Presexual Agreement Contracts

Originally posted by Koros

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.

Yes it does. It's actually considered a right...for women at least.

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 this fact is not a good enough excuse for women to be obligated to the consequences of sex, then it's not a good enough excuse for men to be either.

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.

This is completely non-sensical. A woman has a choice to throw away the consequences because she has to face a certain responsibility for 9 measly months but a man has no say in a consequence & responsibility that lasts for at least 18 YEARS?

In the end, if a baby does come out, you are responsible for that child.

A man is not responsible for bringing a child into this world. That was the full the decision of the woman (assuming she's 'pro-choice').

unless you are just trying to find a way to get your rocks off without responsibility.

Funny...that's the entire purpose of the proposal of abortion on demand.

reply to post by Charmed707


Moral compasses are way off these days.

One stroke of a pen by a woman, you don't get to live. Perfectly acceptable, woman's right.
One stroke of a pen by a woman, give it to someone else, no responsibility to child. Perfectly acceptable, woman's right.

One stroke of a pen by a man, no money. YOU IRRESPONSIBLE SICK SON OF A BITCH!

An experience from an old friend is quite relevant to this thread, he was an old mate from high school who got a girl pregnant when he was 19, he was wearing a dom but it broke. He told her it broke and that she should get the morning after pill, he even paid for it because she couldn't afford it but she spent the money on something else and never took it.

Two months later he found out about it and insisted that she get an abortion, that they were too young and he wanted to get an education and travel before having kids. They had a big fight about it which ended the relationship.

She kept the baby and now he has to pay her child support. She does not work, got the baby bonus as well as a chunk of his paycheck every week. (Don't know if you have baby bonus in America, its basically a payment for having a kid) So she's basically a bludger, getting a free ride off the back of his hard work, and the taxpayers.

He had trouble affording the child support as he was trying to save up so he could go to university because it's hard to work full time while studying full time, rent is expensive in Australia and he didn't qualify for assistance. Last I saw him at the reunion and he never ended up getting his degree, he just works in crowd control now (like a bouncer).

I can't stand the way this girls decision practically ruined my friends life, I hate her for it, he could have a degree and a house by now.

If two people gotta pay for the kid, then two people should be making the decision.

that a nice romantic line on a 4th date.

things are getting hot. then suddenly

"sign these papers please"

reply to post by Bisman


4rth date? What kind of harlot are ya?

reply to post by polarwarrior


It's not even equal rights I am talking about either. If it were to be totally equal, a man who was against abortion could have a woman institutionalized to force her to carry to term, take custody of the kid, then have the courts order her to pay support for it. Imagine the outrage that would cause?
I am only arguing for it being more equal than it is now, not totally equal.

lol well im not completely without traditional values. but i do believe a couple should have a sexual relationship long before a marriage. as certain levels of relationships, you learn more about a person and how you are with that person.
not necessarily as soon as a 4th date, but im not one with minimum limit rules ;D

reply to post by Bisman


Yeah, was just messing with ya. I prefer to be friends before getting romantically or physically involved, seems to work out better in getting to know someone that way. People put on false personas sometimes, when it comes to romantic relationships, being friends first kind of eliminates the falsehoods. I am personally against the institution of marriage, so any and all sex I have will be before marriage

reply to post by TKDRL


Yeah, I don't think one person should be able to force the other one into having a kid or anything, but just that one cannot have a kid if the other one disagrees. Both should agree on it, if they can't agree then the person who wants it will have to find someone else to have a kid with, OR they will have to have it on their own and not receive any kind of benefits from the other person, as that person was against it.

I like your idea, me thinks it would have saved my friend a lot of hassle.

Dude, wouldn't it be so much easier to get snipped?

Yeah, it would make things more clear but is kind of removes the magic, mystery and wonder of getting to know another person and forming a close a bond. Life can change depending on who we need during the course of our life. Someone may not want kids now, but you might meet someone who is great and the gal ends of getting pregnant. Maybe it was not your plan to have a child but this gal is great and your mind might change thus your life goes in a different direction than you planned.

The way I see it, it is all part of being alive and living a life. We can only plan so much. We must also remember that life is a journey not a planned event with a end goal.

reply to post by johncarter


It has nothing to do with being "redneck". What a ridiculous assertion and misnomer. The attitudes about sex are rooted in ages past, especially the prim Victorian era, of the necessity to protect a woman's honor and the family. In Victorian times, a young woman needed a chaperone. If a man wanted casual sex he need visit the local cathouse.
What have women gained since the free love of the 60's? Freedom to be as casual and careless as men had the privelege of being? Freedom to rip a baby out of her womb under the doctor's knife? Freedom to lose the protectiveness of the relationship associated with the mythological goddess Hera?

And to the OP, why would you want to be bound by contracts when you say expressly you are not interested in a marriage contract? As that is what a marriage contract really is, if kids come everyone is responsible.

Anyway, what kind of woman do you think you will attract to you with such a contract. Certainly no woman with genuine romantic sentiments.

Thanks for participating to everyone that did. It has certainly been an enlightening and interesting thread thus far. Not saying thread over, or jumping ship on it or anything, just thought an interim thanks was due

reply to post by Xaphan


It would be even easier to just not have sex, which I am doing. Works for me personally. That doesn't, however, solve the social dilemma of single mother epidemic, having to hire liars to force child support payments through courts, having to hire a liar to force the mother to let the father see the kids through courts, and a host of other problems that seem to be a plague on society. All of that comes from I believe, people not putting too much thought into things.

reply to post by ThirdEyeofHorus


It's not like I am saying, I write up a contract that I like, and woman signs it, or vice versa. I am talking about coming up with a unique one together, putting it in writing, and having it legally binding. It is really just an idea that I had, that would force the people that don't put much foresight into relationships, and the results that could happen, to use some cognitive dissonance. Not really something that I could see becoming a reality.

Originally posted by curiouscanadian777
"If [woman] decides upon finding out a pregnancy has occured, to keep the child, then she accepts full responsibility for said child."

As a woman, if I've had sex with a man who's made it VERY clear, contract or no, that he does not want children, I would take responsibility and not expect a thing, should I choose to go ahead with it. Doesn't make him a POS in my eyes.
The guy who says, "Oh yeah, I'll be there for you" and then splits, is a different story.
Sounds like I am in the minority here...

I can totally see your point. If a guys honest about it from the start then that's good but a contract!? Seems a little too much to me. I really wouldn't have the audacity to push such a thing on a woman I barely know.

In respect to the the OP, I'm wondering if 'Fifty Shades of Gray' has had an influence upon this thread...hmm?

reply to post by Wide-Eyes


The OP doesn't talk about pushing anything on a woman, it talks about the couple coming up with one that fits their beliefs......

Well a quick google for fifty shades of gray, top searches are ads for a book, is that what you mean? If so, no, I haven't read that one myself, and never heard of it until now.

I used to share a lot of your same values.

The other side of the coin is the possibility to bring people into this world that are detached from the norm. People who exist outside of the box and can know what it is like to truly be happy and maybe one day be able to make a real difference in this world.

reply to post by anoobgirl


That is an excellent point to consider actually. Good contribution, something to ponder for sure.

This is irrelevant and unnecessary is other countries. Only the US gives women such lop-sided protection and rights. This is why american women are the least-wanted women to marry world-wide. They have priced themselves out of the marketplace. None of my male amereican friends have said they want to marry an american wife.