Based only on this comment thread—because I have no interest in adjudicating the actual dispute here—I see playing out in your post, for about the 1000th time in my life, the motte-and-bailey of "prosecuting rape culture".
The OP, pretty.direct, is almost certainly guilty of SOME social "crime"—some kind of a failure to understand and adhere to a responsibility, as you are describing; a responsibility which derives from the status he held in that community, and the power that status grants, whether or not he recognized it at the time.
If accused of THAT crime, in an appropriate "court", he would almost certainly have been able able to recognize the part of the harm that was his responsibility, and would hopefully have made appropriate amends, or at least would have learned not to repeat the harm.
At the same time: this is not what happened, and it's almost never what happens—because the impulse to make such harms seen and known and to force the people who caused them to take responsibility is not really an instinct for justice, and is unable to see with any grace, or to distinguish what part of the onus to "learn" from the harm falls on each person involved.
Instead the instinct to make things right overreaches, attempting to get satisfaction not only for the present case but for the whole cumulative history of similar cases, leading to a punishment (the complete destruction of a life, with no appeal) far exceeding any which a clear-eyed judge would deem appropriate to the actual crime, that being closer to: learning not to repeat the harm, and recognizing his responsibility.
Note that it is an "overreach" in the sense that it exceeds what the hurt person actually wants or needs—usually to be seen, to be feel heard, to feel safe, and to feel that others in comparable cases are safe. Destroying a life doesn't accomplish this, and also produces no learning at all in either the defendant or in any other onlookers.
In fact it is counterproductive. What tends to happen is:
- when men within rape culture repeatedly get away with things, the prosecutions grow more fervent, to the point where they regularly overreach
- when such overreaches get out of control, there's a backlash, discrediting such prosecutions in future cases of all degrees. (This is where we are now.) But then this lets the men get away with all kinds of things, and prevents any of them from ever learning from their errors.
A feedback loop. The way out is for "justice to be served"—for such cases to be resolved fairly, such that neither the defense or prosecution is left with the feeling they were treated unfairly, which is what drives the feedback loop. Historically it has almost always been the prosecution (broadly, the women) who were treated unfairly, but to treat the defense (the men) unjustly also fails, and perpetuates the loop, in the long run, serving no one. Apparently that is what has happened in this case.