TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

DHAN150 Archive

View 0 posts and 172 comments by DHAN150 on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Title Category Author Subreddit Date (UTC)
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
1

I have never seen someone charged for a crime that wasn’t actually a crime. I have been part of litigation where people were suing the government for trying to prosecute crimes that weren’t actually crimes. There must be an actual legal basis upon which people are prosecuted, it does not work on theoretical or hypothetical crimes at least where I’m from.
/r/MensRights08/04/22 12:26 AM
2

Unfortunately where I live it isn’t a specific crime people get charged for at all. You may get a charge for wasting police time
/r/MensRights07/04/22 01:23 AM
1

So people are charged for theoretical crimes and made to defend them? I don’t think so
/r/MensRights07/04/22 01:21 AM
1

As a contract? Possible tax benefits, perhaps better terms for mortgages and/or loans entered into jointly, simplification of handling your estate in particular if you die without a will and perhaps better protection of your parental rights in the event you separate.
/r/MensRights06/04/22 01:54 PM
10

Is a “In theory” crime a crime then? Criminal law isn’t some moral or philosophical discussion in relation to what is actually punishable. what is punishable is what was made criminalized activity, either through an act of law or the courts (depending on your jurisdiction). We should also be wary of setting dangerous precedents in the phrasing of this type of crime. It may be intended to punish people who falsely accuse but could end up biting real victims who may now have actually seen their ab…
/r/MensRights06/04/22 01:40 PM
2

Maybe I’m not seeing it but isn’t this just an easy way for bum fathers to get women pregnant and escape all parental responsibility? As far as I see it we should be weighing more heavily on the use of birth control as a fundamental part of sexual consent, thereby accepting that if a man knows a woman isn’t on birth control and still decides to bust in her he should know that’s a predicable outcome which he choose to shoot for. This should come alongside ensuring tighter controls on the payment …
/r/MensRights13/03/22 02:17 PM
-3

A system that already worked? Are you saying marriages 50 years ago were much healthier and the ideal over marriages now? Because while divorce rate might be up it’s frankly ignorant of us to ignore the fact that rates of women being abused in marriages long ago were so much higher, women were literally seen as their husbands property and in the UK, up until sickening recently, a husband could literally rape his wife without repercussion. Don’t ignore the fact that even today, and as was more pr…
/r/MensRights15/12/21 07:13 AM
4

I’ve had men use words which sound affectionate towards me before, like a random guy responding when I thanked him for something with ‘no problem king’ or have had a couple dudes call me daddy before even though I’ve very much not a father but none of these were in a remotely sexual context or vibe. Much in the same way I’ve had women call me honey, sweetheart, etc. again with seemingly no intent other than using it to address me. Maybe it’s because of where I’m from, but i won’t say it bothers …
/r/MensRights15/12/21 06:56 AM
-1

What do you think are the gender roles that made marriage a worthwhile institution and which are now gone?
/r/MensRights15/12/21 06:50 AM
-14

Why is this such an issue? It’s just a movie
/r/MensRights18/11/21 04:23 AM
-11

Should we expect them to? If you’re saying you’re advocating for female rights it’s hardly against you m.o. to focus on only female issues. Their version of equality is one where they envision elevating only their position and I’m fine with that as long as men have the chance to advance their position as well.
/r/MensRights08/11/21 07:31 AM
-1

A 50 year sentence is not available for the crime of manslaughter in either the UK nor Australia. Edit: to clarify the sentencing guidelines in the UK suggest what sentences the court should consider for each crime. 50 years is not in the guideline for manslaughter
/r/MensRights19/09/21 03:34 PM
3

They were both convicted of the charge of manslaughter. Diminished responsibility in this case can do with a state of mind which is not sound or healthy. It’s a similar defence to insanity
/r/MensRights19/09/21 03:30 PM
1

Murder is life sentence in the UK. Manslaughter is what’s more being discussed here because of the diminished responsibility aspect. I mean the article from OP is from Australia which does carry a higher a maximum sentence for manslaughter but I think the Uk case is still noteworthy
/r/MensRights19/09/21 03:27 PM
20

Here’s an example from the UK
/r/MensRights19/09/21 08:56 AM
-3

Is it that hard?
/r/MensRights19/09/21 08:47 AM
2

This just seems like some guy bitching over a thot making a clear thot post.
/r/PussyPassDenied02/05/21 03:56 AM
2

Speaking as someone from the inside of the judicial system there are many reasons a matter may be delayed. I’ve seen some cases take ten years and the same type of case with very similar issues get wrapped up in 2.
/r/MensRights26/03/21 03:16 PM
3

An unsurprising result in a case decided in an unsurprising way. What we need to remember is that this was not a case against Amber herself so what was required to be proven, and what that evidence goes towards, is different.
/r/MensRights26/03/21 03:37 AM
1

No no, fake in that it isn’t even in court.
/r/MensRights16/03/21 10:06 AM
8

Some people are saying the story is quite fake.
/r/MensRights15/03/21 03:05 PM
1

That being said people take that one detail and criticize the courts for refusing to convict based on the underwear which simply isn’t true. A full trial was held and there other issues with the case against the accused
/r/MensRights14/03/21 07:15 AM
2

