up next in dating: the pre-sex contract

From Thrillist, an attorney has made up a "pre-sexual agreement." Because "men need protection too."

First response, as a woman, goes something like "haha hahaha hahaha hahahaha ha."

Second response is, what exactly is "for other good and valuable consideration"? I mean, if you pay her, it's illegal. If you don't, I doubt that you have a valid contract.

The contract also says "receipt of which is acknowledged," whereas, of course, the woman signing this agreement hasn't had the sex yet. If the "consideration" is, for instance, the woman's enjoyment, is the contract void if she doesn't have as good a time as expected?

And, of course, a person can hardly sign an agreement saying that she absolutely has no sexually transmitted diseases. You could make someone sign an agreement certifiying that she's been tested, but what if she contracted something yesterday and doesn't know yet?

The "I will at no time seek money or compensation from you" bit is obviously meant to refer to child support. Now, certainly, the men's rights contingent has a point when they point out that women, legally, have total control over their fertility (not that it's easy or cheap or fun, but they legally have decisionmaking power), whereas men can have their fetuses/unborn potential babies/whatever aborted without their consent, or else be forced to financially support a child they didn't want. So, this attempt as protecting oneself financially while still obtaining casual sex is indeed interesting, and not illogical from a self-interested point of view.

So, while I question the legality of such a contract, I wonder how many women would continue to conduct their social lives in the same manner if it were made this plain that -- even if he doesn't have the balls to present you with this contract -- these are his intentions.

As for "good and valuable consideration," at least a pre-shtup would seem to require a person to specify just what kind and how much enjoyment she expects to receive. That might prove useful.

Update: From a lawyer friend, preceded by a "this is not official legal advice, etc.":

1) "I promise and agree that: I am over the age of 18 years". I don't give a shit, and neither does any court in the land. She looked eighteen to me? Doesn't matter. She said she was eighteen? Still doesn't matter. She showed you a driver's license?  Maybe a birth certificate? Even granting for the sake of argument that we'd for some reason hold an underage girl to this contract, it's a strict liability crime.

2)  "I am not under any physical or mental incapacity or under any duress or under any undue influence because of alcohol, drugs or otherwise."  Why is this in there? Because the whole point of incapacity, of duress, of undue influence is that I can make you do stuff without your legitimate consent. Like have sex with me. Or sign a waiver. Which is why you can't use the document to prove its own authenticity.

3) "I freely and voluntarily agree and consent to engage in sexual activity with you". But consensual sex doesn't work like that. What do you call it when a woman says yes to a man, and they start having sex, and then she tells him to stop, and he just keeps on having sex with her? Rape. What do you call it if she put that in writing? Rape.

4) That said, while I too wonder what the "good and valuable consideration" is, it's not prima facie absurd to claim that it's offered in exchange not for the sex, but for the other promises.

5) And to likewise disagree with another of your points for a moment, the child-support angle ain't going away like this. The woman can't waive child-support. It was never hers to waive.

I hope that answers everyone's burning questions. (And if more than your questions are burning, stop having sex with hostile strangers!)