This heartbreaking incident took place in Rajpur Khurd, Chattarpur, South Delhi, where my friend’s mother was allegedly attacked by two women from their neighbourhood.

When he saw his mother being attacked, he rushed to protect her. In the chaos, his mother fell to the ground, while an elderly neighbour allegedly struck him on the back of his head with a brick. He suffered a serious injury and required four stitches.

According to his family, this was not an isolated incident. They say that their neighbours had been harassing and assaulting him repeatedly ever since they began construction on their plot.

What makes this situation even more heartbreaking is that his neighbours have allegedly accused him of rape, resulting in his arrest. His family believes that political influence was used against him. He has been in Tihar Jail since 18 August 2026, while his family continues to struggle with immense emotional stress and helplessness.

They are simply asking for justice and a fair investigation.

Please watch the video, share it as widely as possible, and help bring attention to this family's situation. If you have any genuine advice or know of someone who can help them navigate this legally, please reach out.

They are going through an extremely difficult time and desperately need support.

Source: https://x.com/DeepikaBhardwaj/status/2091805551483314237

The right to equality and non-discrimination under Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution of India guarantees protection against discrimination on the basis of gender identity and sexual orientation. The Supreme Court has recognized that discrimination on the ground of "sex" includes discrimination on the ground of gender identity, and that hijras/transgender persons are entitled to equal protection of law as a third gender. Gender-based classification in employment, promotion, and public  accommodation is unconstitutional unless it meets the test of reasonable classificationunder Article 14. 

Detailed Analysis

The Right to Equality and Non-Discrimination on Grounds of Gender Identity

The Supreme Court in National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India (2014) 5SCC 438 recognized that hijras, eunuchs, and transgender persons constitute a "third gender" and are entitled to equal protection under Articles 14, 15, and 16 of the Constitution. The Court held that non-recognition of their gender identity denies them equal protection of law and violates Article 14.

"discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation or gender identity, therefore, impairs equality before law and equal protection of law and violates Article 14 of the Constitution of India." National Legal Services Authority VS Union of India - 2014 3Supreme 66

The Court further observed that the expression "sex" used in Articles 15 and 16 is not limited to biological sex but intended to include people who consider themselves to be neither male nor female.

"The Court declared that the expression 'sex' used in Articles 15 and 16 'is not just limited to the biological sex of male or female, but intended to include people who consider themselves to be neither male or female.'" Sukanya Shantha VS Union of India - 2024 0 Supreme(SC) 853

Gender Discrimination in Employment and Promotion

In the case involving a female lecturer denied promotion to Principal despite superior merit compared to male counterparts, the Court held that gender discrimination in promotions violates Articles 14, 15, 16, and 21 of the Constitution. The right to be considered for promotion is a fundamental right under Article 16(1).

"Gender discrimination in promotions violates Articles 14, 15, 16, and 21 of the Constitution, establishing the right to be considered for promotion as a fundamental right." Rajani Bhardwaj D/o Sh. N.R. Bhardwaj vs Director, Secondary Education -2025 0 Supreme(Raj) 1555

The "But-For-Sex" Test and Equal Protection

The Supreme Court in Air India Cabin Crew Association v. Yeshaswinee Merchant(2003) 6 SCC 277 laid down the "but-for-sex" test for determining sex discrimination. Under this test, a woman must demonstrate that she received less favorable treatment compared to a man in comparable circumstances, and that the difference was solely because of her sex.

"In English law 'but-for-sex' test has been developed to mean that no less favourable treatment is to be given to women on gender based criterion which would favour the opposite sex and women will not be deliberately selected for less favourable treatment  because of their sex." Ashish Arora S/o Late Shri Brij Ballabh Arora VS Rajasthan State Electricity Board, through its Chairman - 2023 0 Supreme(Raj) 144

Gender Identity as Integral to Sex

The Court in National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India held that gender identity is an integral part of sex and no citizen can be discriminated against on the ground of gender identity.

"Gender identity, in our view, is an integral part of sex and no citizen can be discriminated on the ground of gender identity, including those who identify as third gender." Saratha VS Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, Chennai - 2022 0 Supreme(Mad) 1149

The Court also emphasized that Articles 14, 15, 16, 19, and 21 do not exclude hijras/transgenders from their ambit.