My response would be that if it was indeed in self defence then those women wouldn’t have been convicted of murder. We can’t class all killings as murders because in fact and in law they simply aren’t. If we’re going to argue that a murder statistic covers self defense killings then some men are also subject to abuse from their wife and may have killed in self defence too.
/r/MensRights14/03/21 07:13 AM
1

You could actually argue it, the concept of the ‘slow burn’ self defense is what’s necessary to understand here
/r/MensRights14/03/21 07:11 AM
1

I don’t need news articles from my own country. I’m somewhat an expert in that field as well so I don’t need links on laws from my own country either. Murder rate was over 500 last year. Most are men. Most of those men are killed in gang or robbery related crimes. A large portion of women killed locally are out of domestic violence issues and as part of abductions. What I’m saying is that it’s a different type of violence. Unfortunately men aren’t taken nearly seriously enough when they report i…
/r/MensRights18/02/21 08:10 PM
1

Sorry what I meant was that abortion is still illegal. We only recently out lawed child marriage whereby the father could basically consent on behalf of their child to marriage to an adult, while it wasn’t common we still have a few dozen a year (in population of 1.2 million people) and it usually saw much older men marrying girls who were as young as 13. The mother of the child had much less say in the process. We have huge amounts of crime locally and gender based violence is a hot topic at th…
/r/MensRights18/02/21 06:48 PM
1

Lol
/r/MensRights18/02/21 05:50 PM
1

Trinidad and Tobago. Where we still have serious women’s rights issues like no abortion laws as an example. The women in my immediate sphere are critical of batshit crazy feminists perhaps because more basic rights are yet to be secured.
/r/MensRights18/02/21 05:50 PM
1

As I said bud, I literally do not care if you believe me. I exist in a different social and political circle than you
/r/MensRights18/02/21 04:31 PM
1

I literally do not care if you don’t believe me. I’m not going to link posts by those in my real life because Reddit, duh. I also don’t record conversations with people. I am saying many of the people I know who support feminist rights in some areas are critical of modern feminism in other ways. As I said elsewhere I suppose this is because where I live doesn’t have proper women’s rights yet in several areas of law.
/r/MensRights18/02/21 06:45 AM
1

It seem what I’m saying went completely over your head. I provided a definition of who is a feminist since the commenter seemed to be saying that unless they had tenure, government position, et al, their opinions seemingly didn’t matter. I am saying I know many people who believe in the empowerment of women and would argue for and support women’s rights, myself included, but the overwhelming majority of them would also be critical of modern feminism. As I said maybe it’s about where in the world…
/r/MensRights18/02/21 06:42 AM
1

Fortunately not where I’m from and there have very few if any calls for quotas of that sort. Women actually outnumber men in many high paying professions here too
/r/MensRights17/02/21 02:11 PM
2

Yes
/r/MensRights17/02/21 01:09 PM
0

From Oxford Language: Feminist /ˈfɛmənɪst/ noun a person who supports feminism. A piece from Britannica: Feminism, the belief in social, economic, and political equality of the sexes. It is possible to be a feminist and criticize other types of feminist and you need not be some well known advocate to consider yourself a feminist. Those women, based on my conversations with them, most certainly support some aspects of feminism. My point is that the women I interact with in my immediate sphere are…
/r/MensRights17/02/21 08:31 AM
-3

I mean in my personal sphere at least 4 women I know would consider themselves at least interested in feminist rights and call out/criticize radical feminists as well
/r/MensRights16/02/21 11:40 PM
1

Well taking age out of the mix I don’t see a problem with a guy wearing makeup. If a man thinks he’ll look fab with some foundation and blush on then let the guy feel fab. In general people shouldn’t feel pressured to wear makeup and I prefer look and look at people looking natural but people can whatever they want once it isn’t harming someone.
/r/MensRights27/01/21 05:56 PM
4

I don’t think you should put makeup on any kid regardless of gender
/r/MensRights27/01/21 05:25 PM
14

Went through GCE law and law school in classes which had at least 5:1 ration of women to men. The girls I saw who had that mindset were girls who had bad relationships or surrounded themselves with bad company from either gender. I think at a certain point people need to realize that if everyone they know is trash and terrible they themselves may not be of the highest caliber
/r/MensRights21/01/21 07:04 PM
-8

Ahh yes the context of someone having an application to dismiss a matter thrown out? Or the context of having a weak case lost? I swear the people on this sub would love to blame everyone else for the failings of Depp’s own case.
/r/MensRights07/01/21 01:09 PM
1

I respectfully disagree. The matter he lost on the UK was for good reason. It was a losing battle if you ask me, they could have easily run a different defence and just blame Amber even she did lie and if they go to re-trial they can even attempt this if the pleadings are being adjusted. See the case of McManus v Beckham. Winning against a newspaper is difficult and he took the route that’d guarantee a larger payout, not the one with the higher chance of success.
/r/MensRights07/01/21 11:48 AM
0

How even? Did you read the article? He is awaiting a ruling on the appeal, he attempted to have her counterclaim thrown out at an early hearing which was unsuccessful. Why say shit like the court system is rigged against him in a scenario where nothing to imply same has occurred? And shit the claim he lost in the UK isn’t even against her so how would she have a counterclaim if she isn’t a defendant in the matter?
/r/MensRights07/01/21 11:35 AM
-12

