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

Man's refusal to wear condom after agreeing to cancels out consent: judge. But read what the actual court report says — and how the news reports omit important facts. [Link in comments]

Consilio_et_Animis

July 4, 2019
32 upvotes
/r/MensRights
https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/man-s-refusal-to-wear-condom-after-agreeing-to-cancels-out-consent-judge-1.4492602
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 Man's refusal to wear condom after agreeing to cancels out consent: judge. But read what the actual court report says — and how the news reports omit important facts. [Link in comments]
Author

Consilio_et_Animis

Upvotes 32
Comments 12
Date July 4, 2019 5:26 PM UTC
(7 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/c957yg/mans_refusal_to_wear_condom_after_agreeing_to/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/mans-refusal-to-wear-condom-after-agreeing-to.1205823
https://theredarchive.com/post/1205823
Top posts by Consilio_et_Animis

Now women can use special apps to anonymously report “harassment” at work. Men won’t even know who their accuser is. Orwell would be proud.

2349 upvotes
February 7, 2020
/r/MensRights

Eton College SACKS English master for producing lecture for older students that questioned the 'current radical feminist orthodoxy'.

1743 upvotes
November 27, 2020
/r/MensRights

There are 4 times as many scholarships for females as there are for males.

1722 upvotes
February 28, 2016
/r/MensRights

Married father of two — a lawyer with a top London law firm — commits suicide after two women make allegations about his behaviour at the office party.

1573 upvotes
December 27, 2018
/r/MensRights

Asian women have now surpassed white men in weekly earnings in USA

1484 upvotes
December 25, 2020
/r/MensRights

Female Feminist Danish Health Minister says that Denmark will continue to circumcisie Danish boys. Previously she was "Minister for Children, Education & Equality". Male Genital Mutilation continues, with the direct collaboration of Feminists.

1319 upvotes
August 13, 2018
/r/MensRights

Huckabee to Washington Post: "Male lives matter". 94% of those killed by police are men.

1189 upvotes
July 11, 2016
/r/MensRights

Girl who cried UVa. gang rape pretended to be her rapist to win a boy, lawyers say. Hundreds of fantasy, fake texts. You couldn't make it up.

1184 upvotes
February 10, 2016
/r/MensRights

Comments

[–]Consilio_et_Animis[S] 20 points21 points22 points 7 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Here is the full court report:

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/doc/2019/2019onsc3918/2019onsc3918.html?resultIndex=1

Note how all the news reports omit the following:

  • According to the female complainant, they had vaginal sex twice, and anal sex once.

  • She knew he was not using a condom, and yet she did not object or stop the sex. She says she "froze". (What? She "froze" 3 times?).

  • He blocked her from the dating app when he got home. (Why? Had he detected she was crazy?)

  • Only after she had an appointment and discussion with her "counsellor" did she then decide to go to the police. ie: Her feminist #believeallwomen #allhetrosexualsexisrape "counsellor" convinced her she had been assaulted.

[–]Karissa36 8 points9 points10 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

In his written statement to police, which was prepared in advance of his first videotaped interview, he said the complainant initiated oral sex and got on top of him without a condom saying “don’t worry, I can’t get pregnant”. The statement contradicted Mr. Rivera’s earlier testimony that when he attended the police station the first time he did not know anything about the alleged complaint. When this was put to him in cross-examination, he testified the written statement was brought to the second meeting with the police. He eventually conceded that the statement was brought with him to the first meeting but changed his testimony to say he meant he didn’t know anything from the original voicemail left by police but had been provided details in subsequent conversations with police. He admitted he forgot about the complainant’s two rules when he spoke to police and he admitted to lying to the police about the complainant’s initiation of oral sex and about her alleged statement that a condom was not required because she could not get pregnant.

This guy is not innocent.

[–]Mens-Advocate 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

It remains an oath-on-oath case. That is, there is no real proof of what did or did not occur between them. The court's sophistry is merely a pretext for the (in)justice system's primary goal of destroying any male who displeases a female.

It is also outrageous to prosecute as rape alleged male misbehaviour or dishonesty regarding contraception without also prosecuting commonplace female misbehaviour (lies, fraud) regarding contraception.

