6 percent.
This stat comes from a 2002 study by psychologist David Lisak. He surveyed 1,882 male college students using an anonymous questionnaire and found that about 6% of them admitted to behaviors that legally qualify as rape, but without using the word “rape.” Importantly, this was not a national survey, not randomized, and only included students at a single university. It also relied on self-reporting, which is notoriously unreliable for sensitive topics. Using that to claim “6% of all men are rapists” is like surveying one dorm and declaring a national epidemic.
Moreover, Lisak himself never said that 6% of all men are rapists. His research focused on the idea that a small subset of serial offenders commits the majority of assaults, essentially that most rapes are committed by a few repeat perpetrators. So ironically, the study’s real message is the opposite of what the stat is usually used to imply: most men are not rapists, and those who are tend to offend repeatedly.
So no, there is no reliable national data that shows 6% of all men are rapists. The number gets tossed around without context, often to stir fear or score rhetorical points. The truth is complex, and using flimsy stats to paint with a broad brush does more harm than good, especially to real victims and to honest discussions around consent, crime, and justice.
if you're looking for a grounded estimate, somewhere between 0.5% and 1.5% of men might commit rape in their lifetime, not 6%, and certainly not a majority. That’s still deeply troubling, but it’s important to be accurate so we can focus on stopping real predators, not smearing entire populations with flawed stats.
Being near a hungry grizzly is vastly riskier than being near a random man, even factoring in all the fears people have about human violence. Statistically, the odds of being attacked by a stranger are extremely low, especially if we're talking about a random man on the street or in a public setting. But a hungry grizzly is a different beast entirely, literally and figuratively. When a grizzly is food-stressed, particularly after hibernation or in the lead-up to winter, its instincts override caution. At close range, say within 50 yards, your risk of being charged or mauled skyrockets, with some wildlife experts suggesting it could exceed 50% depending on the bear’s agitation, prior contact with humans, and food availability.
By contrast, the chance of being attacked by a man you pass in public is astronomically lower. Even in crime-heavy areas, random unprovoked assaults are rare, and violent crime statistics reflect that reality. A hungry grizzly isn’t calculating risk and morality, it’s operating on instinct, and to it, you might be food, a threat, or simply in the way. So while fear-mongering about men gets tossed around casually, the cold truth is this: if you’re in arm’s reach of a hungry bear, you’re in far greater danger than you would be walking past 1,000 random men.