How is the court to blame for her filing a counterclaim?
/r/MensRights07/01/21 10:21 AM
-17

How is the court system to blame for someone filing a case against you?
/r/MensRights07/01/21 10:20 AM
23

Usually yes but that depends on where you are. Google the 1973 Uniform Parentage Act.
/r/MensRights04/01/21 11:29 AM
1

Almost none of that is true. The findings of fact made by the trial judge was that the evidence presented by the Sun in support of their defence was true which means that on a balance of probabilities he believed them and, by extension, Amber. There is no evidence to suggest the judge was biased and people seem not to realize that even if the judge found Amber to by lying, the Sun could have still win their case by shifting blame on her. Johnny took the route that’s make it easiest for him to ge…
/r/MensRights08/12/20 10:33 PM
-1

I agree. Mens rights can be a bit petty and hypocritical. I was disgusted by a post where op and several commenters were of the opinion that men should vote against women’s rights issues because ‘why should they progress when we aren’t.’ This makes us just as bad as feminists but more petty and childish. Go ahead, downvote me to oblivion. I’m also a little peeved by the the general approach re:Johnny Depp.
/r/MensRights03/12/20 04:32 PM
1

Maybe but if I’m frank I’m not so sure anymore. We can’t on the one hand say don’t just believe a supposed victim like Amber and wait for evidence and then on the other hand say that a court found that Johnny beat her and just ignore that. I try to stay neural really
/r/MensRights28/11/20 05:06 AM
1

If it wasn’t he’d have had a keychain better chance of success suing Amber personally since the Sun would have various defenses available, not only the one of truth which they used but being able to shift the blame to her if the statements were not found to be true. It’s harder to win against a newspaper but much more efficient when it comes to recovery of damages. Plus so many people in the court of public opinion believe him and whichever way these cases are decided many people seem to have al…
/r/MensRights28/11/20 03:53 AM
2

He lost on a finding a fact. Findings of fact are very, very, rarely overturned by the COA and usually they will not allow appeals on findings of fact.
/r/MensRights28/11/20 02:54 AM
1

The entire purpose of filing a law suit is for compensation. The main reason to file against the Sun is for the ability to recover more money than he would be able to recover against Amber. He already has to pay in excess of 600k pounds in costs to her lawyers plus any further costs on assessment and close to the same amount to his own lawyers. Losing the appeal will add a few hundred k more to what is already a million dollar legal bill.
/r/MensRights28/11/20 02:47 AM
1

The UK has an uncodified constitution so things other than statute, like the common law, would add to and make up their constitutional powers. This is also part of the reason leaving the EU was such a big deal because the ECtHR/ECJ gave the courts and thereby the citizens a lot more power and all laws had to be passed in consideration with the convention on human rights. If a law wasn’t done in this way the courts can straight up refuse to enforce it and send it back to Parliment for reconsidera…
/r/MensRights26/11/20 04:31 PM
1

If you understand my point you’d also understand it was found what they published was true. Why would they need to say anything more? Plus given that theres an active court matter I think they’d avoid that if they could
/r/MensRights26/11/20 04:13 PM
3

Well defamation is a very fact driven area of law which is what makes it a little more complicated than some other areas.
/r/MensRights26/11/20 09:25 AM
2

The UK has freedom of expression bud. Point is though he wasn’t defamed by the sun according to the judge. Edit: it’s a common issue spoken about to deal with the balance of defamation laws and freedom of expression. They very much have freedom of expression with limitations
/r/MensRights26/11/20 05:44 AM
2

Fair enough bud. Balanced and responsible reporting must be present, however, in the immediate case that court action wouldn’t be the way you do it. Free speech has to be balanced too remember
/r/MensRights26/11/20 05:03 AM
-6

Continue to report in a way that wasn’t libelous or found to be false? Go on.
/r/MensRights25/11/20 10:36 PM
-20

Nah I’d still say it’s Amber’s fault. Amber knew what she was doing when she had it publicized and knew what the likely outcome would be. She’s the one to blame and the one who should have to pay damages. The only reason to sue the Sun is because they’d have deeper pockets than Amber but they’d have lots of defenses available.
/r/MensRights25/11/20 10:14 PM
-50

Were they really wrong here though? Consider this: You’re a tabloid writer and you’re approached by a celebrity with what they claim is good evidence of their spouse abusing them. You know that if the celebrity themselves are wrong or lying you can shift the blame to the said celebrity legally and avoid having to pay compensation. Why wouldn’t you carry the story? The real villain is Amber if you want to find one.
/r/MensRights25/11/20 09:57 PM
18

Predictable. Appeals on findings of fact are very rarely ever allowed and even more rarely ever successful. He can still apply to the court of appeal but at this point and with his slim chances of success in this it’d cost him a lot of money.
/r/MensRights25/11/20 09:32 PM
2

As a lawyer with qualification from the UK I’m not sure I’m qualified to say lol. I appreciate your eagerness to learn however. There are legal formalities that can defeat any case regardless of merit. Part of an Attorney’s job is to know the procedural rules which can affect basically every part of a court action and failure to comply with those rules can see a claim, or a defence, struck out which can result in consequences for the Attorney. To really look at the merit of a claim or a defence …
/r/MensRights24/11/20 06:09 AM
2

