Todd Seavey writes about personal contracts:
In a world where the sanctity of contracts meant, for instance, that we each had the right to sign and enforce contracts that said adulterers can be stripped of all their wealth, imprisoned, or even executed — again, so long as both parties knowingly and willingly entered into such contracts — I suspect that those gentle, romantic flowers we call women would quickly gravitate toward men willing to sign such contracts and away from cads who said, “Hey, baby, we all make the occasional mistake, so why not leave this marriage contract a little more open-ended?”
Now, I have the sort of anecdotal evidence which suggests to me most women wouldn't want execution in the contract. Plus, women tend to go for the divorce option, initiating them more often than men, but the general idea here is accurate- be explicit up front about what you are agreeing to and then follow those terms. If you break the contract, there should be real consequences for women as well as men!
You want social conservatism, you blowhard Republican church-attender? There’s some real social conservatism for you, courtesy of contracts and competitive social pressure. You want diversity and liberation, you whining Democratic hippie? Go marry three grad students and a local homeless man and explicitly pool all your property, without penalties for cheaters. Libertarianism certainly isn’t the thing stopping any of you.
This is one blowhard Republican church-attender concurs.