Shuggles is missing the point in terms of his maths.
I don't care about the actual percentage of the male population who might be likely to come on to me. That statistic is irrelevant. Could be 0.1%, 1%, 10% - its irrelevant. Because, as he correctly says, I'm unlikely to meet most of them.
What IS relevant to me: the likelihood of any given male stranger who strikes up a conversation with me being a wrong 'un.
Now I haven't conducted detailed research but I have enough personal experience, coupled with the experience of all my female friends, relatives, colleagues and posters on this thread. Most of their experience tallies with mine, that the likelihood of the random chatter being a wrong un is overwhelmingly high, like 80-90% kind of high.
Attempting to shame women into being less cautious around strange men is unlikely to bring the women anything but hassle and danger.
Incidentally, there was a survey by, I think it was a major newspaper, after the Giselle Pelicot case, asking men if they would rape a woman if it was guaranteed they'd never be found out. Sickeningly, about 30% said yes. When the word 'rape' was removed and the question wording was changed to something like 'force a woman to have sex' it became around 50%. And that's by their own admission and talking about rape, not just 'feeling entitled to a woman's attention when she's made it clear she's not interested', which is what we were discussing.
Why can't some people see that its all part of the same continuum. It all starts with ignoring her boundaries and thinking his wants trump her needs.