TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

Handsome_McWonderful Archive

View 6 posts and 49 comments by Handsome_McWonderful on TheRedPill subreddit and various other subreddits related to The Red Pill community.
Search in:
In subreddits:
More
Filter by year/month:
Upvotes Comment on Subreddit Date (UTC)
2

Typo edit: should read mens rea, not "men's read".
/r/MensRights06/03/15 07:12 PM
4

Used the wage gap myth. Apologies for the ambiguity.
/r/MensRights03/03/15 03:50 AM
2

Isn't this a joke? Looks like a satirical blog.
/r/MensRights02/03/15 01:36 PM
2

This is an excellent question. I don't know of any myself, but I have to believe they're out there (whether any are located in your locale is another matter, however). You could always create one. I have often considered founding MRM advocacy and support networks, but currently this is infeasible for me (a few more years, however, and that will change).
/r/MensRights27/02/15 10:15 PM
5

Agree. Sidebar this.
/r/MensRights16/02/15 04:51 AM
15

It is also important to note, as far as I understand it, that civil trials do not permit anonymity of either of the parties. So, the plaintiff (or accusor, in the criminal context) would not be able to make claims behind a veil.
/r/MensRights12/02/15 05:11 PM
2

An unprovable accusation is radically distinct from a provably false accusation. This distinction needs to be shouted from the rooftops on a regular basis. The onus is on the state, not the accusor, to prove the guilt of the accused, and the state's inability to do so brings no punishment down on the accusor (nor should it).
/r/MensRights09/02/15 02:53 PM
0

This probably doesn't need to be pointed out, but of course the consequences of a false accusation don't always outweigh those of an actual rape. I share the spirit of your comment, however: that knowingly false accusations of a crime should carry severe consequences. Whether or not the punishment(s) should be equal, however, is another story entirely. Open-ended sentencing, combined with the political and judicial will to hold accountable false accusers, is the ideal solution. Generally, I am w…
/r/MensRights09/02/15 02:47 PM
0

I share your indignation, but I disagree that false rape accusations are plausibly characterisable as being worse than rape, at least not in general. That said, in particular contexts, I can see some false rape accusations (e.g. wrongful conviction, far-reaching public stigma) being worse than some actual rapes (e.g. someone being intoxicated, unable to consent [according to current law[). As well, post-violation, a massive percentage of rape victims do continue to suffer as a result - not a pub…
/r/MensRights09/02/15 02:28 PM
1

In the case of violent crimes, the law is capable of dictating clear standards. There is a wealth of concise jurisprudence here in Canada (and, I presume the United States) on this subject. You do infer the subjective state of mind of the accused/accusor from the evidence, but that is fundamentally different from the standard itself being objective. Subjective standard: "what did the accused think/do/etc". Objective standard" "what would a reasonable person think/do/etc". Here in Canada, we only…
/r/MensRights08/02/15 04:15 PM
5

From the newspaper's perspective: yes, I think it's believable that it's a calculated move to limit the scope of liability to reputation. Women commenting on the issue, it seems reasonable to presume, are less objectionable. Not saying I agree with it in principle - I hate it. But, pragmatically, I understand it.
/r/MensRights08/02/15 03:57 PM
1

The third point - about the necessity for an objective, "reasonable person" standard, is completely objectionable. Here in Canada, at least, it is necessarily a subjective standard for the mental elements of any form of assault. What is at issue is the actual state of mind of the accused (I.e. whether or not they intended to make contact, or whether or not they had knowledge of, or were reckless or wilfully blind towards, a lack of consent, etc) and the complainant (I.e. whether or not they cons…
/r/MensRights08/02/15 08:05 AM
3

What the fucking fuck? Where are all of the berjillion constitutional challenges? This is a joke - a travesty.
/r/MensRights07/02/15 08:10 AM
0

I think it's pretty obvious to all of us that there is no evidence that most rape accusations are false. Does it happen? Absolutely. How often? We don't know - not in relation to total claims. But, again, don't get lost in the prevalence of false (or, more reasonably: mistaken) accusations. You don't need to, in order to advocate for constitutional protections of due process and nondiscrimination against men and boys.
/r/MensRights30/01/15 02:39 PM
0

It's really dishonest to claim that most rape accusations are false. I've never seen proof of that, and I doubt you have either. That said, the point of due process, regardless of the prevalence of false accusations, is to ensure the accused is protected in case of a false (or, just as if not more importantly: honestly mistaken) accusation. We shouldn't be getting into the prevalence of false accusations. There aren't reliable stats on that sort of thing, and it doesn't matter in the least. It i…
/r/MensRights30/01/15 02:35 PM
1

Spreading awareness of what, specifically, present day feminism is, however, could be beneficial. A lot of people I meet in daily life who claim to identify with feminism have older doctrines in mind; many of them were almost entirely ignorant of the substance of modern day feminism, or paid lip service to particular notions (e.g. patriarchy) without understanding them at all. I often read on reddit that most people actually aren't feminist (though the movement does have formidable political pow…
/r/MensRights28/01/15 07:14 PM
1

