It's very clear here that the male is the rapist, im not inferring that.

No one's debating that they chose males for the perpetrators visible in the ads. They made this choice based on their statistics.

It doesn't have to say not all men are rapist, but they do not suggest the opposite.

They don't HAVE to say the opposite. Why would they have to say the opposite? It is known and assumed that not everyone is a criminal. Again, why do people like you see an ad like this and assume it's about you. Are you a person who sexually assaults people? No? Then it's not about you. Have you sexually assaulted someone or let an assault happen? Then pay attention. Just like how with an anti-drunk driving ad, I don't see the actor playing the drunk driver and start hollering at my screen that "Not all drivers are drunks!". Should those ads have a disclaimer that says "Okay, guys, before you start hashtagging and shit, here's the thing - we're not saying ALL drivers are drunk drivers. Okay? This ad is specifically about those who do drive drunk. Yeah? Okay. Here's the ad, Remember, if you don't drink and drive, this ad isn't about you."

Just like if i were to say a marriage is between a man and a women.

If I were to make an ad that says that. "Marriage is only between a man and a woman" then yes that would be problematic. But the equivalency to these ads is not that, it would be another ad that shows a male/female married couple. Do you infer an anti-gay message anytime you see a heterosexual couple in an advertisement? Then why would you infer an anti-male sentiment when you see an anti-sexual harassment ad. Heterosexual couples are represented more because they represent a majority, and perpetrators of sexual assault and harassment are shown as males because, again they are the majority of perpetrators.

It seems like you are making a leap because you want to feel the way you want to feel.