TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

boy45 Archive

View 0 posts and 113 comments by boy45 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

WTF? Why aren't they going after the lying mom who defrauded the state?
/r/MensRights19/05/15 02:29 PM
5

What the actual fuck just happened...there is a domestic order in place, she violates it, stabs her spouse multiple times, kills him, but she "did not intend to cause death" Fuck everything about this
/r/MensRights30/01/15 06:08 PM
1

California has an exception for alleged sexual crimes where the victim was a minor at the time.
/r/MensRights03/12/14 03:49 PM
6

Lets be clear..."that happens" to sperm donors, not surrogate mothers (at least I've never seen a case like that)
/r/MensRights02/10/14 06:31 PM
9

Right...these women are delusional, and have an inflated self image.
/r/MensRights02/10/14 06:19 PM
2

You would be getting a relatively good deal for a 20yr marriage. I got: *to see my kids every other weekend *40% of our assets *to pay for the house she lives in *to give her $3k/month until I die, or she does I too had paid for her degree, which she decided to never use. If you are thinking it is inevitable, do it now it will only get worse.
/r/MensRights16/09/14 06:30 PM
5

In the US, common law marriage is not recognized (most, if not all states).
/r/MensRights16/09/14 06:25 PM
1

I don't think that is a problem in the US any longer (most states do not recognize common law marriage). But I agree 100% with the sentiment to stay single. Marriage is a legal contract, with undisclosed terms...if young men knew the contract terms up front, most would recoil in horror.
/r/MensRights12/09/14 11:09 AM
15

"Because this was done without Mr Anderson-Wheeler's permission, he refused to accept the child was his, but does pay child support as required by law, Ms Hardwick added"
/r/MensRights09/09/14 08:01 PM
16

Actually, they are not. Heresay has a very specific legal definition and is inadmissible in criminal proceedings. I think you mean that many have been convicted on the word of the alleged victim.
/r/MensRights04/09/14 02:42 AM
1

Videotape all sexual encounters (make sure she consents while looking at the camera). If she disagrees, leave....better yet, stop having sex altogether while in California.
/r/MensRights01/09/14 03:32 PM
1

Whatever the ex contributed to the marriage should continue in divorce, the same way the "breadwinner's" contribution must continue. It should at least be accounted for in a dollar equivalent. Stay at home spouses often claim their job is worth $100k/yr, until they get in divorce court.
/r/MensRights31/08/14 01:38 AM
4

Even the concept is flawed. Only one party in the divorce is forced to continue in their marital duty...if I have to continue giving financial support, shouldn't she have to continue in part of her marital duties?
/r/MensRights30/08/14 07:13 PM
4

You are 100% spot-on. Family courts give zero fucks about whether or not you agreed that your spouse not work...hell, I was told by a judge that I had allowed my wife to stay unemployed, and it was therefore my fault...yes, I'm still paying...until death takes me I am obligated to pay
/r/MensRights30/08/14 07:03 PM
1

Ask them why
/r/MensRights20/08/14 08:01 PM
1

Britain is circling the drain.
/r/MensRights20/08/14 03:32 PM
5

Yes, it is...I've done it...and its at most a 2hr/day job
/r/MensRights18/08/14 12:56 AM
2

Are you Al Bundy?
/r/MensRights18/08/14 12:48 AM
4

50% chance you die alone even if you marry...you'll just die poor as well
/r/MensRights15/08/14 03:46 AM
17

I'd think honesty might be a reason. If you falsely accuse, you're no better, and may just throw away any (small) chance at justice you have
/r/MensRights11/08/14 06:39 PM
16

Its a good way to get pressure applied to the nonpayer, without incurring legal expense
/r/MensRights11/08/14 06:06 PM
35

Apply for state aid (medicaid, food stamps, all of it). The state will ask about the noncustodial parent and go after her for child support (they do not like picking up the slack for deadbeat parents)
/r/MensRights11/08/14 05:54 PM
1

Nope, not there...try again, and please provide citation (assuming you know what the word means)
/r/MensRights11/08/14 04:57 PM
2

