~ archived since 2018 ~

What is the issue? Isn’t everyone innocent unless proven guilty?

WillyNilly1997

November 13, 2025

21 upvotes

/r/MensRights

https://ibb.co/wFkVZHD2

Archived from /r/MensRights

r/MensRights is a community advocating for the social and legal equality of men and boys since 2008.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill subreddits and blogs. This page is our copy of the original post.

/r/MensRights archive

Download the post

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

PDF TXT EPUB

Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Post Information

Title	What is the issue? Isn’t everyone innocent unless proven guilty?
Author	WillyNilly1997
Upvotes	21
Comments	62
Date	November 13, 2025 2:03 PM UTC (9 months ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1ow1wda/what_is_the_issue_isnt_everyone_innocent_unless/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/what-is-the-issue-isnt-everyone-innocent-unless.1566443 https://theredarchive.com/post/1566443

Comments

[–]dougpschyte 19 points20 points21 points 9 months ago* (45 children) | Copy Link

[–]StandardHelp9493 0 points1 point2 points 9 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Um, no. Before accusing people of being all over the place, try to keep up.

I did not put up that article for review. I put that article up as an example of the impossibility of men receiving anything like a fair hearing on virtually any question that might yield an answer other than "women are disadvantaged in society therefor believe all women."

I'll type this slowly - as to the question of whether institutions have become too feminized, which if true would certainly militate against the idea that women are disadvantaged in our society, a group of SEVEN WOMEN were consulted to consider the issue.

"Andrew Tate says the 19th Amendment was a Bad Idea? Seven Men Discuss." Do you get it?This is the society we live in. Where seven women are empaneled to discuss if women have too much influence in society and nobody, even people who are otherwise fair minded, thinks there is anything wrong with that.

And you considered it surprising or something that at least one of the women consulted argued that Noooooooo, women don't have too much power in our institutions at all. Far from it. As a member of a SEVEN WOMAN panel that is debating the question I don't know how Helen Andrews reached that conclusion!"

As to domestic violence, no. I do not believe womens rights groups care about the issues they say they care about. Women's rights groups have demonstrated again and again and tediously again that they don't care about women's equality, or victimization, or fairness or equity or how to prevent rape or improve society beyond the point that those issues are useful as a club for political power. Oh yes, there are members of those groups who, drawn in by the stated purpose, serve as useful idiots and foot soldiers to gain money and power for those in charge. But they are being lied to.

And one more thing about "all over the place."

As to the allegation that men are guilty until proven innocent when accused of anything by a woman, you came outta the corner swinging with reference to...OJ Simpson to refute that. 1994. OJ Simpson.

Taking the "L" would be your best move.

[+]Flamehazr444 -11 points-10 points-9 points 9 months ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]StandardHelp9493 3 points4 points5 points 9 months ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Flamehazr444 -3 points-2 points-1 points 9 months ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Flamehazr444 -5 points-4 points-3 points 9 months ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]StandardHelp9493 0 points1 point2 points 9 months ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Yeah I think the point here is a glaring example of a discussion that affects men and women being discussed by a panel of...women.

And this headline is published with a straight face. In a publication started by a woman of the left yes, but a person who has stood up for the unbiased search for truth and has the scars to show for it.

Whether this "male hegemony that holds power" that I keep hearing about cares about women or not, the quite obvious fact that women are, and have been calling the shots for at least two generations.

Additionally, the overwhelming majority of societal wealth is controlled by women. Men make it, women spend it.

Finally, take a look at the OJ example you provided. Do you know who Tammy Bruce is? Do You know what she had to do with the OJ Simpson trial? Do you know what the NOW had to do with the trial and generating public sympathy for OJ Simpson? OJ was acquitted in no small part because the NOW would not allow him to be held up as the textbook example of deadly spousal abuse, the classic abuser who escalates abuse until the woman is killed that the Duluth Model would have us believe underpins every slammed door when that slammed door can get a man arrested or placed under a P.O. NOW demanded a hands off, OJisavictimofwhiteracistpoliceofficers narrative because that better served the cause of their leftist politics. NBS, beheaded on her doorstep - was a small sacrifice I suppose. And Ron Goldman? Please.