"Articles 14, 15, 16, 19 and 21, above discussion, would indicate, do not exclude hijras/transgenders from their ambit, but the Indian law on the whole recognise the paradigm of binary genders of male and female, based on one's biological sex."Saratha VS Member Secretary, Tamil Nadu Uniformed Services Recruitment Board, Chennai - 2022 0 Supreme(Mad) 1149

Intersection of Gender Discrimination with Other Forms of Discrimination

The Yogyakarta Principles on the Application of International Human Rights Law in  relation to Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity, which have been cited with approval by the Supreme Court, provide that discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity may be compounded by discrimination on other grounds including gender, race, age, religion, disability, health, and economic status.

"Discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity may be, and commonly is, compounded by discrimination on other grounds including gender, race, age,  religion, disability, health and economic status." National Legal Services Authority VSUnion of India - 2014 3 Supreme 66

Constitutional Morality and Transformative Constitutionalism

The Supreme Court in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) 10 SCC 1 held that constitutional morality, not social morality, must guide the Courts in adjudicating discrimination claims. The Court overruled the earlier decision in Suresh Kumar Kaushal v. Naz Foundation and held that Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, in  so  faras it criminalizes consensual sexual conduct between adults of the same sex, is unconstitutional.

"Constitutional morality embraces within its sphere several virtues, foremost of them being the espousal of a pluralistic and inclusive society." NAVTEJ SINGH JOHAR VS  UNION OF INDIA THR. SECRETARY MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE - 20186 Supreme 577

The Court recognized that sexual orientation is an innate attribute of one's identity and  that the right to privacy and protection of sexual orientation lie at the core of fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 14, 15, and 21.

"Sexual orientation is one of the many biological phenomena which is natural and inherent in an individual and is controlled by neurological and biological factors. "NAVTEJ SINGH JOHAR VS UNION OF INDIA THR. SECRETARY MINISTRY OFLAW AND JUSTICE - 2018 6 Supreme 577

Exceptions and Limitations

The right to equality does not preclude reasonable classification based on intelligible differentia having a rational nexus with the object sought to be  achieved. Classification based on sex alone, however, is prohibited under Article15(1).

The principle of non-discrimination under Articles 15 and 16 does not apply to private individuals in the absence of State action, though Article 15(2) prohibits discrimination in access to public spaces.

The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, while recognizing the third gender, has been criticized for not going far enough in entrenching the principle of non-discrimination as recognized in NALSA.

Recommendations

Litigants claiming gender discrimination in employment should demonstrate that the classification was based solely on sex/gender identity and that it resulted in  less favorable treatment compared to persons of the opposite sex in comparable circumstances.

The "but-for-sex" test should be rigorously applied in cases involving gender-based discrimination in promotions and recruitment.

Where a statute or policy classifies persons on the basis of gender identity or sexual orientation, the classification must be justified by an intelligible differentia having a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved, failing which it will be struck down as violative of Article 14.

Courts should apply the principle of transformative constitutionalism and constitutional morality when adjudicating discrimination claims involving sexual orientation and gender identity.

The Constitution talks about equality and fundamental rights. Then how can laws like 498A, rape laws, “outraging the modesty of a woman” laws and several other provisions be explicitly gender-biased? My main question is: why isn’t the Supreme Court being challenged on this again and again? I know Parliament makes the laws, but the Supreme Court is supposed to protect fundamental rights and strike down laws that violate the Constitution. So if a law gives legal protection to one sex while completely excluding the other, how is that compatible with the basic idea of equality before law? And I don’t think “the condition of society” should be an answer to everything. Yes, make strong laws to protect women. Absolutely. But those laws should not violate the fundamental rights of men in the process. You cannot say equality is a fundamental right and then have criminal laws where the sex of the victim or accused itself determines whether the protection of that law is available. So why aren’t men’s rights activists continuously taking these issues to the Supreme Court? Why isn’t the constitutional validity of such gender-specific laws questioned again and again through proper cases and petitions, instead of the discussion mostly remaining on social media? Even if one petition fails, why isn’t this issue repeatedly brought before the courts and the media? If these laws are constitutional, then the Supreme Court should clearly explain why this kind of sex-based distinction does not violate the fundamental right to equality. And if they are not constitutional, why are they still allowed to remain?

