TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • Other

    • /r/AllPillDebate
    • /r/AlreadyRed
    • /r/altTRP
    • /r/AntiFeminists
    • /r/askFDS
    • /r/askMRP
    • /r/askRPC
    • /r/becomeaman
    • /r/BlackPillScience
    • /r/Chadfish
    • /r/Divorce_Men
    • /r/EverydayMisandry
    • /r/ExRedPill
    • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
    • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
    • /r/GEOTRP
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • /r/MalePsychology
    • /r/Male_Studies
    • /r/MenSupportMen
    • /r/MGTOW2
    • /r/MuslimRedPill
    • /r/newTRP
    • /r/PussyPass
    • /r/PussyPassDenied
    • /r/RedPillBooks
    • /r/RedPillParenting
    • /r/RedPillWives
    • /r/RedPillWomen
    • /r/RedPillWorkplace
    • /r/RPChristians
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/ThankTRP
    • /r/TheRedPillStories
    • /r/trpGAME
    • /r/TRPOffTopic
    • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
    • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • Dalrock
    • Heartiste
    • Illimitable Men
    • Return of Kings
    • Rian Stone
    • The Rational Male
    • Woujo
    • Other

    • Artful Prudence
    • A Voice for Men
    • Alpha Game
    • Black Label Logic
    • Caleb Jones
    • Captain Capitalism
    • Corporate Machiavelli
    • Days of Game
    • Deep Strength
    • Dicipres
    • Donal Graeme
    • Female Misogynist
    • Free Northerner
    • Gaming My Wife
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Hawaiian Libertarian
    • In Mala Fide
    • KillToParty
    • Kill Your Inner Loser
    • Krauser PUA
    • LaidNYC
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • NO MA'AM
    • Omega Virgin Revolt
    • Pook's Mill
    • Random Xpat Rantings
    • Red Pill Theory
    • Red Pill Wifery
    • RedPillDad
    • RedPillDoctor
    • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
    • Sigma Frame
    • The Feminine Woman
    • The Futurist
    • The Masculine Principle
    • The Modern Man
    • The New Modern Man
    • The Obsidian Files
    • The Power Moves
    • The Private Man
    • The Red Pill Room
    • The Red Quest
    • The Rules Revisited
    • The Spearhead
    • Troy Francis
    • Wintery Knight
    • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Please help TheRedArchive stay alive

In India, If you say you are in love with a woman but are not, you are a rapist. But if a woman does the same thing, no problems.

Egalitarianwhistle

March 2, 2020
165 upvotes
/r/MensRights
https://www.freepressjournal.in/mumbai/consent-for-sexual-relations-obtained-after-false-assurances-could-amount-to-rape-bombay-high-court?utm_campaign=fullarticle&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=inshorts
Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title In India, If you say you are in love with a woman but are not, you are a rapist. But if a woman does the same thing, no problems.
Author

Egalitarianwhistle

Upvotes 165
Comments 40
Date March 2, 2020 3:05 PM UTC
(6 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/fcdc0m/in_india_if_you_say_you_are_in_love_with_a_woman/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/in-india-if-you-say-you-are-in-love-with-a-woman.1200180
https://theredarchive.com/post/1200180
Top posts by Egalitarianwhistle

Red Sox stop donations to little League because it helps more boys than girls.

1889 upvotes
May 3, 2021
/r/MensRights

False accusations are suddenly a serious issue when a woman is falsely accused by a man. Feminists eat it up.

1264 upvotes
March 23, 2020
/r/MensRights

Shout out to the antifeminist women who get called horrible names just for speaking common sense truth

959 upvotes
May 2, 2021
/r/AntiFeminists

You can't win.

917 upvotes
August 10, 2021
/r/AntiFeminists

I call Bullshit on the False rape accusation sticky from Mens Lib sub. Actual lies are being told.

639 upvotes
December 6, 2019
/r/MensRights

Lawyers in the UK are practically begging women to make false rape accusations because... they're so lucrative.

566 upvotes
July 31, 2021
/r/MensRights

Australian manhaters

536 upvotes
November 17, 2021
/r/AntiFeminists

Feminism curdled like milk and just became bigotry as soon as they said women can't be sexist.

