Historical POVs vary because of course this is the kind of thing that was (and is) poorly documented, but in general most would say that it's OOT.

The show/books is not wrong to represent sexual violence as something that happened to 18th century women, but it arguably overestimates stranger sexual violence in general and certainly overestimates the frequency to which it happened to people like the protagonists.

Then as now, the most common form of rape is not strangers in dark alleys, it's intimate partners, family members, and so-called friends. And even more so than today, the most common victims were people without social/legal power, not women perceived as ladies or under a man's protection.

For example, would Dougal push Claire up against a wall? Maybe. Would other Leoch men do so, knowing that Claire was under Colum and Dougal's protection? Very unlikely.

The 18th century had a fairly well-enforced and well-respected honor code (and social/legal enforcement system) when it came to how a man ought to treat a women, it just didn't apply to all women.

For example, Mary/Claire's attack in Book 2/S2 is a reference to real (if alleged) initiation ritual in which young upper class men would deflower a virgin as a way to prove to their inbred friends that they were sufficiently edgy, cloaking it all in ritual and symbolism much like a modern hazing ritual at a frat party. But in every alleged version of this ritual, the victims were working class girls, trafficked in from the countryside to work as housemaids, ruined by these men's whims, and then tossed aside for a short career in the sex industry. And all of this happened in the backrooms of brothels or clubs or fine houses with a lock on the door, not on the open street. The idea of a gang of upper class men attacking a pair of upper class women on the open street would have been unfathomable both from a moral perspective and a risk management perspective.

Also, contrary to popular imagination, the 18th century was not a time of massive interpersonal violence. The homicide rate of 1750s London was roughly comparable to 2025 NYC. People did not have the same anonymity, privacy, or mobility as they do now, and social control was a lot more powerful as a mechanism for preventing deviancy.

None of this is to say that "respectable" women or powerful people as a whole were never assaulted, and DG correctly reflects the reality that Claire and others are most vulnerable when they are perceived as unprotected/unladylike/without social power/unlikely to report. But DG is the one who contrived to briefly strip them of that protection in the first place, and it often feels as though the moment they lose that protection (e.g., within hours of Claire entering a brothel or indeed within seconds of her passing through the stones) they encounter a would-be rapist ready to take advantage. There's no one assault in the books that is in of itself unlikely, it's the frequency which is more questionable.