 Some points of controversy among contractarians concern the role of the initial situation in the theory: is it to be considered an actual historical situation, a possible historical moment, or is the contract situation completely hypothetical? David Hume (1987/1777, 470–1) was the first to raise the decisive objection to any normative moral or political theory based on a historical contract: the consent of one’s ancestors do not bind oneself. Contemporary political philosophers have raised similar concerns about a hypothetical contract: insofar as the agreement is hypothetical then it cannot be said to represent agreement at all (Dworkin 1975). In response to these sorts of objections, some contractarians defend the hypothetical contract on heuristic grounds by insisting that the point of the contract device is not to directly bind the contractors but rather to provide a kind of thought experiment by which to discover the requirements of practical rationality (Gauthier 1986, ch. VII). That is, they argue that if one is rational, and among rational others in circumstances in which agreement is both possible and beneficial, then rationality requires that one abide by the terms of the contract. While mainstream contractarian theories are hypothetical contract theories, an interesting and powerfully subversive use of contractarianism (Mills 1997; Pateman 1989; Pateman &amp; Mills 2007—see section on Subversion of Contractarianism below) reads the contract situation as historical agreements to erect and maintain white supremacy and patriarchy or male dominance. These latter contractarian theories are not justifications of the status quo, of course, but rather explanations and condemnations, and therefore do not face Hume’s objection. Other questions that divide contemporary contractarians include: What are the ideal conditions and who are the ideal contractors that will make obligatory the outcomes of the contract for actual persons? What is the content of the hypothetical agreement?