Any citations where this has actually happened?
/r/MensRights11/08/14 02:18 PM
1

Neither of these cases could be prosecuted had the victim made those statements or if those were proven facts. Please cite a real case where the woman consented (admittedly so) and the guy was convicted of rape
/r/MensRights11/08/14 02:17 PM
0

No, it doesn't. It simply recognizes the obvious fact that one can be too intoxicated to give consent, short of being passed out. In other words, if she's puking in the toilet and you anally penetrate her, one may reasonably conclude a lack of consent.
/r/MensRights11/08/14 05:10 AM
0

That's interesting. The actual legal statute reads: "Any person who commits an act of sexual penetration when the victim is prevented from resisting by any intoxicating or anesthetic substance, or any controlled substance, and this condition was known, or reasonably should have been known by the accused, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison for a period of three, six, or eight years." I think the scenario painted by the OP is a far cry from the act described in the statute.
/r/MensRights11/08/14 05:01 AM
0

I will make this simple for you: The ruling said: "However,where the complainant has voluntarily consumed even substantial quantities of alcohol, but nevertheless remains capable of choosing whether or not to have intercourse, and in drink agrees to do so, this would not be rape." Therefore w/regard to the OP, the question is " was the woman capable of choosing whether or not to have intercourse" Per the OP's scenario, yes she was capable because she, in fact, did consent. Therefore, per the rul…
/r/MensRights11/08/14 04:39 AM
-2

Really? My posts with links to legal pages were downvoted to oblivion
/r/MensRights11/08/14 04:11 AM
4

Again, you will need to try harder. First, the OP said nothing about being drunk, intoxicated or in any way incapacitated...only that the couple had drinks, consented to sex, then had sex. Under that scenario, there is no legal statute or case law that would even hint that a rape may have occured. Secondly, you deceptively introduced a proposed law as actual law, then when called out on that fact, have attempted to take fragments of a ruling, out of context, to further support your indefensible …
/r/MensRights11/08/14 04:06 AM
-2

Again, you will need to try harder. First, the OP said nothing about being drunk, intoxicated or in any way incapacitated...only that the couple had drinks, consented to sex, then had sex. Under that scenario, there is no legal statute or case law that would even hint that a rape may have occured. Secondly, you deceptively introduced a proposed law as actual law, then when called out on that fact, have attempted to take fragments of a ruling, out of context, to further support your indefensible …
/r/MensRights11/08/14 04:03 AM
3

Those are proposed laws, not actual laws...try harder
/r/MensRights11/08/14 03:17 AM
-5

Prepare for downvote campaign. Facts are not welcomed here if they contradict the desired narrative
/r/MensRights11/08/14 03:16 AM
-2

Yes, I am sure. From your own link: "Men who have sex with drunken women will be at risk of being convicted of rape under new laws to be considered by ministers." This not part of a legal system. I think it is you who needs to more carefully research.
/r/MensRights11/08/14 03:11 AM
0

Wow, this sub hates facts!
/r/MensRights11/08/14 02:58 AM
-2

There is no such law
/r/MensRights11/08/14 02:54 AM
-2

unable to exercise reasonable judgement This is not a legal standard for consent under any states legal statutes as far as I know. I have posted the statutes of both California and New York, both of which clearly show that there must be a "physical incapacitation" due to the alcohol/drugs before the alleged victim is considered unable to consent. "Intoxication" is not sufficient.
/r/MensRights11/08/14 02:39 AM
-2

I've already cited the consent laws of California which show that in that state, "intoxication" alone does not show inability to consent. Here are the conditions from New York state law statute 130.05: A person is deemed incapable of consent when he or she is: (a) less than seventeen years old; or (b) mentally disabled; or (c) mentally incapacitated; or (d) physically helpless; or (e) committed to the care and custody of the state department of correctional services Note that (d) can be due to a…
/r/MensRights11/08/14 02:31 AM
-2

First, if she was drunk, the US legal system says she cannot consent First, the OP made no mention of being "drunk"... only "drinks" Second, please support your assertion about the US legal system with the relevant statutes or case law. If you are claiming that having drinks then sex is legally considered rape, you will find no supporting statutes. If you mean that having sex with a puking alcoholic could result in rape charges, then I'd agree
/r/MensRights11/08/14 02:17 AM
-2