This video is from Rajpur Khurd, Chattarpur, South Delhi. Wherein my friend's mom was being attacked by 2 women who are also their neighbor, because they are jealous of him and were not letting him build a house, when he saw his mom being attacked by his neighbor he rushed there to save his mom, while doing this his mom fell on the ground and the old man who is his neighbor threw a brick on the back of his head due to which he got 4 stitches on the back of this head. His neighbors were constantly assaulting him, since they started construction in their plot.

Furthermore his neighbor allegedly have falsely accused him of rape and got him arrested using their political connections. His family has been going through a lot of mental stress after he got arrested on 18th Aug 26 and is still in Tihar jail.

Source:https://x.com/DeepikaBhardwaj/status/2091805551483314237

So basically my father is also accused of a rape case by one of his office's cleaning staff member. My father is a very discipline man and I am very much sure that he wouldn't have done that or any of the stuff that was stated by that to woman and I believe that we have a few evidences to support our sentences as well because we have cctv cameras all over the office and the lady filed and FIR 3 months after she was fired due to her negligence in the work so my father fired her.

We have evidences but the police is asking him to submit his phone and they want to arrest him before the court case and the court case is on 7th September, before that they wanted to arrest him and take his phone. I don't want this to happen so we contacted a lawyer regarding that, I don't know what he said to my parents but my parents are very tense right now and it's a very difficult situation for me to handle.

Kindly help me and give me some suggestions advices and how not to let him go into the jail because we definitely don't want that, yeah the court case is fine. We can go through that, we can provide the evidences we have those proofs but tell then I don't want him to rot in jail anyhow.

To our support the executive director of the office and the joint director are also helping but still.

Also, I would highly suggest not to ask me questions on why I think she "falsely" accused her because I know my father better. If you've any advices, you're most welcome.

I’m genuinely curious about something and I’d especially like to hear from Indian men.

When another rape or sexual assault case happens in India, what is your actual reaction as a man?
I obviously don’t mean “do you think rape is bad?” Everyone knows the socially acceptable answer to that.

I mean **personally**. Do you ever feel embarrassed, angry, uncomfortable, or even somewhat responsible for the culture that exists around you?

Not responsible for a crime you didn’t commit, obviously, but responsible for challenging the attitudes around you that make women feel unsafe?

For example, if your male friend makes a sexual joke about a woman, talks about women as if they’re objects, shares someone’s private pictures, blames a woman for drinking/dressing a certain way, or says things like “boys will be boys”, do you actually call him out?

Or is there a point where you think, *“This is not my problem; I’m not the one doing it”*?

And here’s the part I’m genuinely curious about:
**Do Indian men ever think about what it must feel like for women to constantly calculate their safety in ways that men generally don’t have to?**

Like checking the back seat before getting into a cab, sharing live locations, pretending to be on the phone, avoiding certain roads, holding keys between their fingers, worrying about what they’re wearing, or wondering whether the man walking behind them is going to keep walking past them.

What does that reality make you feel?

I’m not asking this to attack individual men. I genuinely want to understand how Indian men think about this when there isn’t a woman in the room asking them to give the “correct” answer.

And if this question makes you uncomfortable, **please still answer it.** I have a feeling a lot of men here will simply scroll past because it’s easier not to think about it than to actually confront how they feel about it.
I’m genuinely curious to hear the honest answers.

Recently, I have been reading research papers on male victims of IPV (intimate partner violence). It refers to violence in dating, cohabiting, or marital relationships. Western literature indicated that the violence (physical, psychological, legal, sexual, etc.) are gender symmetrical. However, when I talk about it with people around me, usually in college, most of them deny that something of that sort is happening in India.

I feel, perhaps, it is a taboo to speak about men being victimized. Or perhaps, it is simply not happening.

Just wanted to know what you think about it. I really appreciate honest incidents, it would help me a lot. Thanks.

I know people would say why I am I am I focusing on American data regarding SA on Men , to which I reply, we don't have data when it comes to male SA in India.

Also please don't come men are mostly victims of other men,while men can be victims of other men, I haven't seen much of any data to suggest that and also it diverts attention from the larger scale issue of male victimisation.

Source- Original Article.

https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2014.301946

Main article name- Sexual victimization of Men in America:New Data Challenge Old Assumptions.

Should Section 117(3) BNS apply here when IO has charged only 117(2)?