I am sorry if you feel the "vulnerability as a way to escape accountability" narrative is being threatened, but quoting a passage from the article sympathetic to your position as though it is dispositive of the issue or, in the alternative, throwing crap against the wall and hoping something sticks is not the way to defend it.

[–]Flamehazr444 0 points1 point2 points 9 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Flamehazr444 -9 points-8 points-7 points 9 months ago (37 children) | Copy Link

[–]dougpschyte 15 points16 points17 points 9 months ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[+]Flamehazr444 -11 points-10 points-9 points 9 months ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Readshirt 2 points3 points4 points 9 months ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

In many cases, including Ellie Wilson's, there are also messages asking for sex etc after the alleged assault. We do need to draw a line somewhere about what communication and behaviour is deemed less likely to be indicative of a situation of a serious and unambiguous sexual assault. As much as you might like to we can't just lock men up at the word of a woman and throw away the key. We might be getting there but we haven't reached that level of female hegemony yet.

Even if there weren't messages after, it is for a jury to decide whether the communication immediately prior to an alleged assault informs them. In some cases it will be obviously relevant. In others it will be inconsequential as you have stated. An outright ban absolutely has the distinct possibility of making a trial unfair. There is so much in the context of the communication beforehand that could easily be relevant, not just whether or not sex was being asked for.

[–]Flamehazr444 1 point2 points3 points 9 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]WillyNilly1997[S] 11 points12 points13 points 9 months ago (32 children) | Copy Link

[+]Flamehazr444 -7 points-6 points-5 points 9 months ago (31 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheManipulator_25 7 points8 points9 points 9 months ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Flamehazr444 1 point2 points3 points 9 months ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheManipulator_25 1 point2 points3 points 9 months ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Flamehazr444 -1 points0 points1 point 9 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SpicyTigerPrawn 10 points11 points12 points 9 months ago (26 children) | Copy Link

[–]Flamehazr444 -1 points0 points1 point 9 months ago (25 children) | Copy Link

[–]SpicyTigerPrawn 8 points9 points10 points 9 months ago (24 children) | Copy Link

If men weren’t likely to r8pe a woman then no amount of protected sex wud be dangerous.

The vast majority of men never grape anyone. So we kept changing the meaning until it got to the point that virtually anything behind closed doors could be called grape so long as that was how the claimant felt afterward. Not just later that day but months, years, or even decades later. At this point the accused needs a video of the claimant constantly asking for more to beat a grape accusation, except that evidence would not be admissible so he loses anyway.

Also proof of lying (full on perjury once it gets to court) is completely separate from the sexual history.

Proving a negative is almost impossible, especially years or decades later, so the best we can do is show the claimant has a history of lying about reckless behavior (as would be allowed with any other charge) and let the jury decide.

[–]Flamehazr444 0 points1 point2 points 9 months ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[–]SpicyTigerPrawn 7 points8 points9 points 9 months ago (22 children) | Copy Link

SA was never taken seriously

Realizing that making a claim without any evidence is not enough for a conviction does not mean we did not take it seriously. Them problem is we "fixed" the impasse by putting our thumbs on the scale to ensure "she said" would prevail over "he said."

For example SA of a spouse historically wasn’t a crime but has been made one relatively recently.

It was always a crime for people alive today, just like beating your spouse was always a crime. Lack of enforcement and lack of isolation from other crimes did not make it legal.

You can prove ppl are lying. That most of what a trial is.

You can prove people lied when they screw up so bad you were on thousand miles away or on video doing something else, but so long as you were in the same vicinity and not on camera it's virtually impossible to prove. The best you can do is introduce evidence that they've knowingly lied before (if they have), which is often banned for SA charges.