In terms of achieving reparation from, and retribution against, the false accusor, Brian Banks could bring legal action. However, she appears to basically be without any financial means to provide compensation. But, couldn't Brian Banks claim not only against the false accuser, but also against involved third parties, e.g. The State? If Wanetta Gibson simply lacks the resources to pay him back for the damage done by her maliciousness, perhaps there is some negligence which can be found on the pa…
/r/MensRights28/01/15 01:11 PM
1

Absolutely agree. Accusations of rape and sexual assault are the most complex criminal matters to navigate - only the criminal justice system has experience with proper procedures surrounding cross-examination, testimony evaluation, evidence gathering. Moreover, the criminal justice system affords constitutional due process protections to the accused, the importance of which cannot be understated. No more kangaroo courts. The adjudication of criminal matters should take place solely within the c…
/r/MensRights28/01/15 01:03 PM
4

Perfect, I'm on board with that. I'm saying it would be most productive for us to emphasise this nuance at every opportunity. We need to make a concerted effort, together, to construct a positive narrative, of who we are and what we stand for, in the public consciousness. I meet far too many feminists who actually really only are committed to first wave feminism, but think the MRM is full of women-hating sociopaths. I do my best to educate them, one at a time, and form new allies to our cause. B…
/r/MensRights28/01/15 02:31 AM
1

Perhaps the MRM could benefit by being more specific in which wave of feminism we really are at odds with (third wave). Obviously, I can only speak for myself, but I am 100% on board with equality in terms of power. First wave feminism makes complete sense (though it really is best thought of as the Women's Rights Movement). Third wave notions of rape culture, patriarchy, and etc are where I'm off the train. I am unclear about some of the transitional aspects of second wave. My point is simply t…
/r/MensRights27/01/15 11:54 PM
1

this
/r/MensRights27/01/15 12:06 AM
1

this
/r/MensRights26/01/15 05:31 PM
1

I looked into the matter, and you were right. Thank you for playing a causal role in freeing me from the perceived obligation to add those stupid disclaimers.
/r/MensRights26/01/15 07:29 AM
1

I absolutely agree that my being a lawyer or not isn't worth fuck all in terms of argument substance. However, your assurances can't simply be taken at face value for my purposes. That's just the reality of it. If I don't 'fit in' because of me covering my ass to the best of my knowledge at any given time, well, that's an acceptable loss on my books.
/r/MensRights25/01/15 11:49 PM
1

I actually appreciate you pointing out the reddit disclaimer, which I will look into. I hope you can appreciate that the legal field in general is not forgiving right now, employment wise, so my being cautious about regulatory compliance isn't about pretentiousness.
/r/MensRights25/01/15 11:34 PM
1

I deleted that portion of the comment, because it was undeserved.
/r/MensRights25/01/15 11:33 PM
1

Again, I'll have to look into it myself. Professional regulatory bodies have their own rules and standard in each jurisdiction. What will be sufficient in New Mexico could very well be insufficient in Manitoba. I am new. But, are you an Ontario lawyer? If not, reserve judgement about how my regulatory compliance works.
/r/MensRights25/01/15 11:30 PM
1

About what? That I'm a member of the legal profession, or that I'm required to add disclaimers? Believe whatever you want about the former. Regarding the latter, the Rules of Professional Conduct are pretty clear. Apparently, reddit has its own disclaimers, as has now been pointed out to me. I'll be exploring whether those are sufficient to cover my professional ass. Until then, I'm going to keep playing it safe and adding my own disclaimers. And, if you're not cool with me trying to avoid getti…
/r/MensRights25/01/15 11:23 PM
2

I'm not being pretentious, I'm being professionally responsible. I wasn't aware of those disclaimers. I'll look into those to see if they are sufficient to allow me to cease providing my own. You seriously wouldn't believe the sort of nonsense trouble that can come about by dropping the ball on something like this. Be cool, dude. I'm just covering my ass. The job market is shitty, and the last thing I need is a complaint to the law society.
/r/MensRights25/01/15 11:20 PM
0

As a member of the legal profession, I am required to do that. You think I like it? Chill.
/r/MensRights25/01/15 10:45 PM
2

Chocoboat, your first example is exactly what I was pointing to. I have never been suggesting that every form of misrepresentation related to a sexual encounter vitiates consent. I have simply been pointing out that the law does, in some jurisdictions, recognise some specific deceptions which will vitiate consent. People on here have been saying things like rape and fraud are always mutually exclusive, when that isn't the case. none of the above constitutes legal advice
/r/MensRights25/01/15 10:29 PM
2

Pretty sure rape is simply nonconsensual sexual intercourse - no requirement of 'forcefulness'.
/r/MensRights25/01/15 10:26 PM
1