It may be true on college campuses (although I'd have to see it to believe it). My point is that under no criminal legal system is it considered rape.
/r/MensRights11/08/14 01:49 AM
-1

Classic. Downvotes for actually supporting my statements with links to legal statutes. I believe this thread has officially become the very definition of a circle jerk.
/r/MensRights11/08/14 01:08 AM
-3

I'm sorry, but this is not supported by the facts. A woman cannot say, "I told him yes but realized later I had been drinking and decided I was raped.". The law does not work that way. Now, she may lie and deny she consented, or intentionally mislead a jury, but under no legal system is the OP's scenario considered rape. Consent, once given, is consent...it cannot be taken away retroactively and there is no case law where this has been successfully argued. I am more than willing to read any case…
/r/MensRights11/08/14 12:53 AM
-1

I'll take this as an admission that you have no further evidence to support your position. Bye.
/r/MensRights11/08/14 12:36 AM
-4

Here is a link to California statutes which, very clearly, demonstrate that mere intoxication is not sufficient to establish lack of consent. All other state laws are similar. http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&division=&title=9.&part=1.&chapter=1.&article=
/r/MensRights10/08/14 11:40 PM
-5

If its not illegal, then it is legal...legal acts are not enumerated by law, only illegal acts. Surely you know this. Regardless, I must have missed the word "intoxicated" in the OP...did I, or are you attempting to move the goalpost?
/r/MensRights10/08/14 11:11 PM
-5

This link is to a sexual trauma services website, and in no way constitutes a legal definition. The page states that consent cannot be given if intoxicated (which is false) so I will make 3 points: The OP said nothing of "intoxication", only that alcohol was consumed and consent given There is no legal definition that states consent cannot be given after consuming alcohol The link itself states " forcing sex on someone who is too drunk to give consent"...which is far from the scenario posited by…
/r/MensRights10/08/14 11:03 PM
-15

Can you provide a link to a legal definition where it is? Didn't think so.
/r/MensRights10/08/14 10:21 PM
1

First off...DO NOT COHABITATE or you will be deemed financially responsible for this women for, potentially, the rest of her life. Seriously, living together is a very bad idea that can fuck up your future in a big way. Living separately will solve most of your financial issues. If you do contemplate marriage (strongly advise against it), get an iron-clad prenup that eliminates the possibility of alimony and protects any assets going in.
/r/MensRights10/08/14 10:18 PM
-20

Under no legal definition anywhere on this planet is this scenario considered rape.
/r/MensRights10/08/14 09:57 PM
1

Do not move out unless court-ordered to do so. Document everything with great detail, especially your time with the kids...helping w/homework, cooking meals, day at the park...everything in a journal. Address each page of your journal to your attorney (get one). Do not spend time alone with your wife...do whatever it takes to avoid that...have your annoying friends/family visit every day...take the kids to the park... Lastly, when you file (and you need to do it before she does, setting you up a…
/r/MensRights23/07/14 04:25 AM
2

You are abolutely correct. There is a thing called "rebuttable presumption" that leaves the penis-bearer at huge disadvantage in family court. The mountain that one must climb to rebut these presumptions is enormous...most dads do not even try, and its hard to blame them. Spending tens of thousands to get to the same starting point as your ex is not possible for most, and a futile exercise for many more (as was my case).
/r/MensRights14/07/14 02:57 PM
2

My "shared custody" was 1 day per week (after school only, back home by 7pm), and every other weekend. I fought for equal time, spent $25k in legal fees, and in the end the judge gave me this "generous" arrangement. I had been my kids' athletic coach, tutor, and involved dad for their entire lives...even worked from home the last 7 years before divorce just so I could take them to/from school. My only disadvantage was that I had a penis. To add salt to the wounds, the judge justified the time al…
/r/MensRights14/07/14 02:01 PM
2

No. Diaries are still diaries, books are still books, and the internet is the internet.
/r/MensRights09/05/14 03:14 AM
8

