"For men to claim [in a sexual context] that they do not understand such refusals to be refusals (because, for example, they do not include the word no) is to lay claim to an astounding and implausible ignorance of normative conversational patterns"
This statement entirely fails to consider the context in which the communication is made.
I would suggest that the author's implicit assumption of a contextually-universal normative pattern of conversation is totally unsupportable, and is even juvenile and laughable.
Plus, I love the value judgments that are injected into what purports to be an academic, scientific enterprise: "astounding" and "implausible" are non-sequiturs in REAL science. The actual words used would be more like "inconsistent with" and "unexplained".
From the small excerpt you posted, that "study" seems to be crap personified, and not an genuine attempt to dispassionately explain an observed phenomenon.