Of course, if you use the same math on being accurately accused of rape, you'd get:
100,000 criminal allegations per year. 80- 90% * 100,000 = 80,000 to 90,000 accurate allegations per year - and if you use lifetime risk (say age 16-66 a 50 year span) 50 years * (80-90,000) = 4,000,000 to 4,500,000 men accurately accused in their lifetime. And US adult male population in that age range is about 100 million, that is about a 4-4.5% lifetime risk of an accurate allegation.
It's interesting if some what misleading way to describe the statistics. One could just as easily say you are between 4 and 9 times more likely to be accurately than falsely accused.
I think too, people are ignoring the moral hazard here. Rape accusations have been rare because of stigma and cases and convictions rarer because of the burden of proof. If we move to a standard of proof where accusation = proof, where women are lauded for making the claim and men have no way to defend it, those baseline assumptions will not hold and there will be dramatic shifts in what happens.
I mean honestly, everyone who has ever had a girlfriend who threatened to kill herself if he leaves, or been in a divorce that includes false accusations of physical violence, should understand the very real possibility against that backdrop that a threat to accuse someone of sexual misconduct will become a potential tactic to retain and control relationships and to "win" divorces and breakups.
Not to say the balance doesn't need to shift, but it can't shift all the way to "prove you didn't do it" or its deemed true.