[–]antilopes 3 points4 points5 points 7 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

One point of this story is about consent having been found in court to be violated by lack of condom, not about the details of the unproven allegations.

Another point of interest in this story is the way the defendant told a series of incompatible or implausible statements which not only destroyed his credibility but gave specific support to the allegation. Events like this are common but very rarely come before the court because there is very seldom evidence strong enough to allow a conviction. He provided the evidence himself.

Some news stories are about the correctness of the verdict, and then the evidence is dissected. There have been some big stories of that nature, but the vast majority of court reporting does not take the angle of trying to second-guess the judgement.

Your referring to a counsellor as a "counsellor" does you no credit, it brings to mind a certain president who referred to a judge as a "so-called judge".

| yet she did not object or stop the sex

... she consented to the kissing and fondling at the door and to foreplay and when came time for intercourse to take place, she told Mr. Rivera she needed him to wear a condom. She testified he told her “it will be OK, I’m clean. I’m clean”. Her evidence was that she reiterated that condoms were her form of birth control and he proceeded to penetrate her vagina with his penis without a condom. She testified she froze at this point and did not participate in the sexual activity and “laid there limp”.

She told the court Mr. Rivera then moved up toward her head on his knees and told her he wanted oral sex. Her testimony was that she told him she “did not want to” and he grabbed her hair forcing her to his penis and pushing her head toward his penis. He put his penis in her mouth and she started to cry. She testified this lasted a few minutes and her throat became painful.
She said Mr. Rivera then proceeded to have intercourse with her again. She testified she again told Mr. Rivera she needed him to wear a condom and he said “It’s OK” and penetrated her vaginally and anally. She described herself as “lying there limp”.
...

[8] ... the following day she went to an appointment with her counsellor and had a discussion about the encounter that lead her to go to the hospital to have a sexual assault kit and STI and pregnancy tests performed. She took a few days afterward to decide what to do and on October 26 2017, she made a complaint to the police. [4 days later].

Two details stand out for me here as very common elements in descriptions of abusers:

  • "It's OK"
    as a response to someone clearly expressing it is not OK, with or without specific reasons. A manifestly inadequate or nonsensical excuse may be added which although unconvincing, distracts from the central fact that "no" was communicated.

This was repeated for the second vaginal penetration. He was told she relied on condoms for birth control and STI protection in writing that day, and acknowledged condom use and "no means no" in writing. She repeated the birth control bit and "no" before penetration each time.

This "It's OK" effectively means "I acknowledge receiving your objection and I overrule it".

  • "I’m clean. I’m clean”

When a porn director wants to convey violation of consent that is not forcible rape he may get the male actor to use repeated responses to objections. No matter how bad the actor is at acting, the audience understands the repetition is a sleazy technique to block objections and fill the channel with a message too weak to stand on its own. That is not what consent looks like, which is the whole point of showing it.

[–]Consilio_et_Animis[S] 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

It's an interesting case, that make for a fruitful discussion. I have read your post carefully.

...the defendant told a series of incompatible or implausible statements which not only destroyed his credibility but gave specific support to the allegation.

When the complainant does this, her (and 99% of the time it is a female) incompatible and/or implausible testimony is explained away by her being "traumatised" and "confused" by her alleged assault. And it's claimed that her questioning and statement taking has "re-traumatised" her, and so of course her story is going to change etc.

But when the accused does this, then it's claimed that those statements: "...destroyed his credibility but gave specific support to the allegation". Of course if we are to assume that he is innocent, and that he has suddenly suffered the shock and trauma of being arrested, accused and questioned by the police, then we can look at his statements in a different light.

She testified she froze at this point and did not participate in the sexual activity and “laid there limp”.

The complainant specifically listed not 1, not 2, not 3, but 4 sexual acts with the defendant. Two were vaginal penetrations, one was anal and one was oral. We are asked to believe, "Beyond all reasonable doubt", that the complainant just lay their "frozen" for each act, that by her own admission, took place over a period of time.