Even if it could have potentially created bias let me draw your attention to two things: i) Johnny’s lawyers will take that point of it is necessary and they would have done in the first instance and would have likely asked for the matter to be set before a different judge. This is something we have had to do before. ii) bias can’t just bring merit to a case or a defence. There still needs to be evidence otherwise the judge and everyone involved would know the case would obviously be overturned …
/r/MensRights23/11/20 08:09 PM
3

All of those accusations/connections are pointless when bias isn’t apparent in the verdict. It’d be hard to find a judge dumb enough to risk their entire career over one small judgement. I’m not saying it’s impossible but I am saying that once there is sufficient evidence to say Johnny beat her/her her then what the newspaper printed isn’t a lie. It may not be the full story, it may not tell when she did but it isn’t untrue either. And again Johnny went after the newspapers which is a substantia…
/r/MensRights23/11/20 07:06 AM
1

A man can also say no btw. Wrap up your seeds
/r/MensRights23/11/20 05:35 AM
2

You say the corruption of Justice Nicols. Why? As someone working in the field and seeing the case presented there was no way Depp could have won that. The paper reported on X, amber could prove X took place therefor what the paper said isn’t untrue and that’s all you need to defend a defamation claim.
/r/MensRights23/11/20 05:31 AM
-3

That’s what some MRAs are unfortunately
/r/MensRights23/11/20 05:07 AM
0

As I commented on another post about this we need to be realistic. An action against the newspaper is both more risky and is done, in my opinion, only to get as large a payout as possible. The judge’s ruling wasn’t actually bad at all and while Heard is certainly the one most of us see as the villain in this story the incidents she complained of, which were reported on, could have been proven. Had Depp taken an action against her personally he may have had a better chance but there’s still no gu…
/r/MensRights23/11/20 05:04 AM
0

I get you but let’s be real. Men, at least where I’m from, do suck to some degree and do some stupid shit. A day for the elimination of violence against women really ought not to offend men and any MRA ought to support it too
/r/MensRights19/11/20 08:02 PM
1

Idk. I don’t think she’s wrong and it’s not like she was a dick about it
/r/MensRights19/11/20 07:53 PM
-4

Some men on this sub feel as though the furtherance of men’s rights vests in the constant downplaying of the plights of feminists even when those very men agree with what those feminists are saying. If men really want to make a difference then why not try to be more reasonable than the radical feminists we complain about and show women that men’s rights activists care about women as well and are willing to support things that benefit humans as a whole.
/r/MensRights19/11/20 06:38 AM
-1

Really? What a cunt.
/r/MensRights19/11/20 06:35 AM
1

I know it isn’t exactly the same point but it’d be more difficult to prove assault from your wife if there’s a finding of the court that you beat your wife. I’d argue self defense if I was her lawyer. If that was all it was about he’d have probably taken that route first. Monetary compensation is the reason you file a civil claim, large monetary compensation is the reason why you’d file against a company and not the actual person who’s have more limited assets.
/r/MensRights19/11/20 04:33 AM
1

But having to prove essentially the same point beyond reasonable doubt, vs on a balance of probabilities, is objectively harder if said same point was relevant. On top of all that I still don’t see what he’d get out of it. He is obviously seeking monetary compensation and a criminal action isn’t for compensating the virtual complainant.
/r/MensRights19/11/20 04:24 AM
1

He made a claim against the newspaper to say what they reported was false. Once they could prove what they reported was not false they would have had a whole defense to the claim. He didn’t sue her for defamation right? Whether she hit him is irrelevant in a defamation case against the newspapers once their statements were not false. If they say he hit her and he did indeed hit her then they didn’t lie. Note, however, that I have not read all the newspaper articles nor have I had the benefit of …
/r/MensRights19/11/20 04:01 AM
2

That’s not exactly how it works. Remember the case isn’t against her but against the newspaper so the question comes down to whether it was fair and/or reasonable for the newspapers to say what they did or in the alternative whether what they said was untrue, malicious and caused financial harm or led to a damage in his esteem.
/r/MensRights19/11/20 01:55 AM
1

Lots of men win defamation cases bud
/r/MensRights19/11/20 01:52 AM
3

Why do you think criminal charges would be more effective? It’s more difficult to prove a criminal case and would aim to penalize and/or jail her. It doesn’t compensate him for the damage to reputation and/or loss of work he has suffered. Furthermore, his Attorney would have most likely known and advised on this already Edit: further and additionally the civil case he lost isn’t against her right but the paper? There’s a monetary reason for that so compensation was obviously part of the end game…
/r/MensRights19/11/20 01:39 AM
0

Lol that’s not how equality works. You’re just running around an issue bud. Have a nice day.
/r/MensRights05/11/20 04:28 PM
0

We aren’t talking about prison or any other issue. If you want to address me and my quite basic questions on abortion then fine. Otherwise you are wasting my time. Consolidate why equality is important in terms of reproductive rights when the woman is very clearly more disadvantaged in the situation than men given that they’re the ones who have to actually give birth. Then tell me how men supporting the right for women to get an abortion will keep back men’s reproductive rights. If you can’t the…
/r/MensRights05/11/20 04:18 PM
1

I’d love to see where you found that dictionary. You are the problem with activists and you have no reason to justify your silly stance. Have a nice day
/r/MensRights05/11/20 02:12 PM
0

