Presexual Agreement Contracts

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by Koros

 

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

No, I don't. I just don't buy your altruistic argument that "it isn't about me, it's about social reform."

reply to post by Flavian


That's the point. Casual or otherwise, if you aren't prepared to support a child, then don't have sex (or get a vasectomy).

If you voluntarily have sex with a woman, be it your wife or a hooker, then you are voluntarily putting yourself in a situation in which a child, and all the responsibilities associated with that child, are a possibility.

Your premise is ok, but being a tad legal minded myself it seems a bit too one sided, there should be a clause in there stating whoever failed to take proper precautions or whose precaution proved unsuccessful should be the party solely responsible for said child, so if the guy is using a condom and it breaks the guy is 100% responsible for said kid. And there also is adoption which isn't mentioned at all in your little agreement. Although I wouldn't see why any woman would even want to get involved with someone like you, I mean genetics being what they are and all, I would not want a jerk gene passed to my kid. JS.

reply to post by Koros


Maybe you have problems having discussions about issues that may not directly effect you in any way, well I do not have that problem. You can think whatever you want I guess.

Originally posted by Koros

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by Koros

 

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

No, I don't. I just don't buy your altruistic argument that "it isn't about me, it's about social reform."

Neither am I. This guy is trying to present a "holier than thou" aura around his hollow arguments of past failed sexual encounters/relationships.

I have seen his type before. Every post reaks with self-pity and some kind of "solution" to a problem that exists in his head and not in real life.

reply to post by TKDRL


Oh, I have no problems discussing issues that don't affect me. Hell, I'm doing it here. I'm gay, for crying out loud. So, it's not like I have any worries about children in my life (whether I want children or not).

And, by the way, thank you so much for your permission to think you are lying about this being about social reform and not about you. I don't buy that. I think that, even if you aren't having sex with anyone right now, this is a bit about you. You are putting yourself in to scenario, imagining and arguing for how it would affect you if you decide to get sexual with a woman again.

reply to post by ldyserenity

As I say though, each one would be drawn up by each couple, each one personalized by their needs, beliefs and feelings. Adoption could be something brought up for sure.

Jerk gene

reply to post by Koros


Well you see, that's the thing isn't it? I managed to lead a very sexually promiscuous life for almost 20 years before settling down. That could mean up to several ladies on the go at any one stage (and before any of you get judgemental i was always completely open about this). I managed this very happily for close to 20 years without having any unwanted children, instead i saved those for the partner i want to spend my life with.

It isn't difficult to have an awful lot of sex and not have children as a result. This contract would simply put it out there that that is all that is wanted - a sexual relationship with no kids involved.

I did initially say that i don't think it is necessary but i do understand where it is coming from and, to be honest, i stand by that.

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by AccessDenied

 

Seems like a social issue to me, you may be right though.

In a perfect world, I agree with you. We would be able to trust one another, a simple handshake or hug or whatever would be enough. People change though, you know, like the husband who used to be great, then after marriage is all of a sudden beating the crap out of the wife. Or the girl who seems great, but once you want out of the relationship, she tries to trap the guy with a baby.

The sample I made up is sure to cover my ass, but obviously one drawn up by two people that do want kids would be different from mine.

Thank you for being diplomatic in your response. I'm sure there are some who would agree that your idea may be a valid one. From your OP, I thought you were speaking personally. So I replied as such.

reply to post by TKDRL

I think that before entering into a sexual relationship, it should be discussed, and a legal agreement drawn up and signed beforehand. If you do not agree on such an important topic, then you really shouldn't be having sex in the first place, and a relationship is probably not a good idea. It would save people a lot of heartache and bitterness.

So in otherwords you do not understand what dating is about? Dating is all about finding the mate who is right for you, and this entails having children or not having children. If you want to save people heartache and bitterness do not get emotionally attached to people. It took me a long time to learn how to avoid a broken.

