versions of the law.) Both of these verses are from the Old Testament, which Christians mostly use for cultural context, as Jesus fulfilled the Law of Moses during his ministry. Most Christians take laws that only appear in the Old Testament as historical, but no longer consider them doctrine. Also, the culture of Old Testament believers was significantly different and so applying these laws to todays Christians doesn't account for then assive cultural differences. (For example, Exodus 22:18, right after the passage above says "18 Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." Which has been used out of its cultural context to justify actual witch hunts!) In conclusion, both versions of this historical law are considered superceded by most modern Christians.

Not to mention the verse will be in the old testament, i.e. the non-Christian part.

Go ahead and read again what I wrote. I haven’t killed anyone, don’t plan to, don’t want to, and can’t control anyone who does.