Equity is more important than equality.
/r/MensRights05/11/20 02:00 PM
0

Why do rights need to be equal on the first place? Their bodies undergo something completely different to ours because they get pregnant, we don’t. Unless you can consolidate how there ought to equal treatment in terms of priority and effect then you’re talking out of your ass and you’re a exactly what’s wrong with men’s rights activists and feminists. A person who is just everyone for themself.
/r/MensRights05/11/20 01:43 PM
0

But we aren’t at the same disadvantage as women, the rights required for us are very different. Unless you plan to squeeze a child out of your birth canal I don’t see how you think it should be treated equally. Tell me how a woman being forced to give birth to a child that is, for example, the product of rape, in any way comparable to the men’s rights issues around reproductive rights.
/r/MensRights05/11/20 11:40 AM
0

And it helps male reproductive rights for women to be forced to give birth to a child? Give me a fucking break. How does it help us in any way at all for men’s rights if women are still being forced to give birth to unwanted children? I swear it’s like you have force the baby out of your your body. Again, maybe it’s because I come from a place where abortions are still very much illegal and harder to access but, this petty behaviour is pointless. Why can’t men and women support each other?
/r/MensRights05/11/20 11:14 AM
0

Oh I didn’t know men get pregnant and may need an abortion too. How many children did you give birth to?
/r/MensRights05/11/20 11:10 AM
3

For me this creates a legal issue. Men and women are both very much aware of the risks of sex when they embark on that venture, a possible one of which is an unplanned pregnancy. How are we going to reliably prove that we didn’t intend to get the woman pregnant in the case of unprotected sex? And what’s the value of that? She’s still pregnant and could then be forced to raise the child on her own or put the child up for foster care. For me the only circumstances in which a man should not be have…
/r/MensRights05/11/20 10:42 AM
0

How does it help men in any way if women continue to be disadvantaged? Men whine that feminists don’t concern themselves with men’s rights issues yet here people are saying that not only will they ignore but actively work against women’s right for no benefit at all to men. Activists on both sides need to grow the fuck up sometimes.
/r/MensRights05/11/20 10:30 AM
1

As a man in the Caribbean I think I have to argue against other men and women for both male and female rights. I see no point on supporting only one side but rather showing support to everything which I believe in. Women oppose abortions here quite a bit too so me taking that stance in the hope it will somehow better another stance is pointless to me, I prefer give some to get some and if feminists realize I am willing to support some of their causes maybe I’ll get the same in return, the most I…
/r/MensRights02/11/20 09:54 PM
2

Maybe it’s because I live in a country where abortion is still very much illegal but I can’t see in what way keeping back those rights from progressing will help men.
/r/MensRights02/11/20 10:08 AM
5

I don’t understand. You’d vote to keep back progress in an area which you believe is correct because you have grievances in other areas? All problems don’t have to get fixed at once
/r/MensRights02/11/20 09:55 AM
2

Legally before wouldn’t show much of anything at all, it’s the reason a consent form is useless. Consent can be taken away at any time, as it should be, which means during the act itself as well.
/r/MensRights29/10/20 05:23 AM
1

Only if it’s a text message about it afterwards.
/r/MensRights29/10/20 02:31 AM
2

Or that she was coerced in some way and it as given under duress which is perfectly possible. Even your wife can [falsely] accuse you of rape, some people where I believe seem to think marital rape isn’t a thing.
/r/MensRights29/10/20 02:19 AM
1

How’s the court handing it where you are? Things are going quite fast over here still
/r/MensRights21/10/20 03:58 PM
3

Didn’t she make an application to dismiss his claim earlier this year as well?
/r/MensRights21/10/20 03:57 PM
0

I don’t see this as a men’s right issue at all.
/r/MensRights21/10/20 03:56 PM
1

Would be difficult seeing as they’d be present and visible and would have to do some talking.
/r/MensRights21/10/20 03:53 PM
3

So who denying it?
/r/PussyPassDenied05/10/20 05:56 AM
1

The extent of the damage caused by the assault will still be considered in sentencing as it should be. Just like in a civil matter where the extent of the injury may lead to the ability to recover greater amounts of damages in comparison to a less severe injury.
/r/MensRights25/09/20 03:25 PM
1

The eventual severity must be considered in any result crime.
/r/MensRights25/09/20 10:25 AM
-17

You realize there is a difference with kicking and groping right? Compare like for like. Punching in a girl in the vag is different from grabbing her by the Trumps. A kick in the nuts is not quite groping someone’s gems.
/r/MensRights25/09/20 04:20 AM
1

Joke is on you, this ain’t top comment
/r/PussyPassDenied12/09/20 08:02 AM
5

Wasn’t an equal crime at all, they were charged with different offenses. It’s a shame this misinformation is the top comment.
/r/PussyPassDenied11/09/20 06:42 AM
49

Take note kids; drugs is a hell of a drug.
/r/PussyPassDenied11/09/20 06:31 AM
3

You are attempting to mislead the position and you have intentionally left out very important details for the benefit of your agenda. One of the people you spoke about entered a plea of guilty as part of a plea deal which is why her sentence is not the same as the other accused who pleaded not guilty and thereby went to trial. This is not a men v women situation, the courts will usually always give a preferential sentence to someone who enters a guilty plea. This is why lawyers and the courts us…
/r/MensRights22/08/20 12:00 AM
14