[–]Flamehazr444 0 points1 point2 points 9 months ago (18 children) | Copy Link

“Prior to the 1970s, marital rape was legal in every US state and only first became partially outlawed in Michigan and Delaware in 1974, then wholly outlawed in South Dakota and Nebraska in 1975.[1][2] The court case Oregon v. Rideout in 1978 was the first in which someone stood trial for raping their spouse while they lived together. By 1993, marital rape was a crime nationwide.[3] Still, in the 1990s, most states continued to differentiate between the way marital rape and non-marital rape were viewed and treated. The laws surrounding marital rape in the US continue to change and evolve, with most states reforming their laws far into the 21st century. However, there are still states where marital rape and non-marital rape are treated quite differently under the law with the definition of what is "marital rape" or non-marital rape being disputed in some states.”

[–]Flamehazr4441 point 9 months ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SpicyTigerPrawn2 points 9 months ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Flamehazr4441 point 9 months ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SpicyTigerPrawn2 points 9 months ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Flamehazr4441 point 9 months ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SpicyTigerPrawn1 point 9 months ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I’m telling you that a wife could not take her husband to court for rape.

You previously said it was perfectly legal to rape your wife, which is factually incorrect. It was considered assault and battery long before anyone passed a law specifically banning "marital rape."

Most SA/SB is prosecuted at the state level but even at the federal level there are Western countries that restrict rape to specific genders for reasons known only to the people who wrote those laws.

Also, what on EARTH makes you think I’d take the rape of a man/boy any less seriously than I would for a woman/girl? And aren’t you arguing my point that rape needs to be taken more seriously?

If under-reporting, lack of prosecution, re-traumatizing, and societal indifference are your big bugaboos then the barely acknowledged SA and SB of men will be right up your alley. Thanks for joining the cause.

[–]Flamehazr4441 point 9 months ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SpicyTigerPrawn1 point 9 months ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Flamehazr4441 point 9 months ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]WillyNilly19971 point 9 months ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Flamehazr4441 point 9 months ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]WillyNilly19972 points 9 months ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Flamehazr4441 point 9 months ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]WillyNilly19971 point 9 months ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Flamehazr4441 point 9 months ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Flamehazr444 0 points1 point2 points 9 months ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]SpicyTigerPrawn5 points 9 months ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Flamehazr4441 point 9 months ago [recovered] | Copy Link

No. Trauma informed means trauma informed. It’s a term mainly used in mental health treatment. It barely has use in a legal context unless referring to motivational interviewing of survivors to prevent re-traumatizing them.

And you’re saying that SA survivor’s pattern of lies being inadmissible is anecdotal at best? Like in no way is systemic and therefore has nothing to do with anything at this point in time as we’re in the present where that’s not standard practice.

What countries? What cases? What source? If you don’t have a source give me enough specifics that I can find them myself. You haven’t done that. You haven’t come for the logic of what I’m saying either.

Honestly. Sincerely. What is your thesis here? Mine is that rape is a massive societal issue that requires research, nuance, and collective efforts to prevent and prosecute. That historically rape was under reported and/or ignored. And that rape of anyone, in any form is heinous and should be treated as such. What are you arguing?

[–]StandardHelp9493 4 points5 points6 points 9 months ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Flamehazr444 1 point2 points3 points 9 months ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]StandardHelp9493 2 points3 points4 points 9 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Flamehazr444 1 point2 points3 points 9 months ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]WillyNilly1997[S] 9 points10 points11 points 9 months ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Jake0024 1 point2 points3 points 9 months ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]WillyNilly1997[S] 0 points1 point2 points 9 months ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Jake0024 -1 points0 points1 point 9 months ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]CaramelEmergence 1 point2 points3 points 9 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]WillyNilly1997[S] -1 points0 points1 point 9 months ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Jake0024 2 points3 points4 points 9 months ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]CaramelEmergence1 point 9 months ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]StandardHelp9493 2 points3 points4 points 9 months ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Flamehazr4442 points 9 months ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Flamehazr4441 point 9 months ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CaramelEmergence1 point 9 months ago [recovered] | Copy Link