It drops a red herring (you can have a 'witch hunt' in the modern meaning of the word without executions). It cut-and-pastes some geekfeminism talking points to produce some faulty statistical reasoning, and then makes the argument that there's some possibility that 1) someone who is a rape survivor might be at the talk and 2) might interpet one of the PG-rated bondage-suggestion scenes as a "rape" scene and could become very uncomfortable.
The only "personal" component is that she discloses that she was a rape victim --- but she did not feel the things she suggested a rape victim may feel.
Using her argument, we have many people in our society who have been exposed to moments of great violence (and more returning from wars every day). The vast majority of those people are male. Should any remotely violent image (say, video game screenshots) be banned?
Moreover, I know people for whom *images* of spiders or cockroaches or photographs taken from great heights can induce panic and vertigo. Should we be so insensitive to allow images that have identified phobias attached to them?
With regards to her feeling "uncomfortable" at the thought of all the men in the audience viewing vaguely sexual material, apparently believing that those men (virtually all of whom, no doubt, are non-rapists) would not be able to control their sexual impulses --- I would that I find that highly offensive as a non-rapist member of the sex --- but I will refrain from doing so out of an understanding that her very unfortunate experience may have left her with some highly emotional prejudices for which I should blame her rapist and not her.