534 upvotes
May 21, 2021
/r/AntiFeminists

Comments

[–]zjango 17 points18 points19 points 6 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Actually try approaching a woman here....youll almost get the same treatment... It's really hard over here... And the places where you can approach.. Are usually the places where they hang out with their boyfriends....and if that's not the case then you usually can't have a good conversation at these places 1)i guess this is a scenario everywhere... We are usually looked at as some sort of wild animals 2)its scary for us to actually approach women right now.. I mean you don't know what you'll be accused of the next day... Of course this might not be the case... But that fear is there 3)it's upto women if they want to talk to you... Not upto men

This isn't the case everywhere and if it isn't... Great for you.... But this is what I've observed at a few places... So the best solution here might be... Work your ass of on whatever it is you like and seem to be talented at.. Achieve greatness.... and let them chase you. Unfortunately this is how the situation is

[–]Egalitarianwhistle[S] 8 points9 points10 points 6 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

And when they chase you, you have to be twice as careful of a false rape accusation.

[–]zjango 4 points5 points6 points 6 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Lol that's true! 😂 I guess this is a future we just have to get used to

[–]Egalitarianwhistle[S] 6 points7 points8 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

To change it, we need men to return a volley of rape accusations. At the very least it would expose the double standard.

[–]zjango 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Well chivalry is dead... Might as well give it a proper burial

[–]throwlaca -3 points-2 points-1 points 6 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

Actually try approaching a woman here....youll almost get the same treatment...

Then don't.

>We are usually looked at as some sort of wild animals

It's because you are poor.

>its scary for us to actually approach women right now..

Approach ugly/old girls and that won't happen.

>Work your ass of on whatever it is you like and seem to be talented at.. Achieve greatness.... and let them chase you. Unfortunately this is how the situation is

It was always like that and this is the correct way to get a relationship and a family. Women are not stupid and they wont start a relationship with a guy that can't support them. I don't know how much clearer they can be: Nobody wants anything to do with a poor bastard. This is the way the world is, sorry.

[–]zjango 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It's because you are poor.

No not necessarily.. It can happen to anyone of any class. Generalization to such a extent as to claiming this happens to only poor people is an ignorant thing to say

It was always like that and this is the correct way to get a relationship and a family. Women are not stupid and they wont start a relationship with a guy that can't support them. I don't know how much clearer they can be: Nobody wants anything to do with a poor bastard. This is the way the world is, sorry.

That is exactly what I meant by saying that is unfortunately the way the world is... What part of that didn't you understand?... I know nobody wants anything to do with a poor bastard.... I never said women have to fall In love with them... I only described in context to how it is for a man to approach a women nowadays...nothing more nothing less

[–]Egalitarianwhistle[S] 24 points25 points26 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The ever broadening arena of what constitutes rape inevitably affects men more than women. Sex and marriage are asymmetrical and women are almost never held to the same standards because of underlying layers of cultural assumptions.

Rape has been exponentially expanded in its definition and such a rapid change is fundamentally unfair in a system that isn't gender neutral. The courts inherently recognize a difference between men and women and the bias is measurable.

In this context, rulings like this only mean more men will be punished for consensual sex.

[–]MRA-Sid 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Gynocentrism is pure evil

[–]LokisDawn 3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Nah, it's a survival strategy that used to serve us well.

[–]BrunoBashYa 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Maybe my point was clear. Their culture just has really fucked up ideas about sex and relationships. They have a lot of things to work out

[–]Egalitarianwhistle[S] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I don't know enough to say either way.

[–]throwlaca 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

> If you say you are in love with a woman but are not, you are a rapist.

There is a method that works in those situations. It's a very old technique, invented by women and passed from mouth to mouth since generations. Its calling "lying".

[–]Egalitarianwhistle[S] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Just be sure to not write anything down in your journal.

[–]DHAN150 -4 points-3 points-2 points 6 years ago* (41 children) | Copy Link

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.

[–]Egalitarianwhistle[S] 13 points14 points15 points 6 years ago (35 children) | Copy Link

1.) This reasoning isn't applied equally. Women can't be found guilty of rape.

2.) There is an assumption of harm. It's reverse slut shaming. She has had sex so her inherent value is somehow lowered. Also hurt feelings conflated with rape.

3.) How do you prove he was NOT in love with her? There seem to be strong underlying cultural assumptions about the nature of love.

[–]DHAN150 -4 points-3 points-2 points 6 years ago (34 children) | Copy Link

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, having heard both sides and the cross examination at trial, will make findings of fact relating to who they choose to believe. He may have even admitted the facts detrimental to his case in his own statements.