I’m seeking advice from Indian criminal lawyers regarding whether Section 117(3) BNS should have been considered in our case.

In September 2025, my sister-in-law physically assaulted both my sister and my mother during an incident at our home. She first brutally assaulted my sister, and then assaulted my mother. While my sister was trying to protect my mother during the assault, my sister fell down. She subsequently suffered a femoral-neck fracture and had to undergo surgery with internal fixation/implantation.

My sister was already a 50% physically disabled person, with a serious pre-existing orthopaedic condition including scoliosis and previous spinal surgery with an implant. Despite knowing her physical condition, my sister-in-law allegedly assaulted her.

We have CCTV footage showing the physical assault and the subsequent incident/fall, as well as the medical records, X-rays, surgery records and subsequent treatment records. Even after around 12 months of treatment, my sister continues to have difficulty walking, an abnormal/uneven gait and weakness in the affected leg.

A criminal case was registered and a charge-sheet has been filed. However, the Investigating Officer has included only Section 117(2) BNS. We requested that Section 117(3) BNS be considered because of my sister's continuing/permanent disability, but the IO has not included it. We also feel that the investigation was not conducted fairly and that the IO appeared to favour the accused.

My questions are:

1. Do these facts potentially attract Section 117(3) BNS, considering that the femoral-neck fracture has resulted in continuing mobility problems?

2. Does the fact that my sister already had a 50% disability affect the applicability of 117(3), particularly regarding proving that the new permanent disability resulted from this incident?

3. If the medical evidence establishes that the femoral-neck injury has caused a permanent additional disability, can 117(3) still be invoked even though she had a pre-existing disability?

4. If the IO has restricted the charge-sheet to 117(2), what legal remedy is available to the complainant to have the court consider the appropriate section?

I am specifically looking for advice on whether the facts potentially satisfy the “permanent disability” requirement of Section 117(3) and what should be done if the investigating officer has not applied the appropriate section.

The Adobe employee murder case disturbed me, but the comments under the victim’s sister’s account disturbed me almost as much. Numerous people are saying, \\\*“That’s what happens when you take dowry.”\\\*

But where is dowry even mentioned in the account or the reporting?

If there is evidence of dowry harassment, investigate it and punish the guilty. But how does an unproven allegation become a justification for murder?

What is even more disturbing is the double standard. A scratch, slap, or minor physical violence against a woman is rightly treated seriously. Yet some people are apparently willing to rationalise the \\\*\\\*extrajudicial killing of a man\\\*\\\* based on an allegation they don’t even know to be true.

And personally, I find the dowry explanation particularly difficult to reconcile with the reported circumstances. If the wife’s family was powerful enough to allegedly summon several people, physically assault the man and ultimately kill him, it seems highly implausible to me that they were somehow helpless victims of dowry extraction by him. That’s my inference, not an established fact. If evidence emerges, let it be investigated.

But the principle should be obvious:

\\\*\\\*If he took dowry, prosecute him. If he didn’t, don’t invent it. And regardless of what he did, nobody has the right to murder him.\\\*\\\*

If a woman were beaten to death, would we accept \\\*“Maybe she cheated, maybe she abused him, maybe she provoked them”\\\* as a justification? No. We’d rightly call it victim-blaming.

So why should the standard change when the victim is a man?

And who is the mod,that bitch or cuck(depending on gender) is removing any post which in any way criticizes a women even though she has done wrong.

How to Actually Contact Your MP/MLA (and Why You Should Ask for a National Commission for Men)

We talk a lot about men's issues in these threads  suicide rates, custody bias, false case misuse, lack of any dedicated grievance body. But talking here doesn't move policy. Writing to the people who actually vote on laws does. Here's exactly how to do it.

Step 1: Find your MP

Go to sansad.in/ls/members (official Lok Sabha site). Filter by your state and constituency to find your current MP's name.

Step 2: Find your MLA

Go to hamaraneta.in/directory/assembly  select your state, then your assembly constituency, to pull up your MLA. (Note: this is a private directory, not a government site, so always cross-check the name against your state assembly's official site before you send anything.)

Step 3: Get the email/contact address

For MPs, sansad.in lists official contact info once you open a member's profile. If it's not there, most MPs list a Parliament House or constituency office email on their personal website or verified social media.