And this female is clearly not a 17 year old virgin just out of Sunday school. She is clearly a women who knows what she wants, and is advertising herself on "dating" sites, and arranging to have emotionless sex with men she has never met before. I would guess this is not the first time she has done this — and she is no shrinking violet. She was graphic and clear about her conditions: Condoms mandatory and "no means no". None of this means in anyway that she "deserved" to be assaulted; nor that she should be disbelieved.

But what it does bring into question her claim that FOUR times she did nothing and just lay there when he penetrated her without a condom, and she did not want him to have sex without a condom. Ah, the poor little darling who was "shocked" at an erect penis.

And what's this? The judge described the complainants evidence as: "The complainant delivered her evidence without much emotion and without hesitation, in a straightforward manner. Her evidence was not shaken in cross-examination." So one minute she's a weak little helpless female, unable to tell a man that he must use a condom, and unable to get up and walk-away when he does that THREE further times. And yet the next minute, she has no problems standing-up in a court of law, and giving her evidence clearly and authoritatively.

Note that anyone can change their mind at anytime during a sexual encounter. This includes being able to change ones mind from insisting on condoms, to then agreeing to sex without a condom.

Now note how the judge said:

"...when I consider the whole of the evidence I am not satisfied that the requisite high standard of proof regarding the incidents of oral sex and the second instance of intercourse has been met."

The second instance of intercourse was vaginal followed by anal sex. So either: (1) the complainant was lying, or (2) FOUR times they had sex, over a good period of time, and each and every time, the complainant claims she did not want sex without a condom, but just "lay" there and allowed it to happen again, and again and again.

The judge's non-inclusion of these complaints made by the "accuser" herself, is a clever way for the judge to avoid either of the two realities I list above.

Your referring to a counsellor as a "counsellor" does you no credit, it brings to mind a certain president who referred to a judge as a "so-called judge".

Ah yes. It's all Donald Trump's fault. Silly me. Orange Man Bad.

Here's some reading homework for you. The root cause of all these false allegations are insane "counsellors", "therapists" and their ilk.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_memory_syndrome

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanic_ritual_abuse

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_abuse_allegations_made_through_facilitated_communication

So what do I think happened? Who knows. But do I think she was sexually abused "beyond all reasonable doubt"? Nope.

Here's a more likely scenario:

She's barking mad and has a range of mental and psychological issues. The guy persuades her in the heat of the moment to not use condoms and she agrees. Afterwards, she goes a bit nutty, and so he leaves pronto. When he get's home, he blocks her from the dating site. She then talks to her "councillor" he/she/ze(🙄) convinces her that #allhetrosexualsexisrape. The police turns-up at his house and he panics.

This madness is all too common. Here is a famous, recent case from the UK, when an actress accused a man in broad daylight, on a busy station concourse, of sexually assaulting her by penetrating her vaginal canal with his fingers. The impossibility of it all was captured on CCTV, but he was still prosecuted.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/man-falsely-accused-of-sexually-assaulting-actress-feels-like-he-has-undergone-mental-torture-a6867366.html

But still, #believeallwomen eh? LOL 🤡

[–]Mens-Advocate 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Excellent rebuttal.

[–]XxANCHORxX 6 points7 points8 points 7 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Don't stick your dick in crazy without a notarized contract and at least two impartial witnesses. Better be safe and record the interaction as well.

[–]SirYouAreIncorrect 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

  1. Dont stick your dick in crazy
  2. All women are crazy

[–]caseyweisel 2 points3 points4 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Demi’s FTW

[–]autotldr 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 86%. (I'm a bot)


Published Wednesday, July 3, 2019 3:23PM EDT. An Ontario court has ruled that a man who had unprotected sex after agreeing to wear a condom committed sexual assault because his behaviour invalidated his sexual partner's consent.

The complainant's evidence that she required Rivera to use a condom and did not agree to sex without it is consistent with the conditions she laid out over text, the judge said.

"In my view, Mr. Rivera led the complainant to believe he would wear a condom as he had previously agreed to do so and at the last minute he penetrated her without a condom telling her it would be ok," she said.


Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Rivera#1 condom#2 sexual#3 court#4 complainant#5

[–]Labrador12345 1 point2 points3 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Good bot

[–]ConnorGracie 0 points1 point2 points 7 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Question is why is this rape but when a woman sperm jacks a man it's a man's responsibility.

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