The $10K Weight Clause: A Legal and Moral Dissection of a Controversial Prenup

Summary of the Prenup Clause:

A prenuptial agreement included a clause stipulating that the wife would receive $70,000 per month in alimony in the event of a divorce—but for every 10 pounds she gained during the marriage, she would forfeit $10,000 of that amount. The clause was challenged but ultimately upheld as enforceable by the court.

Legal Analysis:

1. Enforceability of Prenups:

Prenups are contracts: As long as both parties enter knowingly and willingly, with full disclosure and competent legal counsel, the agreement stands—even if the terms seem morally questionable.
The court’s position was: “disgusting, but enforceable.” This reflects the principle that courts enforce contracts, not values.
Public policy exceptions (i.e., contracts violating public interest) did not apply here, likely because the clause wasn’t deemed coercive or illegal—just distasteful.

2. Legal Strategy:

From the lawyer’s perspective, the task becomes technical:
- Establishing a baseline weight at the time of marriage.
- Maximizing/minimizing weight before and after key legal benchmarks (e.g., weigh-ins).
- Framing this in terms of contractual leverage, not emotional entanglement.

Psychological and Ethical Analysis:

1. Objectification and Control:

This clause is essentially a commodification of the human body, reducing a partner’s worth to a number on a scale.
It introduces conditional love, emphasizing performance over mutual respect or emotional compatibility.

2. “Upfront Honesty” vs. Emotional Health:

There’s an argument that the man was being “honest” about what mattered to him: physical appearance.
But this honesty is transactional, not relational. It speaks to ego, status, and control, not love or intimacy.
Love defined by body metrics lacks emotional depth, and potentially fosters body dysmorphia, stress, and power imbalance.

Gender and Power Dynamics:

The clause reinforces gendered expectations—a woman must maintain beauty to remain “worthy.”
It reflects a power asymmetry: the man is wealthier, dictating terms in exchange for money, while the woman must comply with aesthetic standards.

Cultural Commentary:

1. Hypercapitalism in Relationships:

This is love reframed as a financial exchange, not an emotional bond.
The language of value (appearance = alimony, weight = cost) turns a marriage into a transactional agreement, mirroring capitalist ideals of reward and punishment.

2. Lawyer’s Satirical Take:

The lawyer’s deadpan strategy (e.g., “put pennies in pockets,” “grilled veggies before the weigh-in”) offers a dark comedic lens on how absurd legal logic can be when divorced from ethics.
It’s a brutal reminder: just because something is legal doesn’t mean it’s right.

Final Thoughts:

This prenup is a stark reminder of how love, wealth, power, and control can collide in disturbing ways. The clause was upheld not because it was moral, but because it was mutually agreed upon, clearly written, and not illegal. As a society, this forces us to ask: where do we draw the line between freedom of contract and the erosion of human dignity?