The easiest way to avoid a broken heart: Don't fall "in love".

People who have been burned quite a bit, figure out this trick eventually.

reply to post by Flavian

I agree it is quite possible to have numerous sexual partners and no children. But, in the event that your precautions aren't enough, you are and should be responsible for that child...contract or not.

The only 100% surefire way to avoid, as another poster said, "a woman ruining your life" is to not have sex if you aren't shooting blanks. Choose to have sex, you choose to support a child if one comes out of that. Period.

reply to post by AccessDenied


It was just an idea that popped into my head, I thought it would make a pretty good discussion. So far I am not disappointed at all. A lot of good posts being made, with a variety of differing viewpoints

reply to post by Flavian

Marriage is a contract,isn't it?.

When I was married,I wondered why,when everything was working fine,it needed to become a contract?.

We were already in agreement about everything,until it became almost like a prison sentence.

All of this is very simple,if you think it through,and come to the conclusion you may not want to be in any situation ,don't commit to it.

It's too late to change your mind after you've jumped off of the cliff.

The entire system is set up to take advantage of ignorant young people who think they already know everything there is to know.

I was 21 once,I thought....I have a job,I can drive and have a car,I can go to the bar and get drunk,and screw anyone I want,CUZ I'M AN ADULT!!!!.

That's not an adult,that's someone the adults of the world are waiting to take advantage of,like kids outta high school going straight into the military.

This is a CAPITALIST society,people in power sit around and think of was to CAPITALIZE on the actions of others.

Capitalism is simply taking advantage,a presexual contract is a waste of time.

It goes way deeper than that.

I'm sorry,I tend to ramble off topic at times.

reply to post by lonewolf19792000


Sure, I do understand, but a lot of people don't seem to. The discussion never seems to come up, until woops, I am pregnant. That is not good at all.

reply to post by Koros


I agree with that. You have a child, wanted or not, then you should be prepared to support that.

However, there are grey areas. What about the lady that sabotages condoms without the man knowing about it? These are extremely rare cases but they do happen. In these instances, the lady wants a child, the man does not. Should the man still be responsible for supporting said child?

I honestly don't know. For me, it would difficult not to as it would be my flesh and blood but i can also understand the argument that the man was, effectively, tricked into it.

Laws should not be made because of the rare cases because otherwise we would have laws for every single thing. Therefore, possibly a contract could cover this? I don't know but it makes for an interesting discussion if nothing else. Thoughts?

reply to post by TKDRL


Do yourself and your future partner a favor and get a vasectomy. Even after this out patient surgery, be sure to use a condom.

Since sex is now considered a sport, a brain eating STD will cause you to suffer more than the most unruly twins and the money you'll be sending the baby mama each month for 18 years.

reply to post by Afterthought


Sex was considered a sport, long before it was considered anything else

Other than that, I have no clue what you are trying to say.

reply to post by Flavian


I do agree that it presents an interesting discussion topic. There are some larger issues that could be addressed if we back up a bit and look at the larger picture. We seem to be discussing this in terms of "the woman wants the child, then man doesn't." But, what of the situation in which both want a child, but the woman doesn't tell the man about it? What of situations in which the man wants the child, but the woman doesn't?

Family law is a complicated, and far from perfect, area of the law. But, I think framing this in terms of "men shouldn't be responsible for children they don't want" is a self-defeating framework. That is the easiest one to answer. The answer is, and should be, "don't have sex if you aren't prepared to support a child."

reply to post by Koros


So you and johncarter think I am some manwhore just trying to evade responsibility. I will cry myself to sleep now, I assure you

reply to post by TKDRL


If you didn't care about what we thought, you wouldn't spend so much time trying to prove that to us. But, really, that's beside the point. I'm never going to believe that this isn't, at least in part, about you. So, give up on trying to convince me.

I'll go ahead and argue in terms of your hypothetical, in that case.

How does it change anything I've said if I agree that it is about some altruistic social reform ?