Did they not plead guilty to two different sets of crimes though? He was charged for another offense in relation to same matter which his wife was not, makes sense that he would serve more time.
/r/MensRights21/08/20 07:42 PM
-11

So what you’re saying is that you’re assuming the facts in order to fit your narrative by putting in words that aren’t there or assigning a meaning that isn’t stated. Very clever tactic, and the exact way court proceedings are butchered when reported. FYI: I live in an West Indian Hindu community, many people live with their in laws before getting married.
/r/PussyPassDenied19/08/20 05:50 PM
-21

So it’s being a simp/white night to want accurate and fair reporting on a court matter? I have respect for the court and I feel like people often misrepresent what takes place in matters.
/r/PussyPassDenied19/08/20 01:58 PM
-28

Where did it say after in the article? The article isn’t exactly a court transcript or is written by a source incapable of being biased, so it may also have left out material facts. This isn’t some case of me trying to protect women bullshit, reporters love to twist details of a court matter out of context either by virtue of their own negligence and incompetence or intentionally to stir up attention.
/r/PussyPassDenied19/08/20 01:51 PM
-78

The headline and your caption is a little unfair in my opinion. The short article leaves out certain things which may be relevant to assessing how reasonable the woman’s complaint is, if at all. The dowry harassment may have been taking place for years before they were married. Even if this isn’t the case though, and I’m not saying it is, the woman may well have a perfectly valid complaint against the others she filed against.
/r/PussyPassDenied19/08/20 01:04 PM
13

Link to the article?
/r/PussyPassDenied19/08/20 12:37 PM
3

Well lawyers don’t control the court and the best they can try to do is fight against the bias and set new, better precedent for future litigants.
/r/MensRights03/06/20 02:41 PM
0

I mean if you do an image search you’d find people talking about how sweet it is or how nice the equality is here.
/r/MensRights18/05/20 04:39 PM
8

Do you mean after sex has began but is yet complete or after completion?
/r/MensRights18/05/20 02:25 PM
-49

Who called it sexist?
/r/MensRights18/05/20 01:51 PM
2

Porn makes people get divorced? Or people who are willing to do thing behind their partners back suffer consequences? Why do you think men, or whoever is paying because women pay for these things too, are being taken advantage of? You’re completely overlooking the capacity adults have to consent and to understand what’s going on. You’re also undermining people’s ability to do things they enjoy. Someone could spend years in relationships without having a fulfilling sexual relationship but findom …
/r/MensRights03/05/20 08:36 AM
4

A dealer has never forced me to take drugs. Are these people forcing others to be findommed? Listen I get that people can get addicted to sex or certain fetishes but you aren’t talking about a problem with sex addiction here, you’re talking about a problem with an entire fetish because what? It costs a lot of money? Both parties are enjoying themselves and they’re consenting. Are you against all forms of soliciting or selling porn or anything sexual at all?
/r/MensRights03/05/20 12:06 AM
5

The same way people spend lots of money on coffee? Or like to buy sugar rich soda or desserts? Nostalgic or sentimental products? But hey who is to blame when a person starts doing heroin anyways?
/r/MensRights03/05/20 12:02 AM
6

But just to get it clear. Everyone is totally consenting and the one being findommed is enjoying or getting pleasure from the actions of the other person?
/r/MensRights02/05/20 11:56 PM
5

What is FinDom? That being said I have no problem with people getting paid for providing a service someone sees as having value.
/r/MensRights02/05/20 11:46 PM
1

He did not win his case.
/r/MensRights02/05/20 10:00 AM
-1

Go to r/legaladvice and never talk to cops without a lawyer.
/r/MensRights21/04/20 10:21 AM
5

Kinda off topic but I know a mom who transferred her house for her son and his wife. They were all 3 living together. Son died, wife gets remarried a short time after while still living there and then she dies shortly after. Now the old lady is living in a house with a complete stranger to her and the piece of shit kicks her out. Poor lady was homeless until she got her house back
/r/PussyPassDenied21/04/20 10:12 AM
1

Not true. Common law marriage still exists in some places and you don’t have to actually be married to gain the same rights you would have if you were.
/r/PussyPassDenied21/04/20 10:10 AM
1

Actually the idea of a common law wife still exists in law in many places. Where I live if you are together “like husband and wife” for over ten years but you aren’t actually married you can get many of the same rights as if you were.
/r/PussyPassDenied21/04/20 10:09 AM
8

Great. Now let’s also change the law to protect people.
/r/MensRights11/04/20 06:07 PM
3

But you’re literally wrong though. You should need an idiot pass to continue operating at this level
/r/PussyPass02/04/20 12:04 AM
2

Hey bud this is kinda standard in the legal system. They will arrest someone on certain suspicions and hold them as long as they’re allowed to or until they decide on all the charges they can sustainably lay. While she MAY face terrorism charges doesn’t mean she won’t be charged at all, which she was btw.
/r/PussyPass02/04/20 12:01 AM
1

Never? Never before has someone been convicted of a crime where only the accuser has given a testimony and this is all the evidence present? That only started after the #metoo movement? You have knowledge of every criminal case in all common law jurisdictions? You know that it is perfectly workable, in the legal system I practice law in at least, to convict a person of a crime where the only real evidence is from the testimony of the virtual complainant right? Are you aware of all the witness st…
/r/MensRights03/03/20 02:53 PM
1