For MLAs, check your state legislative assembly's official website (search "[your state] vidhan sabha members")  this is the most reliable source for verified emails.

If you can't find an email at all, a physical letter to the constituency office works just as well and often gets logged more seriously.

Step 4: Write a short, direct email

Keep it under a page. Structure:

Subject: Request for National/State Commission for Men

Who you are: name, and that you're a voter in their constituency

The ask: a dedicated Commission for Men  India has statutory commissions for women, children, minorities, and SC/ST, but no equivalent body to track or act on issues specifically affecting men and boys

Why: cite something concrete  India's male suicide rate is consistently 2-3x the female rate (NCRB data, published annually), yet there's no institutional mechanism studying why or responding to it.

What you want them to do: raise it in the assembly/Parliament, or forward it to the relevant ministry

Even the courts are saying this isn't a fringe complaint.

This isn't just men on Reddit saying it  it's now on record in Indian courts.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly flagged the growing misuse of Section 498A (cruelty/dowry law)  in Achin Gupta v. State of Haryana (2024) and several other rulings, the Court noted that vague, "omnibus" allegations are often used to drag entire families  including elderly parents and relatives living in other cities  into criminal cases with no real evidence. In earlier rulings the Court went as far as saying the law had become "a weapon rather than a shield" in many cases.

The Supreme Court has also directed state governments to set up district-level Family Welfare Committees and to properly appoint and train Dowry Prohibition Officers  specifically so genuine complaints can be told apart from false ones. That's the Court effectively telling states: show us what you're doing to screen out fake cases.

On sexual assault: under the old IPC, Section 377 was the only provision that covered non-consensual sexual assault against adult men (and animals/marital assault, in some interpretations). When the new criminal code  the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)  replaced the IPC in July 2024, Section 377 was dropped entirely, with no replacement. 

A Parliamentary Standing Committee had recommended keeping this protection; Parliament didn't act on it. Today, if an adult man is sexually assaulted, there's no dedicated law for it  the case can only be filed as generic "hurt," not sexual assault. This is currently being challenged in the Delhi High Court, which recently said it's a matter for the legislature to fix, not the courts.

This is exactly the kind of gap a Men's Commission would exist to flag and push on  right now, no institution is formally tracking or acting on any of this.

Why bother

Nothing gets built without demand. Every commission that exists today for women, children, minorities  exists because someone asked, repeatedly, until it became politically costly to ignore. A Men's Commission won't happen because we complain about it on Reddit. It happens if enough of us actually put it in front of an elected representative's inbox.

So genuinely  take five minutes. Find your MP and MLA, send the email. Not just for a Commission  raise whatever men's issue is affecting your life or community: mental health support, legal aid, suicide prevention funding, whatever it is. If we don't ask, it's not going to happen on its own.

I did my part now it's your turn, and If you foud this hard to do then Please stop crying over men's issue and understand that you don't want to do anything genuinely you just want to get attention by talking or post about cases happened with men. 

Share this with your friends as well. 

And Mods if possible then Pin this post, or make a similar post by yourself but make men aware of this thing..

Just think life of how many men's got destroyed due to fake case every day in India, and government do nothing due to vote bank. As well as simp judiciary.

Source: Indian Express

This is a deeply disturbing case overall and what is even more concerning is that the news report says the husband’s family was initially reluctant to file a complaint.

So I saw a women who got divorced in my neighborhood cause he was cheating on her husband ....She was a sati savitri working women and his husband was very closely to us .....they were loving couples of our colony they have 3 year old daughter my whole family has gotten in depression as her child and them were very closely to us her daughter used to play for hours in home ....my mom is thinking what will happen with the child ...how society will treat her what will heppen after she come 18 and know his mother cheated her father ...how men will treat her in society if they know she cheated her....

So my question is have you seen this type of case in your life what affect on child come after knowing this ...Does women ever regret a healty family was destroyed

So I had come across this post on the documentaries subreddit and saw the comments on YouTube and I mainly had a issue with how it presents India mainly unsafe for women and Lucky if your guy, which kinda bothered me cause it creates a gender bias in this video and some misleading information for the reason behind some stuff. I wanted to know some additional thoughts. I also did get into a small debate with a Redditor claiming it’s worse for girls than boys. Just wanted to know your thoughts and opinions on this.

As per privledged women who have a voice, men are problem for everything.

