Presexual Agreement Contracts

I never really put that much into it. The one I have used for years just says:

Not responsible for damages or injury. Sign Here ______________________

reply to post by TKDRL


No, chivalry used to be alive and men used to be gentlemen. In today's society, sex is the equivalent of a game of tennis.

What do you mean you don't understand what I'm saying? Maybe you already have an STD turning your brain to mush.
GET THE VASECTOMY AND USE A CONDOM!!!!!
How much more clearly can this be stated? A six grader would comprehend this.
I guess good advice is wasted on all the wrong people. I must also assume that you're too much of a chicken to get snipped, but you expect a woman to get an abortion that may kill her if a butcher performs it.
I don't think I need to tell you how selfish you are or that vasectomies are more easily reversable a woman getting her tubes tied. Just as bells can't be unrung, abortions aren't reversible. Infection can set in so that the woman can never have children again. But, you go ahead and keep thinking about yourself.

reply to post by Koros


Well...... This is my thread, in my threads I try to respond to everyone, at least those that I can understand, and that aren't just insults being hurled at one another. That is just how I have always handled discussions I have started here.

reply to post by Afterthought


You are just romanticizing history, or maybe not going back far enough in history

No I don't have any STD's, i have gotten tested annually for a long time now. Do you have anything serious to add to the discussion, besides hurling around insults? No need for a vasectomy at this point, maybe if I choose not to be celebate and single, I will do just that......

Originally posted by Renegade2283
reply to post by TKDRL

 

Well, seeing as how even after birth the child is still less intelligent than a common rat(which most people have no remorse killing) I think that it is no less horrible to abort then to set a mouse trap in your house.

Also, the consciousness of a fetus in the womb during the latest period it can be aborted is about that of a lizard, then yes abortion should be allowed. How about we concentrate on the sanctity of life for the thousands of children who starve to death every month. With each child born, where one could be adopted from one of these horrible places, it is much worse than abortion.

This is pure ignorance. Infants take time to mature and develop, including responses. But their brain is growing and developing at a rate that far exceeds the highest scholar on earth and are what you might call SUPER INTELLIGENT, MORE INTELLIGENT THAN EINSTEIN.

You know very little. Hit the books!

OP is a selfish concept and illegal. The child is the one who has legal rights to both parents and support.

reply to post by Unity_99


How does that play if the child is the result of deceit? (holes in condoms or whatever). It isn't down to the child but equally it wouldn't be down to the male (or female, depending). I have a friend who has a child as a result of holes in his condoms, that he didn't know about. It isn't an issue to him, he wants the child (rightly so to me) but i could also understand if someone didn't want to know the child - what happens then? If duplicity is involved, should both sides still be deemed responsible?

I have to confess i simply do not know. I also do not think it is the kind of thing that can be legislated for with any practicality - it would cause problems with existing laws.

That is why i think this is an interesting topic - there are grey areas.

reply to post by Flavian


What deceipt? That a woman who has no idea of what pregnancy means, wakes up and decides to not abort a growing baby within her, which is a very serious issue? That she can get pregnant from SEX? Deceipt? If the guy doesnt know that he is not mentally qualified to have sex! That all birth control can fail, or someone can stop taking it, but in no way shape or form does this ever diminish the BABY'S RIGHTS. Your whole post is extreme selfishness. Men are responsible for fathering children.

Have a problem with that, take up meditation, study with Llamas and please refrain from sex until you are in Love.

I think alot more men should take trips to the Budda Temples.

reply to post by Unity_99


Did you not read what i wrote?

There is a world of difference between birth control failing (accident) and deliberate deceit (sabotage of birth control). Accidents are just that and both parties are at fault. However, if deceit is involved then why should one party be made to pay? In those (rare) circumstances, it isn't an accident, it is effectively entrapment.

ETA:

My post is selfish? Your post is entirely disingenuous and doesn't go anywhere near answering what i was asking.

reply to post by Koros


What i get from the post is that, even thought it should be 50%/50% responsibility for the child created, you assume that the man alone is responsible for creating the child. Which i fail to get, because that would be a rape.

If you have 50% responsibility on the child, then you should have 50% responsibility on the final decision.

but the current law has it so, men is 50% responsible for creating it but women take 100% charge on the outcome and men has to live with it?