Care to expand?
/r/MensRights03/03/20 02:34 PM
1

The #metoo movement. How has that affected this case? How can you show your claim about it affecting common law jurisdictions be backed up? As I said several times prior this case is based on trite law and legal reasoning and can easily have been decided the same way long before the #metoo movement
/r/MensRights03/03/20 02:33 PM
0

And yet that still isn’t relevant nor a claim with any basis.
/r/MensRights03/03/20 01:50 PM
0

And yet the decision was based on established areas of law.
/r/MensRights03/03/20 11:40 AM
1

There would be a legal difference I think to consenting to a relationship which during its course led to sex under false inducement vs consenting to sex under a false inducement not necessarily while in a serious relationship. Either way once you believe a crime may have taken place it’s always best to consult local law enforcement or a lawyer from your jurisdiction. Where I live people aren’t too friendly to street photography which sucks because I’d love to give it a go. I’m into birds and spo…
/r/MensRights03/03/20 11:39 AM
1

And the legal basis for that statement is what exactly?
/r/MensRights03/03/20 11:34 AM
1

Know I saw someone make an edit with it but can’t find it now, my bad.
/r/MensRights02/03/20 08:18 PM
1

I’m don’t think you’re the person I replied to but having a marriage contract doesn’t help in rape cases in any way at all. Oral business arrangements exist or oral terms not in the written contract. But we aren’t talking about contract law so I shouldn’t digress. Proper vetting is indeed possible but let’s be very frank. We all know people who are much better liars than anyone ought to be and they will lie to serve their own interests. Onto your question. The question would have to be was the o…
/r/MensRights02/03/20 08:15 PM
1

I’m aware, we call them mere puffs. I’m sure you also know how mere puffs are distinguished from actual representations so I don’t think I need to go into it. Also I just saw your edit higher up. Apologies. If you continue to consent to something knowing your partner is gaining weight then how is that unconsensual ?
/r/MensRights02/03/20 07:58 PM
1

False. The entire area of unfair contract terms is designed almost specifically to protect consumers. Also unilateral contracts exist. There is 100% a bias against men but, as I said before, we don’t need this case to show it, we have a plethora. On an academic legal standpoint this case is massively interesting
/r/MensRights02/03/20 07:49 PM
1

I’ve basically answered this same point to you before. This isn’t shaky at all, it’s trite law for the court to have to decide the intent or headspace of a person. Don’t believe me? Apart from some strict liability offenses almost every crime requires a mens rea. E.g. A requirement for murder is intent. How do you prove I actually wanted to kill someone and it wasn’t just an accident? They take the events into account and see if they believe the virtual complainant beyond reasonable doubt. It’s …
/r/MensRights02/03/20 07:45 PM
1

“Can’t properly vet” is not, in any way, the same as being falsely induced. Woman slept with a person she thought she knew but turns out the lies about their identity? Rape. Woman slept with someone believing them to be a different gender? Rape. Vetting doesn’t matter if the other party straight up lied. An example from contract law. Contracts requiring utmost good faith like mortgages require you to disclose all the relevant information. If you don’t disclose it it isn’t enough to say the bank …
/r/MensRights02/03/20 07:35 PM
1

You’re too concerned about the word love and I think you need to take more of a clinical approach. If I say X to attain Y consensually and X turns out to have been an intentional and malicious lie said only to induce into the agreement then I have committed a wrong. The legal reasoning doesn’t change whether they were married since marital rape exists. Also I see no leap in this judgement based on what of it I have read. The courts have been asked to decide on whether something falls into the ca…
/r/MensRights02/03/20 07:28 PM
2

To the three points I largely agree with your sentiments and concerns. The the latter part of your reply. Like any other criminal matter it all depends on the weight the court will attach to any evidence. It can be used against him or it can be used wholly to his benefit. Everything has to be taken into context for the judge to make a finding of fact or for the jury to make the necessary findings I’d just like to point out too that I’m not a fan of this judgement, or at least the way it was repo…
/r/MensRights02/03/20 07:17 PM
0

None of what you just said matters. The only relevant questions would be: did he make statements or assurances or perform actions with intent to induce? Were they fake or malicious? They did have the desired effect?
/r/MensRights02/03/20 04:33 PM
0

It should be rape for both. This case has nothing to do about whether it should be rape for both, it has to do with a woman who is the virtual complainant. If this case was about a man who claimed rape and the law didn’t allow for it then this discussion point would be relevant. Fair but people enjoy sex, myself included, and that may get them into relationships with all sorts of bad company. As valid as your point is though as far as the legal discussion is concerned I’m not sure I can connect …
/r/MensRights02/03/20 04:26 PM
1

This issue of men not being able to be the virtual complainant in an instance of rape is well known and understood. You don’t need this particular case to talk about that topic. The substantive issue in this case that I have seen reported is whether the statements made are capable of a false inducement. A man can probably be falsely induced into sexual assault
/r/MensRights02/03/20 03:47 PM
-3