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points11 points 6 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

The men's rights issue here is that should it happen that a young couple have a sexual relationship but the woman breaks it off, the man is not able to sue claiming 'she said she loved me and would marry me. i had sex with her, risking fatherhood and 18 years of enslavement. i spent thousands of local currency on her. Now she has left me in the lurch. i have been raped.'

[–]DHAN150 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Egalitarianwhistle[S] 3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

So it's rape if a man doesn't accurately describe his emotions while wooing?

If it's rape because he said he was in love but he wasn't, is it also rape if he says he was angry but he wasn't?

I think the issue is that there are underlying cultural assumptions that he is being required to conform to. What if he's polyamorous but didn't know it?

[–]DHAN150 -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

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?

[–]Egalitarianwhistle[S] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

Caveat Venditor.

So in theory, even if he does marry her but wrote in his journal that he wasn't truly in love with her, despite saying he was, he is guilty of rape.

The courts have leaped from a question of marriage to a question of love.

I didn't like it when promise to marry under false pretenses was defined as rape. This I like even less as the court seems to be adjudicating love itself. If he was truly in love it wasn't rape but if he wasn't truly in love then it is rape.

[–]DHAN150 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

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 category of a false inducement and decided that it did.

[–]Egalitarianwhistle[S] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

The false inducement is that he loved her.

So the court is trying to discover whether or not he truly loved her. That seems like shaky ground.

Wouldn't it make more sense to instead treat women like adults with agency?

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Well, you're right about that. we wouldn't need this particular case

[–]_Randy_C 3 points4 points5 points 6 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

I’m with OP on most of this.

  1. It may not be relevant to each case but should be addressed as an issue of equality. The act of gaining sexual acts through coercion is mutual to the sexes and if it is rape for one, it should be rape for both.

  2. Consensual sex is becoming increasingly dangerous for men in general. While false inducement can be claimed as rape, I feel that most of this could be avoided by waiting and vetting the person you intend to have a relationship with (this pertains to both sexes). For instance: Some people are gold diggers and users. Little financial investment while dating will eliminate those only seeking financial benefit. Likewise, withholding sex until someone has proven their intent will eliminate those only interested in sex.

Old norms have been thrown out and people aren’t taking responsibility for their own actions. Laws like these are dangerous because they are truly thought policing policies and laws like these set precedent that women aren’t capable of making personal sexual decisions. If this is the case, should we strip women of rights and care for them as children?

  1. Here’s a theoretical situation: An introverted man meets a woman and falls in love. He has few friends and doesn’t explain more than he’s dating her because he’s not comfortable telling friends and family his feelings. Eventually he realizes that their personalities aren’t compatible and stops seeing her. Now she’s angry and files a complaint. How does he prove his love? Considering the current climate in connection with intersex relationships, it seems like a horrible idea to have sex before marriage (and people scoff at this “antiquated” view of sex). There was probably a reason for waiting until marriage as a societal norm.

I’ve never shared much about my relationships to anyone. It’s none of anyone’s business and I’ve found that by sharing people will apply judgement to your relationship and it can lead to resentment in friendships.

[–]DHAN150 -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

  1. 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.

  2. 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 it

  3. Your sex before marriage point, which kinda ties into ‘2.’ Is legally irrelevant. A wife can still claim rape R v R (1991) created the possibility of a wife to be raped by a husband in UK law. The case law will have effect in many commonwealths. Nothing is stopping your wife from doing the same thing.

Furthermore you don’t need to prove you love anyone. You’d need to prove you didn’t falsely induce anyone or rather they would need to prove that you did. The burden of proof in most criminal cases lies solely on the complainant to prove the act took place and the circumstances around the act are true, this is where ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ becomes relevant. Any issue where only two people will have personal knowledge of the incident will be handled similarly to how I described

[–]_Randy_C 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago* (18 children) | Copy Link

  1. I agree that this point doesn’t have anything to do with the individual case. It’s just more of statement of inequality in justice between sexes.

  2. Enjoyment of sex has nothing to do with the veracity of the consequences from having sexual encounters. The point being of the original post is that these laws are being used more and more frequently by unscrupulous individuals to enact vengeance on an ex partner. Breakups are often heated and one sided; leaving the other partner angry and resentful. Again, the current climate of “metoo” and “believe all women” has made fair trials almost impossible.