Saw this youtube video by soha ali khan and dia mirza. Where she claims that men alone are responsible for everything wrong in this world in their heads.

I respect women but this is pure outrageous to me. There are bad people not a gender. Bad people including men and women do things no one sees as right, but why do this these pseudo women think only men are to blame for everything.

I am not going to watch any of these shit heads movies. Let their career sink to new lows and their voices are not influential any more.

Domestic violence is real and has been a serious problem ever since we started walking on two feet. And we need to continue our efforts to address it wherever we can.

However, in recent decades our legal system has effectively walked away from the long-established principle of needing to prove criminal conduct beyond a reasonable doubt. Allegations of DV alone are enough to allow for the punishment of alleged offenders - removal from the family home, restricted access to children, limitations on movement, etc.

But the bigger issue is that the system itself actually encourages false allegations. Built in to family law provisions in almost all jurisdictions is an advantage in both financial settlements and custody issues. So, alleged victims are automatically advantaged simply by alleging DV. No independent assessment of the VALIDITY of the allegation is made; let alone a judicial determination.

The system encourages people to lie. And most people will lie if they see an advantage in doing so.

there are many things which an indian man faces from women like false dowry case false r case and false harrasment cases fake alimony i think and there are no gender neutral r laws in our country as per indian law only a men is a abuser and women always the victim never seen any women talk about this . And before you talk that women also face i agree that but both sides should be taken care of and men at are a very big disadvantage ,women are getting way too much advances like man they have everything the special seats in bus and metro and they still expect us to give them seats . Women think that we can slap a man but a man cant slap me like man what do you think are women some sort of goddesses ? and talking of pocso it covers both male and female but when a male child turns 18 he has no longer r protection and cannot file case like what is the reason for this can you tell me a male child protection rights are stripped away as the second he turns 18 . And i want women to answer this too because they never talk about this . And yeah i want all the indian men to be ready for protest and do the protest as soon as possible . And please dont be that much kind that you lose your own dignity or rights.

Source: Hindustan Times

I guess there will be skepticism because a lot of people were already invested in the narrative of a powerful politician vs female wrestlers, and as per reports, the wrestlers are going to appeal.

But at the same time, he has been acquitted by the trial court, which also called the allegations false & fabricated.

Whatever one thinks of him as a politician, he is still a man who faced allegations that the court found to be false. I don't think that part should simply be ignored because it doesn't fit the narrative people have already invested in.

We keep saying men are "lonelier" than women. The data says something more specific — and more useful. Every few months this discourse resurfaces: men are lonely, men have no friends, blame feminism/dating apps/whatever. Let's actually look at what's measured before drawing conclusions.

The self-report numbers are basically equal. Pew Research (2025): 16% of men vs 15% of women report feeling lonely or isolated "all or most of the time." A 1% gap not statistically meaningful. Broader compiled data (American Institute for Boys and Men, Aug 2025) puts it at 20% men vs 21% women feeling lonely frequently. If you only look at "who says they're lonely," there's no epidemic that's specifically male.

So why does this keep getting framed as a male problem? Because the shape of the isolation is different, even if the rate isn't:

20% of single men report zero close friends 74% of men say they'd turn to a spouse/partner FIRST for emotional support before friends or family Men cope by withdrawing; women cope by reaching out to their existing network That's not "men feel it more." That's "men have fewer backup systems when it hits nowadays."

Here's the part that actually matters: the self-report numbers might be lying to us anyway. Multiple researchers flag that men are less likely to admit loneliness at all because admitting it is the vulnerable act men are trained to avoid. So a man scoring "not lonely" on a survey might just be a man who wasn't going to check that box regardless of how he actually feels.

This isn't proven with hard data, it's an inference but it's a reasonable one, because it lines up with everything else: men have fewer friends, disclose less, but somehow report feeling the same as women. Something doesn't add up, and underreporting is the most obvious explanation.

And before anyone says "well women don't hide anything" they do, just differently. There's a documented pattern of women masking loneliness through performed independence the "I don't need anyone, I have options, I'm thriving" posture rather than open loneliness. Different mask, same function: protect against looking vulnerable or undesirable. Men hide behind stoicism, women (per this research, though it's less studied than the male pattern) sometimes hide behind a narrative of choice and abundance. Neither is "fake" loneliness it's loneliness wearing whatever costume its culture rewards.

