Presexual Agreement Contracts

page: 4
12
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 08:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Koros
 


I see what you are saying, but I am talking about social reform. If this was to happen, of course there would have to be some kind of provision or law or whatever that makes the contract enforcable. And my example was only one of many possibilities really, each one would obviously be very personal, and different for each couple.




posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 08:04 AM
link   
reply to post by TKDRL
 


Well, in your proposed sample contract it only provided provision for the woman being entirely responsible in the result of an unplanned pregnancy if she decided to keep the child. If you are going to stipulate such things I think you should put in provisions in case of transmission of STDs: as in if an STD is contracted through the relationship you should have amendments concerning disclosure, treatment and payment for said treatment.

Seeing as how you have provided for unplanned pregnancy I am assuming that the sexual relations are "unprotected". Maybe you should both get tested for STDs before assuming sexual relations. If one of you then later contracts an STD and passes it along to the other party that person should have to be financially responsible for costs of testing and treatment. If you fear becoming a father against your wishes so much that you would want a legally binding contract to pre-determine responsibility in such a case it sounds like there isn't much trust n the relationship. Therefore if you are going to "protect" yourself you should cover all of your bases.

Also, if you are going as far as signing a contract, I also think there should be something about sex outside of the relationship. I mean, is it to be acceptable,would there be a mutual exclusivity clause, would it null the contract? If you make a contract you should cover all points of interest.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 08:05 AM
link   
reply to post by 200Plus
 


I guess that might work for the rich playboy type

Fake name, fancy hotel room always, pay cash only. You would also have to make sure to never "date" in your state
edit on Mon, 05 Nov 2012 08:08:41 -0600 by TKDRL because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 08:08 AM
link   
reply to post by littled16
 


Ah I see what you mean, good idea. It is always a good idea to get tested with your partner for STD's, but certainly not everyone does that kind of thing.

Mutual exclusivity, or mutual not exclusive is a good idea too. Some people are swingers



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 08:08 AM
link   
reply to post by TKDRL
 


I'm sorry, but what is coming across as is "I want to have sex without having to be responsible for the consequences of it." It doesn't work that way.

If you (or anyone) is willingly having sex with a member of the opposite sex, then they are willingly putting themselves in to a position in which a pregnancy may occur. This is basic biology. You, and all adults, know this fact.

If a pregnancy DOES occur, a woman has a choice to end it since she is the one who has to carry it. Sorry, my friend, but you have to live with her choice. Why? Because it is not YOU who has to carry the child.

In the end, if a baby does come out, you are responsible for that child. That just is how it is. I don't see why you would want to change that, unless you are just trying to find a way to get your rocks off without responsibility.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 08:11 AM
link   
refusing the responsibility of a child by the men is cowardice !



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 08:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Koros
 


But can you see what you just wrote?

Men are lose whatever the choice the women makes.

She could ruin your life with just 1 decision.

If men have no say, then they don't have any responsibility.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 08:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Koros
 


I say again, this is not about me, at all. I don't have the time to have a relationship, and feel that casual sex does me more harm than good.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree. You think the status quo is fine, I do not.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 08:14 AM
link   
Let's reduce the only natural aspect of our existence to a legal agreement,yes.

Might as well let that last little bit go.

What ever happened to people just realizing what the purpose of the act is?.

If you don't like the consequences of the act,don't commit it.

Pretty simple stuff.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 08:14 AM
link   
reply to post by maes2
 


The same can be said about women that have abortions other than for real health reasons.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 08:14 AM
link   
reply to post by Koros
 


I actually disagree with that. I think this is more to do with the start of relationship. More like putting it out there right at the start that kids are not wanted - that makes perfect sense as you know where you stand right from the word go. Pressure down the line to have kids would then go against this contract!

For me, this would have nothing to do with denying a child you may subsequently have.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 08:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by luciddream
reply to post by Koros
 


But can you see what you just wrote?

Men are lose whatever the choice the women makes.

She could ruin your life with just 1 decision.

If men have no say, then they don't have any responsibility.
Then don't have sex if you aren't prepared to support a child that may be conceived. You aren't being forced to whip it out. You chose to have sex, you chose to support a child if one results.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 08:18 AM
link   
reply to post by TKDRL
 


I think the reason most relationships don't last as long as they used to is because people don't take the time to really get to know each other on a mentally intimate level before engaging in sexual activity. The kind of relationships that last are ones where people know each other enough to have discussed these issues and know each other's feelings about them BEFORE becoming physically intimate. If you truly have spent the time to KNOW each other and learn to trust each other, there is no need for such a contract.

Nowadays people don't take this vital time to know each other's true mind and heart before engaging in sexual activity for the most part, so I think such a contract as you propose could have merit- I just think you should cover ALL your bases and not just one. There are other important issues that can arise besides pregnancy.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 08:18 AM
link   
reply to post by TKDRL
 


You don't because you want to be able to have sex indiscriminately without having to deal with the consequences of the choices you make.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 08:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Koros
 


BOTH choose to have the child and BOTH know the results of a biological function. Which is a baby.

So a contract like this would be good. Unless its your wife or someone you going to spend the rest of your life, why else would the women you just met going to want to keep the baby? any other motives?

Such contract is perfect.
edit on 11/5/2012 by luciddream because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 08:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Flavian
 


It is completely about denying a child that may come out of it. If it weren't, then what the hell is the point of this "if you, woman, choose not to abort then it's all on you" contract?

I'm sorry, I don't buy for a second this "men's rights" line of thinking in terms of unwanted pregnancies. Unless a man is mentally disabled, he knows exactly what it takes to make a baby. If he chooses to do that, he is choosing to support that child if one comes out of his night of fun. Period.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 08:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Flavian
 


Yeah, I think you get it.

And on the flip side, it could solve other problems as well


We {names} are entering into a serious relationship, and both would like to have kids someday.

I {male} will, at the very least pay 50% of the childs needs, and be a part of raising a child, should we create one.

I {female} will let the father be part of the child's life, and pay for 50% of the needs of the child, if we create one.


No more weaseling out of paying, all that you would need is a paternity test, and boom, payments. A mother could also not keep keep the father out of the child's life.

edit on Mon, 05 Nov 2012 08:25:40 -0600 by TKDRL because: bad formatting



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 08:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by luciddream
reply to post by Koros
 


BOTH choose to have the child and BOTH know the results of a biological function. Which is a baby.
Exactly. And BOTH are choosing to take responsibility for the child if one happens.

Now, I will agree that some reforms need to be made in terms of family law. But, those are NOT in the area of allowing men to weasel out of supporting their children. What needs to happen is reform that keeps more men involved in their children's lives. It should be next to impossible for a man to get out of supporting his children, or for a woman to keep the child from it's father.



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 08:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Koros
 


Whatever you say dude, do you have reading comprehension problems or something?



posted on Nov, 5 2012 @ 08:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Koros
 


Many relationships start off on the basis that it is nothing more than sex. Nothing about a proper relationship, living together, etc. Just someone to have sex with.

For those types of relationship, this type of contract makes sense. However, if you wish to get into a proper committed relationship with somebody then a contract wouldn't be needed anyway as these are sorts of thing you would discuss.




new topics
top topics
 
12
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join