He is the Board President and a founding board member of 1in6, Inc., a
non-profit organization with the mission of helping men who have had
unwanted or abusive sexual experiences in childhood live healthier,
happier lives.
Himself a survivor of childhood sexual abuse, Lisak was one of three men profiled in the Big Voice Pictures documentary, Boys and Men Healing.

It suits the short term tactics of liberals to attack Lisak because one of his papers is being used (if somewhat inappropriately) in the fight over federal involvement in campus rape investigation law. I don’t see that it helps the MRM to attack this guy, even as a tactical move.

Lisak – Repeat Rape and Multiple Offending Among Undetected Rapists 2002
http://www.davidlisak.com/wp-content/uploads/pdf/RepeatRapeinUndetectedRapists.pdf

An easy to read article:
Lisak – Understanding the Predatory Nature of Sexual Violence 2006
http://www.middlebury.edu/media/view/240951/original/PredatoryNature.pdf

LeFauve has pointed out how Lisak’s university is not a suitable
example for on-campus rape on residential campuses. She makes it sound as if Lisak had not already explained that in detail within his study
and she has discovered a discrepancy. She hasn’t.

Her other points are all strawmen or wrong, including her main point that claims Lisak claimed to interview most of his rapists. The claim that the research is not his own and was borrowed from other studies is plain silly. He designed a wide-ranging standard questionnaire, it was used in four
other studies, he used the data from those in his own study, and
described the process in his own study.

LeFauve discovered nothing.

Each of her points is contradicted simply by reading his studies.
Her audience won’t do that though, and if they try the Wikipedia link it
is paywalled. So I’d call it a politically motivated hit job, which
would explain why Lisak refused to speak further to her.
The only thing she got right is that government has inappropriate faith
in the applicability of Lisak’s studies to residential campuses.

Here is Lisak’s 2010 false rape accusation study. He describes and
comments on previous studies, including two pages criticising Kanin’s
study.

http://www.icdv.idaho.gov/conference/handouts/False-Allegations.pdf

The thing someone kept saying that has not had peer review is not Lisak’s studies, it is a rapid-response letter from Allison Tracy et al
pointing out severe data-handling errors in Swartout’s recent study,
which cause it to undercount serial rapes by counting multiple rapes
within a period as if they were single rapes.

http://www.jimhopper.com/swartout/Letter_to_JAMA_Pediatrics_Editor.pdf

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/researchers-serial-rapists-study_5630e8c9e4b00aa54a4c0c2d

It looks like Lisak interviewed about 22 of the 160 rapists, (those
from the one study for which he had contact details). The purpose of
interviews was to see whether people gave the same answers on paper as in person. It turned out they do.

He had in earlier studies interviewed most of the identified rapists, it appears this statement was misapplied to criticise the 2002 study.

The other points look a bit desperate.

The fact his sample was from only one university was already stated in
the study. The implication that it could not be generalised did not
need stating but Lisak did state it in the study.

That UMass Boston is a commuting university, therefore less
comparable to a residential university, is obvious. He describe the sample as “university men from the Boston area”, and detailed their
characteristics.

The charge that survey participants were not necessarily students is
getting rather silly. They set up tables on campus and invited passing
men to participate, in return for three dollars for a seven page survey.
Possibly they accepted the odd workman on his lunch break, or a
house-husband who had brought the baby in for a feed. So what? Among
1800 male students, there are not enough nonstudents wandering around
campus to bias the sample. This is worth mentioning only to show how
desperate LeFauve’s attack is.

http://reason.com/blog/2015/07/28/campus-rape-stats-lisak-study-wrong

This reminds me of the nineties when I was naive enough to argue with
global warming denialists. When politically motivated actors are
getting involved in scientific debates the public is at the mercy of news media editors to sift out the crap. Unfortunately we have given up on editing, now everyone is an expert. Which means whoever has the biggest PR budget or the most rabid followers can swing public opinion.

The theories are not necessarily 100% mutually exclusive, I agree, but if Lisak is right then “rape culture” is very much the smaller part of the problem.

I think Lisak put the “serial rapist” figure at 90% of rape incidents. If 90% of rapes are committed by people who can NOT be “taught not to rape,” then “rape culture” is only (at most) 10% of the problem. This would indicate that feminist activism is very inefficient, as a method of rape reduction.

That said “decent people raping and not realizing its wrong”… that’s crazy. Every decent person knows rape is wrong. They may, however, not know if they’re committing a non-consensual sex act in situations where sexual communication has been extremely unclear (i.e. they don’t know they’re committing a rape, they think its consensual). But like I said, Lisak’s findings would generally say that this is only about 10% of rape incidents.