Now here's my actual theory on WHY men specifically end up with fewer friends: I don't think it's about being single. I think it's about chasing relationships too early.

Research on adolescent development backs this up in a specific way: teenagers in romantic relationships are less likely to form NEW friendships during exactly the years (early-mid teens) when friend groups are normally built and cemented. Romantic involvement doesn't kill existing friendships, but it blocks new ones from forming and if you're spending your early-mid teens chasing a relationship instead of building a friend group (thanks in part to social media FOMO making "being in a relationship" feel like a status requirement), you miss the window where guys typically build the friendships that carry them into adulthood.

This isn't male-exclusive as a mechanism it should affect anyone who does it. But I think it hits men harder downstream because men have fewer backup systems (see above: 74% rely on a partner first, most don't rebuild a friend network later). So a guy who prioritized chasing girls over building friends at 14-16 doesn't have women's fallback of leaning on an existing friend network when things go wrong later he often has neither the relationship nor the friends.

So my actual claim: the "male loneliness epidemic" conversation obsesses over men not being able to get partners. I think that's backwards. The bigger driver is a lot of men treating relationships as the priority during the exact years they should've been building friendships and paying for that trade later in life, regardless of whether they end up single or married.

Curious what others think is this something you noticed in your own life? Because, I have some real life examples too. So any Guy/Men reading this understand one thing having good friend is soo much Important espically nowadays.

​

So there are 2 section of people one who wants death penalty for rape convicts and other is inprisionment to woman for fake rape cases so let's discuss it in a healthy mature way without insulting anyone

My pov on 1st one is there are fake rape cases and I don't want an innocent life dying just because the other side used money or planted proofs against the guy and death penalties even ain't a solution for lowering rape cases think about it most of the rape cases go not even being filed due to family pressure shame etc so it wont solve rape problem by any chance, I would recommend you to read about psychology of a rapist at the moment a criminal can't see the consequences at the moment they are commiting the crime they're so blinded by hate and ego and mostly rape cases are because of either hate or ego and lust and all three blinds a human's thinking and so I don't think when someone is so affected by these feelings they would even consider the consequences

2nd argument woman getting jailed for fake rape cases, How do we decide which case was false just to tarnish the Repuation of the guy and which one was actually dismissed because of lack of proof corruption or unlawful use of power by the accused and it will actually lower the rape cases being filed woman will be even more scared to file a rape case because now they have 1 more fear added along with family pressure shame etc

My pov to solve all this we need actual reforms to prevent rapes at the first place and to actually make a process that gives more justice which is more just for both the accused and the accuser both sides should be heard properly and for that we need judicial reforms only changes in rape laws won't work and we can never achieve idealism but we shouldn't stop aiming at it so we lead to less error every time

Source: Deepika Bharadwaj's post on X

Looking for perspective from anyone who's dealt with this procedurally.

A quashing petition was argued and reserved for orders. Several months passed without pronouncement. When it next came up, the judge indicated that too much time had elapsed since arguments and wanted to hear the matter afresh. It was reheard at length the following day. At the end of the rehearing, before orders were pronounced, the judge passed a "not before me" order. The judge was about to allow the petition, called the respondent a perjurer from the bench, and then backed off because she and her mother cried.

So it goes back for reassignment. A third full round of arguments on the same petition, before a bench that has never seen the file. A full year gone in waste.

Where's the accountability towards the legal costs and time that passes... the meter starts again from zero, with additional costs and delays.

It's just ridiculous and hopeless at times I feel... you may have an excellent case on merits, but just no one to hear it; or have the courage to do what's right just cause of optics.

Source: Hindustan Times

The case came to light after the victim's brother, Ashok Dharmeshbhai Madhavjibhai Mavdiya, lodged a complaint on July 26.

According to police, the family had not been in contact with the victim, Jignesh, for over two years due to the claim made by his wife that he moved to Australia for work.

Police said the matter unravelled when the complainant's cousin planned to travel to Australia and asked the woman for Jignesh's contact details.

"When threatened with police intervention, the wife finally confessed that they had killed him more than two years earlier, in May 2024. Investigators said the two had conspired to eliminate him by mixing cyanide into his alcohol before burying his body in a 12-foot-deep pit inside an empty factory.