That isn't necessarily true. 'False pretenses' could have a very broad or very narrow meaning. U.S. law could contain some specific sorts of fraudulent misrepresentation which would vitiate consent (e.g. regarding the identity of the partner, the existence of a high-risk of transmission of a sexual-transmitted disease [this is law in Canada]), without endorsing all deceptions as vitiating consent. This article could have to do with advocating that all fraudulent misrepresentations ought to vitia…
/r/MensRights25/01/15 10:22 PM
0

You can lie about your name, profession, etc, and none of that would constitute fraud vitiating consent (in Canada). The 'identity of the partner' has a pragmatic, reasonable demarcation as 'someone personally known to the other party' - it does not include characteristics such as income, name, or etcetera. All that is relevant is that each party knows who the other party is and consents to the activity with them specifically. As a member of the legal profession, I am required to state caveats t…
/r/MensRights25/01/15 10:14 PM
1

You're misunderstanding what I am saying. I posted this as a reply to another comment, but it's relevant here also: "It does matter about particular things (e.g. the identity of the partner). This is not to say that any form of deception will vitiate consent to sexual activity, but some do in at least some jurisdictions. Here in Canada, consent to sexual activity (per R v Hutchinson [2014] SCC), includes consenting to all three of: (I) the touching; (II) the sexual nature of the touching; and (I…
/r/MensRights25/01/15 09:50 PM
3

Actually, it does matter about particular things (e.g. the identity of the partner). This is not to say that any form of deception will vitiate consent to sexual activity, but some do in at least some jurisdictions. Here in Canada, consent to sexual activity (per R v Hutchinson [2014] SCC), includes consenting to all three of: (I) the touching; (II) the sexual nature of the touching; and (III) the identity of the touching party. Deception as to any of those points constitutes fraud vitiating con…
/r/MensRights25/01/15 09:45 PM
-1

How do you disagree with the premise of being able to consent? Are you just trolling? If not, how does a comatose person consent to anything? Obviously, they can't. There are clearly standards regarding whether or not someone has the capacity to consent to something, sexual or otherwise. Are you going to make any actual arguments, or just continue to throw a tantrum?
/r/MensRights25/01/15 08:00 PM
1

If you can't have consented, because of deception, then you didn't consent. I can't make this simpler. I get the feeling that you just don't want to actually think your way through this. I'm also pretty sure you're just downvoting my posts here because you disagree with me. Real mature. none of the above constitutes legal advice
/r/MensRights25/01/15 07:40 PM
1

Bill would also be a party to the offence of rape, and Ted would also be a party to the offence of criminal fraud. the above does not constitute legal advice
/r/MensRights25/01/15 07:17 PM
1

It is fraud. But the fraud in this context vitiates the consent to sexual intercourse. Non-consensual sexual intercourse is rape. See how that works?
/r/MensRights25/01/15 06:55 PM
2

I support your efforts. I also think there is much to be said in the way the modifier 'sexual', as it relates to an 'assault', may differ as experienced by men. The 'sexual' modifier is extremely open-ended, to the point where 'sexual assault' need not in fact actually involve sexuality. It is "a crime of power, aggression, and control" which violates the sexual privacy of someone (R v V (KB)). Technically, if someone 'hits a man in the groin', this (often) would qualify as a sexual assault. How…
/r/MensRights25/01/15 06:42 PM
0

And what about where someone lies about their identity? For example: identical twins (yes, this has actually happened). Say someone consents to sex with "Bill", but partway through the encounter, "Bill" switches places with "Ted", his identical twin, whom then purports to be "Bill" and continues the sexual encounter. In Canada, as of 2014 at least, consent to sexual activity requires (among other things) consenting to the specific identity of the partner. Otherwise, it's fraud, which vitiates th…
/r/MensRights25/01/15 06:11 PM
0

Fraud which vitiates consent can be rape. I'll keep saying it everywhere I see this nonsense. not legal advice
/r/MensRights25/01/15 05:32 PM
0

Fraud vitiating consent can indeed be rape.
/r/MensRights25/01/15 05:31 PM
0

Fraud which vitiates consent can indeed be rape. There is an overlap.
/r/MensRights25/01/15 05:30 PM
5

This needs a few thousand more upvotes. Reinforcements!
/r/MensRights23/01/15 03:08 PM
1

Multiple spelling mistakes don't convey credibility. Tirades like that make us look bad.
/r/MensRights22/01/15 04:42 AM
1

In truth, Canadian sexual assault law has already interpreted s.273.1 of the Criminal Code (the provision concerning 'consent' in the context of sexual assault) as requiring affirmative consent: R v Ewanchuk [1999] SCC. This decision, combined with the earlier decision of R v Chase [1985] SCC (regarding how the 'sexual' nature of touching is judicially determined), and the very recent decision of R v Hutchinson [2014] SCC (regarding exactly what must be consented to), has made Canada's sexual as…
/r/MensRights21/01/15 11:51 PM
2

Crap. You said all of the smart words first. Even though you're the only comment (currently) - have an upvote.
/r/MensRights21/01/15 04:02 AM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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