The law needs to change where if there is a disagreement with the final decision than one should be opted out of the responsibility..

If women wants to bring a child into the world where the father is not ready, than she is choosing to accept full responsibility.

____

One of my friend screwed up his life because of a female biased law, stupid mistake BOTH made, and a manipulative B**ch.

She called him 7 months after their "night out" and tells him she is pregnant(too late for abortion), now he quit his college, working at a minimum wage and a broken up family. To this date he hates this girl but only in it for his kid.

She leave the kid with him or his mother most of the time and goes around and burns his minimum wage money.

After reading much of what the op had posted and the replies, the following can be stated:

The contract that you have proposed would not stand up in a court of law, except to ensure that if you do have sex and a child that you never get to see said child ever. Even with all of the precautions that you can take, with the exception of castration and abstinence, there is always a risk of pregnancy. So forget the contract, find a person who you can be happy with for say 100 years and roll the dice, sometimes you get lucky, and sometimes you don’t but accept the responsibility for your actions. That means taking steps to prevent such, to include vasectomy and condoms, but also asking questions of the woman, such as is she on birth control and what type is she on? Communication is a must in this aspect, or else we may see you on say Maury.

reply to post by TKDRL


Your entire Op is about being able to have sex without consequences.
You already stated that you don't want children. A vasectomy can be reversed, so why not get it done now and reverse it if you change your mind?

reply to post by Afterthought


Lol what?.............

Let me try again........

Right now, I do not have a relationship, and choose not to have sex. Therefor I do not need a vasectomy.

If in the future I change my mind, I would take a vasectomy into consideration.

Understand now?

reply to post by Afterthought


No, that is not even close to what the OP is about, that sample contract was just something that took 10 seconds to think up, just for an example. Every one would be different, as it is two individuals, discussing and agreeing what goes in it. Obviously it would be more thorough, and more time taken into making one up. Besides, it is just an idea I had, it's not like I am the president or something and can make it happen.

reply to post by sdcigarpig


Well, in social reform, obviously some laws would have to be changed. It has been done before when the government stuck it's nose into the whole marriage thing, why couldn't they do it again?

Personally, I think marriage(the government's version), is outdated and should be done away with completely. It made sense back in the dark ages, when women were not allowed to work, and it was one person working to support a whole family. That is just my opinion.

reply to post by TKDRL


No, I'm understanding you perfectly.
When and if you find someone you want to stick your member in, it's cheaper to have them sign a piece of paper than get a vasectomy.
It's all about money, right?
Just like the men who say "It's cheaper to keep her" than have the cajones to go through a divorce.

reply to post by Afterthought


I guess in your world ONLY men wants to have sex, and women are just there. Thus its Men's problem.

reply to post by luciddream


No, if this was a thread written by a woman, I'd tell them the same thing.
This is a thread written by a man who doesn't want to suffer any consequences from recreational sex. The Op is more worried about bringing children into a world he considers to be a cold place. I won't disagree with this. I'm a woman who has also decided not to bring children into this world, but I'm mature enough to know that I'm not going to waste my time on a man who wants me to sign a contract.

When I go tandom sky diving, I will sign a contract stating that they aren't liable if I get hurt/killed. I'm tursting that the person I'm jumping with has covered his/her bases and realizes that their life may be snuffed out, too.
Sex isn't the equivalent of tandom sky diving though. People get hurt and things can go wrong, but trying to make it so you're immune just isn't realistic. Just like signing a contract to relieve the company from being sued.
What's fun is fun and what's done is done.

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by sdcigarpig

 

Well, in social reform, obviously some laws would have to be changed. It has been done before when the government stuck it's nose into the whole marriage thing, why couldn't they do it again?
Personally, I think marriage(the government's version), is outdated and should be done away with completely. It made sense back in the dark ages, when women were not allowed to work, and it was one person working to support a whole family. That is just my opinion.

yes of course laws for temporary marriage (sex or whatever you call it) it is indeed a need. they should first save the normal sex instead of spreading homosexuality !
I think there is a bigger problem than just unwanted children. because of many sexual partners a woman may not know who the father is !?

If you don't want the possibility of a child then don't have sex.

Get a vasectomy, they are reversible.