The great difficulty is the Giselle Pericot paradox i.e. the banality of evil, in normal, very ordinary men, exactly like your DP DS DF, and every other man.
This would form a thesis, but , obviously, a lot of harm arises from men and women wrongly assuming the opposite sex THINKS like they do:
For example, for males, an intimate encounter with a stranger is almost always painless and with no lifelong results. So, even if most of them don't spend time seeking such opportunities, they may, at some low level, always be willing. It only takes a few minutes, and it's pleasant, so why not?
Therefore, when some men excuse themselves from using force, and say "she wanted it really" or "she will enjoy it once it starts", they may at least to a small extent genuinely not quite understand that for females it can often be the opposite, that the encounter will often be painful and could lead to pregnancy, life-changing or even fatal, which never happens to men, or to disease, which is evidently not a particular worry to men, but is more easily caught by women and can have more serious effects.
Male police, judges or juries might truly not fully comprehend that there was no consent, notably if the accused seems presentable and is without those 'monster-identifier' fangs -plus- snarling.
"She didn't consent, so she says, but... surely she would have done, wouldn't she?" Or, "She would have enjoyed it once it started, wouldn't she?" "I wouldn't turn down a chance, would you?" "It was an opportunity for a few minutes of pleasure, so why not?"
At the same time, women with fifty years of happy marriage, children, grandchildren, are not going to think it possible their DH could be a serial rapist. A woman almost needs to delude herself, rather than accept that DH could be what she prefers to think is a very rare thing; a monster, probably snarling and with fangs, as seen in story books. She won't/can't let it cross her mind that the reason her DP wanted her to have a baby, or was keen to marry her when he knew she has a baby, or wants to look after the baby, is because he wants to abuse it.
There is a collusion-in-cosy- complacency,, in the pretty world of the so-far -unaware. Expressions of shock and incredulity, and the use of words like 'monster' betray a dangerous false notion that all men think like women, therefore all men are as safe as women, to be alone with women and children.
It is only the recent fashion for men to film themselves while abusing, that has made it plain beyond doubt, with undeniable proof, that with all men, ill-intent towards prey is not inevitable, but is seldom totally impossible.
NAMALT, maybe, but the routine starting assumption would better be that All Men MIGHT be like that, given exactly the right opportunity, a good chance of getting away with it, and the unwitting abetting and collusion of deluded and non-suspicious prey, or guardians of prey, or makers of policy, or holders of 'nice' conventional assumptions.