A New York divorce attorney who has spent decades drafting pre-nuptial agreements says the documents are often the best predictor of a successful marriage, arguing that the negotiation process forces partners into candid conversations about money, values and expectations.
James Sexton, who said he has handled "probably hundreds, if not thousands" of prenups over 25 years, told columnist Jana Hocking he could recall only about five clients who divorced after signing such an agreement. Sexton described prenups as a "safety net of emotional and financial transparency" and said the agreements typically unfold as "very friendly transactions" rather than grim preparations for separation.
![James Sexton pictured][IMAGE1 "James Sexton"]
Sexton, who first drew wide attention last year after posting a viral video that discussed marriage failure rates, said prenups do more than allocate assets; they create a framework for ongoing conversation. "A prenup is fundamentally about creating a safety net of emotional and financial transparency," he said. "It's a profound statement of love that says, I want to protect you, even from potential future versions of myself."
The attorney offered examples of clauses he has seen to illustrate how couples use prenups to address practical and personal concerns. Some clauses are conventional, such as separate treatment of premarital assets and a division of shared property; others are highly specific and unconventional. Sexton cited agreements that included weight-related provisions, detailed definitions of infidelity tied to monetary consequences, and lifestyle guarantees such as minimum spending on maternity trips or wardrobe budgets.
"You read these clauses and you can tell someone in this relationship is terrified to say no," Sexton said, noting that unusual provisions often reveal deeper anxieties about power, security and respect within the partnership. He recounted one prenup in which a yoga instructor who brought no money into the marriage secured a $250,000 signing bonus, a guarantee of lavish babymoons of at least $100,000 per trip after each pregnancy, and specific gifting rules for her family.
Sexton acknowledged limits on enforceability. "You can't legally enforce sex," he said, adding that some couples attempt to tie financial incentives to behaviors that cannot be compelled in court. He also described how infidelity clauses can be crafted with precise definitions and proof standards — and sometimes with significant financial penalties — but cautioned that courts will scrutinize clauses for legality and fairness.
Beyond individual clauses, Sexton emphasized the negotiating process itself as beneficial. He described a common prenup structure he calls "Yours, Mine and Ours," under which premarital assets remain separate, shared assets are split evenly, and the drafting process prompts partners to articulate expectations. "They're like couples therapy in disguise," he said. "They force couples to have brutally honest conversations about expectations, values and what they truly owe each other."
Sexton framed the prenup conversation as a test of a couple's readiness for marriage. "If you can't have challenging discussions with your partner, you probably shouldn't get married," he said. For him, being able to raise and negotiate sensitive topics without fear or judgment signals emotional depth and mutual respect.
Legal scholars and family law practitioners long have debated the role of prenups in relationships. Supporters argue that agreements provide clarity and autonomy by allowing couples to set their own terms rather than leaving outcomes to default state laws. Critics contend that prenups can reflect and reinforce power imbalances, especially when one partner has substantially more wealth or legal counsel than the other.
Sexton's comments come amid renewed public interest in prenups as more couples enter marriage with complex assets, business interests or children from previous relationships. He said that, contrary to the popular notion that prenups are primarily about planning for divorce, many clients experience the process as affirming. "When you create a prenup, you're telling your partner, I care about your emotional and financial well-being so much that I want to ensure you're protected, even if our relationship changes," he said.
While Sexton presented anecdotal evidence based on his caseload, he did not provide independent verification of the divorce rate among clients with prenups. Family law outcomes vary by jurisdiction and by the specific terms and circumstances of each agreement, and courts may refuse to enforce provisions that are unconscionable or violate public policy.
Still, advocates of premarital agreements say they can reduce conflict by clarifying expectations and by encouraging conversations that might otherwise be postponed until a dispute arises. For some couples, the act of negotiating a prenup becomes a vehicle for confronting financial assumptions and ensuring both partners understand the contributions and protections each expects from the marriage.
Sexton concluded that prenups, at their best, foster what he called "radical intimacy" — emotional and financial transparency that requires vulnerability and trust. Whether viewed as pragmatic contracts or symbolic gestures, prenups continue to shape how couples approach marriage in an era when many prefer to customize the legal and economic terms of their unions rather than rely solely on default marital law.