Your crappy boss might not mean it that way. He might be asking with absolutely pure intent, with the idea that you'll say no if you don't want to come in, and you'd work extra because you like it, or believe in the company, or whatever. But it doesn't matter, the implication is still there, because of the power he holds.
Now, you get rejected from an interview. Shortly after, the interviewer asks you for a favor. There is an implied "if you do this for me, I might reconsider the rejection." Again, he might not mean it, but it's still there, because he has that power. Or at least you have good reason to think he has that power.
Is this claim falsifiable? Beats me. Ask a sociologist if you want to get scientific about it.
Both are those claims are simple to explain. Policemen clearly do arrest people if they don't pull over, and bosses clearly do penalize or fire people for not following orders (even unreasonable orders). And intention doesn't really come into play for either of those examples, because it's clear that both policemen and bosses intend to be issuing threats.
You haven't given any similar explanation for why asking someone on a date after interviewing and rejecting them carries the same implication. (For clarity, note that I don't approve of doing so, but for a different reason.)
I'm not sure what I can tell you besides, yes, yes they do, all the time.
I'm not saying that men don't regularly do that. I'm saying I have absolutely zero evidence of men doing that. It might happen, but right now I am much more sure that policemen arrest people for refusing to pull over nearly 100% of the time than I am that male employers retaliate against women employees/candidates who refuse a date.
Of course, if the job rejection is in any way related to the subsequent date-asking (or anything other than her alleged lack of experience), then the situation is different (and even more messed up).