Search
Who's new
Who's online
There are currently 0 users and 14 guests online.
Frontpage FeedActive Posters
Users posting in the last 30 days:
- Crystalnye7971 - 20 posts
Navigation
User login
Recent comments
-
smoked salmon (not verified):
-
carpentry contractor ma (not verified):
-
carpentry contractor ma (not verified):
-
rqjqqzfyada (not verified):
-
kamal (not verified):
-
business immigration canada (not verified):
-
business immigration canada (not verified):
-
abhishek644 (not verified):
-
abhishek644 (not verified):
-
Anonymous (not verified):
Recent Trackbacks
Popular Posts
- The Blogosphere: A Kosmos
- Workers: The Faceless, Interchangeable Cog
- Baby Steps or Cold Turkey
- Public Goods, Public Bads, and NASA
- Political Child Abuse
- Tell Me What to Do!
- Lessons from the Second City
- Economic Puzzle Involving Stock Ownership (Part II)
- Pop Culture Individualism
- Hope vs. Belief (Part II)
- Build Applications, Not Infrastructure
- May Day 2006: A Day of Remembrance
- The Hanover Street Shoe-Shine Boys
- Will the AMA Vote Against Self-Interest If I Become A Member?
- How to Combat Economic Ignorance: A Proposition
- Toward a Fallibilist Synthesis
- The Other Vouchers
- Strange Omissions
Yes, that would depend on
Yes, that would depend on customs. One can override that by explicitly stating that "the casual sex we're about to enjoy does not constitute an agreement to share financial responsibility of potential children".
Of course it can kill the mood, negotiation is costly and therefore customs matter.