  3. There are precedents that cover marriage rape in the United States as well. I agree the forced sex in marriage is rape but the definition of rape is becoming muddied to the point where if one partner agrees to sex but doesn’t necessarily want sex, we can now consider that rape. What we are doing by allowing this is removing agency from the person who could have very well said no and meant no. The argument against this is that sometimes it easier to say yes and get it over with; well by that account, the person has chosen a way to easier end a disagreement by capitulation rather than enforcing personal boundaries. Fights suck but personal boundaries need to be upheld. This is a matter of taking the easy way out instead of the uncomfortable discussion that may occur. And, no, one partner shouldn’t press the issue for sex if it’s been declined. That’s a matter of respect and the person should absolutely be taught respect.

Your conclusion: If court is presented with text messages, letters, or any other form of communication where the man has described his love and intent in the relationship; couldn’t that be used against him to prove that he made false claims only to have sex, because they are no longer together?

[–]DHAN150 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

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 reported, it’s much too porous, but I understand and can see the validity of the legal reasoning. If I can find a full copy of the judgement I can give a better opinion obviously.

[–]_Randy_C 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago* (16 children) | Copy Link

I don’t agree to the legal reasoning, it removes responsibility and agency from women by stating that they do not have to or can’t properly vet a sexual partner prior to sex. If this is truly the case then all rights must be stripped and they be demoted to having rights as children , else, we hold them to the same accountability standards as men who have chosen the wrong partner.

This ruling is truly horrible.

Edit: Think about this; You’re with a woman and she becomes fat through the course of the relationship. She is no longer the person she once was (in physicality). Consider that one knows that over eating and sedentary lifestyle combines to make one unhealthy and over weight. Since she has changed from the person you were attracted to and gained weight due to her own agency; does this fall under misrepresentation and therefore rape?

[–]DHAN150 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

“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 didn’t vet properly. You would be liable.

[–]Egalitarianwhistle[S] 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

But in contracts, both parties are on an equal footing. In rape and other criminal cases there is a huge, measurable bias against men.

By your logic, breast implants should also require disclosure before sex, otherwise the woman is having sex under false pretenses.

[–]_Randy_C 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

However, there is no contract. Maybe if a person concerns themselves more about protecting themselves (marriage contract) from “evil doers” before having sex then this would be a non-issue in most cases but, people are very concerned with bumping those uglies and are willing to partake in activities without a contract.

Business contracts that are undocumented are mostly nonexistent. If there isn’t an express written “deal” in the business world nothing goes forward because it could likely end with an unwanted outcome. If you want a certain outcome; know what it is you want, create yourself a contract, and do not give the other party the “sale” until the contract had been signed.

Beyond that, all you can do is vet a person to the best of your ability before you have your fun and if that’s the case, you’re taking a chance.

And yes, proper vetting to reduce the risk of having sex with someone (whom isn’t interested in anything but) is possible. If you don’t want to get burned, don’t have sex. Isn’t this feminist opinion on men’s abortion rights?

A question from personal experience: I’m an amateur photographer and love hiking. I met a woman who also enjoyed both. After dating for a few months, it was brought to my attention that she didn’t really care for it and didn’t want to continue hiking with me. At that point she wanted to change the dynamic of the relationship to exude my hobbies a to a certain degree. On top of that, we had very little common interest except what she had lied about. I ended up not seeing her anymore because she had led me to falsely believe we had more commonality then was true. We had been having sex during that time. Is that rape?

[–]BornFreeWE 1 point2 points3 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Ok, might be that the legal reasons is not 'the worst'. That's not my profession.

Anyway it sounds crazy that something like 'i love you and no one else' can be seen as illegal coercion which constitues rape.

Other point... "It appears that believing such words she initially surrendered herself" Umm... that is really patriarchial BS ... two people having sex is not 'the women surrendered herself'. That kind of thinking is from a time where people thought women can't enjoy sex or can't have orgasms.

[–]TheStumblingWolf 2 points3 points4 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

You're right, but that's called being an asshole. Being a rapist is a whole other ballpark.

[–]DHAN150 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

And the legal basis for that statement is what exactly?

[–]Egalitarianwhistle[S] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Also for being an asshole to be honest.

[–]DHAN150 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Care to expand?

[–]BrunoBashYa -1 points0 points1 point 6 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I don't think India is a place to complain about mens rights. The country is just fucked when it comes to sex and relationships

[–]Egalitarianwhistle[S] 0 points1 point2 points 6 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Are you kidding? India has the largest MRM by far.

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

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