Not allowing internet access to a minor is abuse...WTF?
/r/MensRights03/05/14 07:13 PM
2

By contrast, only 241 men were killed by their female partners. [13] This figure is disturbingly low, given that more than 200,000 women in the United States suffer serious violence from male partners each year. This article sounds like it was written by a 16 year old.
/r/MensRights12/03/14 02:33 PM
1

What is the feminist equivalent of "circlejerk"?
/r/MensRights06/03/14 03:52 PM
2

Why are you paying off her debt? She owes at least 1/2 of that. If you pay it all off, you are doing her a big favor.
/r/MensRights14/01/14 03:02 PM
37

Everything regarding the divorce was done through her attorney. I screwed up big time Yes, yes, you did. Do not repeat that mistake. Don't expect charges to be dropped when (if) she falsely accuses you of abuse. I strongly advise that you never ever go near her without an eye witness (friend) and/or an audio/video recorder. She may attempt to pay you back.
/r/MensRights08/01/14 06:43 PM
6

You do not even have to be married to lose your assets to a female. You do not even have to be a biological father to be forced into child support Welcome to America, land of the free
/r/MensRights08/12/13 07:16 PM
14

It is a double-edged sword. No day as joyous as their birth...no day as horrific as the day they are taken away because you have a penis.
/r/MensRights04/12/13 12:10 AM
5

You said you called 911, then you said she called the police...¿???????
/r/MensRights03/12/13 08:18 PM
2

That was bad legal advice. You could have (potentially) gotten actual damages + lawyer fees + punitive damages, from both the school & the individual teacher. You would have also taught the school a valuable lesson and maybe saved the next unlucky guy a lot of pain. Any lawyer worth his salt would have taken this case pro bono if you had the iron-clad evidence to prove discrimination.
/r/MensRights03/12/13 08:06 PM
44

Men who adopt need to start suing the biological mothers for child support. I wonder if the child's best interest will take precedence then
/r/MensRights25/11/13 11:45 PM
13

THIS. This is what divorcing dads need to understand. The deck is stacked...look up the phrase "rebuttable presumption." A father has to prove his worthiness in court, or by default, the mother is deemed to be most fit as a parent. Rebuttable Presumption
/r/MensRights20/11/13 02:13 AM
5

Yes, to file a lawsuit you'd need to name a "defendant"...then in court, you'd need to show the defendant committed libel.
/r/MensRights07/11/13 03:48 PM
26

Defamation lawsuit
/r/MensRights07/11/13 03:13 PM
2

Man I can honestly say that your update has lifted my spirits today. Thank you for bringing the good news. My advice: listen to your lawyer and make every attempt to get your kids back with you per the order. Take a week off work and go get them! Inform local law enforcement (wherever she is) of your plans and ask their assistance in enforcing the order. Make sure they understand this is a child welfare issue. If you do not make a serious effort to get your kids out of this bad situation, the ju…
/r/MensRights07/11/13 01:58 PM
6

Can you expand on this?
/r/MensRights03/11/13 10:02 PM
18

Many cancers have seen dramatic increases in survival rate due to improved treatments developed through medical research. Prevention is also studied via funded research.
/r/MensRights29/10/13 09:31 PM
2

Ok, well, be careful what you ask for. Any time a divorce settlement is re-opened, you really are putting your future right back in a judges' hands. Maybe it goes well for you, maybe you end up losing more...it is always risky. Most men I know, including myself, would have given every penny we had to get custody, so consider yourself lucky.
/r/MensRights26/10/13 03:37 PM
2

Do you think this is the right thing to do? I mean, isn't this the kind of disgusting behavior we all gripe about in this sub?
/r/MensRights26/10/13 02:54 PM
8

Please report back on the outcome!
/r/MensRights23/10/13 04:06 PM
3

Sounds like you came out of the divorce better-off than most. Don't sweat the small stuff.
/r/MensRights23/10/13 01:47 PM
2

Many still do.
/r/MensRights20/10/13 10:48 PM
6

I went through this years ago, and here is my advise, based on lessons learned: One, the cops will do absolutely nothing for you. The kids are with their mother, so no law has been broken. You are wasting your time there. Two, you need a lawyer ASAP. You need to file a petition with the court to force your wife to return to Illinois with the kids. Any evidence that you have of unsafe or unhealthy living conditions will help you get this done. If you do have evidence that the kids are in any way …
/r/MensRights16/10/13 04:46 PM
7

Belize?
/r/MensRights15/10/13 01:40 PM
2

I agree with most everything you've said but, still, there is no recompense for the sacrifice the working spouse has made (which could be argued is a greater sacrifice).
/r/MensRights12/10/13 01:04 PM
3

Yes, and the non-working spouse received the benefit of not working for years and having everything provided by the other, in addition to raising the children. So I repeat my question: why no recompense for the one who worked his/her children's childhood away?
/r/MensRights12/10/13 04:20 AM
7

Yes, and the working spouse sacrificed their health and time with their children to provide financially. That spouse can never get those years back, they are gone forever. Both made sacrifice, so why does only one receive compensation in the divorce?
/r/MensRights12/10/13 01:07 AM
6

My wife will hopefully be a stay at home but by the time the youngest is going to middle school she will most likely have at least a part time job. You are setting yourself up for disaster. If you wait that long, you will have no recourse if she decides she wants to stay home....forever! You will accept it, or divorce and pay alimony for years, or maybe for life.
/r/MensRights12/10/13 12:56 AM
1

My ex had a masters degree in finance and had certified as a CPA before we married. She never worked after we married, even though strongly encouraged to do so. I would loved to have gotten off w/3 years. I should have moved to Texas first.
/r/MensRights11/10/13 08:12 PM
1

The only 100% sure thing is don't get married, don't let the gf move in, use birth control (redundant systems if possible)
/r/MensRights11/10/13 08:04 PM
1

Permanent alimony awards are the norm in my state. Appeals are rarely even heard, much less successful.
/r/MensRights11/10/13 07:26 PM
11

Well, you have about a 50/50 chance of a lasting marriage. Just please watch out for the warning signs (she wants to take time off work to be with the babies, then next thing you know the kids are in high school and she's still on the couch watching Oprah). DO NOT ALLOW IT TO HAPPEN! Offer to stay home yourself, offer to pay a live-in nanny, but do not agree to your wife becoming solely dependent on you financially...if you do your future as a free human being is in serious jeopardy.
/r/MensRights11/10/13 07:02 PM
5

It does not matter who initiates
/r/MensRights11/10/13 06:34 PM
1

Only after she refused to work did I begin to see it
/r/MensRights11/10/13 05:30 PM
23

No one maintains their lifestyle after divorce, nor should they be entitled to by force of a judges order. There are benefits to marriage that should go away with divorce.
/r/MensRights11/10/13 05:09 PM
1

I thought about moving away, but was always afraid I'd lose contact with my kids. They don't really understand the whole financial arrangement, and it is very difficult when they ask me for something and I cannot provide it. They're both struggling through college, pretty much on their own. I have tried to get a reduction, but only once out of 4 attempts did I get a hearing...the judge denied that request in a 2 minute hearing.
/r/MensRights11/10/13 05:00 PM
4

Don't be surprised if the CS gets converted to "maintenance" once your boy is 18. My financial obligation did not drop 1 cent when my youngest hit 18.
/r/MensRights11/10/13 04:51 PM
2

She is not crazy, she is taking what the judge gave her. We dated for years before marriage.
/r/MensRights11/10/13 04:47 PM
24

Presumably, all marriages start this way. Not many end this way though.
/r/MensRights11/10/13 04:45 PM
18

I agree with you on CS, but alimony is slavery. No one, under any circumstance, should be legally obligated to provide for their ex spouse. What is divorce if not a legal dissolution of that responsibility? Have you ever seen a judge order the homemaker to continue washing the clothes and cooking the meals of the ex? No. Then why does the bread-winner have to continue in their marital responsibility?
/r/MensRights11/10/13 04:38 PM
2

2, both over 18
/r/MensRights11/10/13 04:27 PM
4

She knows this and will never re-marry (why would she)
/r/MensRights11/10/13 04:26 PM
6

And the governor usurped the legislature (and presumably the will of Florida citizens) with a veto because ....he knows better? How arrogant.
/r/MensRights11/10/13 03:36 PM
14

That may work if you divorce immediately after she quits, but if you accomodate her unemployment for a time, you have screwed yourself.
/r/MensRights11/10/13 03:07 PM
22

My kids are now 18+, but the financial burden was not reduced by the judge. I was on disability for 8 weeks once due to surgery, and could only pay about 1/2 what I was ordered to pay. She went back to court and the judge threatened me with jail if I did not "make her whole" within 6 months. So, basically, even if you become disabled or have a reduced income for any reason, its tough shit...your obligations do not go away, or so says the family court.
/r/MensRights11/10/13 03:03 PM
30

That's great, until she decides to quit and live off your income (which happens often)
/r/MensRights11/10/13 02:52 PM
27

I am glad to hear that your dad made it out alive. In my case, because the $3k/mo is unallocated, it did not reduce when our 2 kids reached 18, it just continues in perpetuity.
/r/MensRights11/10/13 02:48 PM
4

Vaginas negate drug addiction effects on child-rearing
/r/MensRights11/10/13 02:23 PM
2

Judges throw out pre-nups every day. They deem them "unfair" which is all they need to invalidate them.
/r/MensRights11/10/13 02:13 PM
5

So how does one move to Europe to avoid alimony? To get a work visa, I would assume there is a background check, etc. I dont think moving would solve anything (at least not to Europe)...maybe Belize
/r/MensRights11/10/13 02:10 PM
11

Easier said than done. Family is here, job is here. If I left, I could never return...
/r/MensRights11/10/13 01:58 PM
222

Child support = alimony. I have to pay monthly: $1200 mortgage (for our house which she got and I had to leave) $430 car payment (for her car which she got to keep) $85 auto insurance for her car $3000 unallocated "support"....forever, or until I die My take home (after tax, insurance) is about $5500/mo. That leaves me about $800/mo to live on. She also took 60% of my 401k (about $150k), and gets 1/2 my pension if I ever retire (I will likely never be able to retire under this permanent financia…
/r/MensRights11/10/13 01:42 PM
45

Also by that logic, a man could be forced to pay CS for an unrelated child to whom he volunteered time and became "the only father the child knew". I cannot understand how a ruling like that is not considered a violation of basic human rights. Unbelievably scary stuff!
/r/MensRights09/10/13 12:30 AM
35

Vasectomy would not help. The courts can force you into indentured servitude to a woman based on any whimsical interpretation of the law, as in this case.
/r/MensRights08/10/13 11:01 PM
21

I thought men couldn't be raped
/r/MensRights08/10/13 10:55 PM
1

I agree that there are people who don't get healthcare because they can't afford it. I disagree that insurance=healthcare however. On average, a person will spend more on insurance premiums than what their healthcare would cost out of pocket. Poor folks need healthcare, not insurance.
/r/MensRights04/10/13 05:21 PM
-1

No, its not. One can get healthcare without insurance. I do it all the time.
/r/MensRights04/10/13 12:27 PM
4

without care Do you mean "without insurance"?
/r/MensRights03/10/13 08:22 PM
2

What is even better are the Texas alimony laws. They actually have a 3 year cap.
/r/MensRights22/08/13 12:42 AM
5

If you have a prescription, that is all you need. Yes, at some point you would need to see a jail doc, but they are not going to take your prescribed medicine away unless a doc OK's it. $5k is not a lot to get your son back
/r/MensRights19/08/13 07:14 PM
6

The state has to provide your medication if incarcerated. My suggestion is, if you can avoid jail and find work, to get yourself a lawyer and petition the court to have a "guardian ad litem" appointed for the child. This is a lawyer who represents the child and makes recommendations to the court on custody, etc., based on interviews with the child (no parents present) and with the parent(s) and child together
/r/MensRights19/08/13 05:39 PM
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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