1) irrelevant to the legal reasoning here. 2) Consensual sex is not inherently harmful at all. If she believes she was falsely induced into a sexual act then she has a case though. This legal reasoning of false inducement is present elsewhere. What is left for the court to decide is whether his statements amounted to a false inducement. 3) How do you prove anything in court at all ever? Both parties file witness statements and/or call other witnesses to corroborate their side and the judge, havi…
/r/MensRights02/03/20 03:29 PM
-3

It’s not the worst legal reasoning I’ve seen actually. This is not, as you say, about being in love but not meaning it but rather using emotions or actions to manipulate and induce. Edit: Hilarious that I’m being downvoted just for letting people know more about the legal reasoning of judges while giving my professional opinion on the topic.
/r/MensRights02/03/20 03:10 PM
4

Meh more of the guy just being an ass
/r/PussyPassDenied21/02/20 10:07 PM
3

Honestly I’ve found that women police other women way more than men. The main persons I hear commenting on how women look or dress at other women
/r/MensRights20/02/20 09:28 PM
3

Not so much. Did she lie to gain consent? If she wasn’t on the pill then yes but how do we prove that she wasn’t? Has the limitation period expired?
/r/MensRights27/01/20 03:05 AM
64

If a woman consents to unprotected sex she is consenting to all the risks that come with it
/r/MensRights26/01/20 09:25 PM
6

I think people are usually with people being made fun of when it’s done by a comedian vs someone like a talk show host. I guess it just comes down to tone and setting
/r/MensRights18/01/20 09:14 AM
7

How do you know this is a false accusation?
/r/MensRights16/01/20 09:48 PM
4

Not all prenups are valid
/r/MensRights22/12/19 09:57 PM
19

More angry than surprised
/r/MensRights30/11/19 06:28 PM
32

She will not have to register as a sex offender? WTF
/r/MensRights30/11/19 06:19 PM
1

Her review says “I give BLANK Drive-In a 1 cause they suck.”
/r/PussyPassDenied18/11/19 08:36 PM
0

But we have no evidence that she did so assuming is wrong. Also the business is ******Drive -In from the looks of it
/r/PussyPassDenied18/11/19 08:31 PM
0

Again so you just prefer to assume things having no information about the woman who left the review? What if the guy is actually a shitty business owner? I’m not saying he is but you have literally no evidence that she tried to use her gender or children to get anything out of this situation. Also the fuck you mean single dads don’t get shit? My father in law is a single dad, he tells me all the tome about all the help he got from lots of different people. Not saying everyone has that experience…
/r/PussyPassDenied18/11/19 08:10 PM
0

Which route shall we choose? An assumption based off knowing nothing about the reviewer’s personal life or an assumption based off the actual wording of the guy putting her down? That insult, while good, is so not specific to this situation that it could be a single dad and you just switch the genders. The business owner or whoever said a lot about what the lady actually did, he didn’t say she pulled some card.
/r/PussyPassDenied18/11/19 07:29 PM
0

Looks more like he looked up her personal info/photos based on how he phrased it
/r/PussyPassDenied18/11/19 07:18 PM
6

This isn’t necessarily a pussy pass denied in my view. It’s just shutting down someone in general. The gender specific insult was good but didn’t even relate to the review made.
/r/PussyPassDenied18/11/19 10:24 AM
3

I just think it’s an attempt to be funny/seek attention
/r/MensRights18/11/19 06:07 AM
2

What do you mean by “don’t think the judge pardoned the case against the school district?” Also how do you do that thing on reddit where you quote someone’s comment and it shows up separately? Sorry. I suck at this.
/r/PussyPassDenied16/11/19 03:10 AM
10

True.
/r/MensRights30/09/19 01:50 PM
9

Oh I would claim negligence. The expelled him for a complaint which they seemingly didn’t verify. I would go after punitive damages too.
/r/MensRights30/09/19 01:50 PM
27

How come he didn’t sue the university as well? I mean the value of his claim should be pretty high so I’d go full out. Just wondering.
/r/MensRights30/09/19 12:36 PM
1

Legal question. Would the defense of doli incapax not abscond a 7 year old from any possible liability? In which case why do this at all?
/r/MensRights27/09/19 01:45 AM
22

She got Smackdowned hard
/r/PussyPassDenied24/09/19 03:17 AM
1

I’m a law student from the Caribbean so I have to ask one thing major about what you just said. Touching some without consent in the US is rape? I would think that’d be sexual assault. Which it is. And I honestly cannot believe any human being is so stupid to think a mistaken or even intentional touch is rape and even if they do and they make the accusation is it still not false? It doesn’t matter if it was done with malice or a genuine mistake. What I am talking about is either something being …
/r/MGTOW04/06/19 02:07 AM
1

The article states its sources of information and isn’t really about how many cases of rape are committed by women but rather how many are false. I can also assure you, under English law at least which applies where I am, it is impossible for a woman to be found guilty of rape as the law required penile penetration from the perpetrator.
/r/MGTOW03/06/19 07:10 PM
2

Very little evidence exists in the issue, mostly because in some areas it’s illegal to collect and its hard to be sure. A study was done in the past though and they classified lying about rape as only those who admitted the accusation was false. Prepare to be amazed, between 40-60% https://medium.com/@jimpreston_36730/how-many-rape-accusations-are-false-f52e4c675f2a
/r/MGTOW03/06/19 05:15 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter