Today I was chatting with a fellow at work who went through a very nasty divorce about ten years ago.  He has a new beau now and, knowing that I am also divorced, was feeling me out about his idea of remarrying, but this time with a prenup.

He made a point of saying that the biggest problem with his first wife was that she cut him off from sex (Imagine that!), and that this time he will have a prenup written up so that if this happens with the new wife, she will get nada in a divorce.  In response to my skepticism that such a document could not be binding because it just about sanctifies sex for money (i.e. prostitution), he claims his lawyer says it is valid.

So, cutting to the chase, what do any legal eagles out there think of this.  Is such a contract legal and if so, is it a slippery slope to argue that pay for play is also legal?

Should we all get prenups signed before we see our next escort and then get them annuled immediately afterwards?

Or is this guy just blowing smoke up my rectum? (Which, he is known for doing.)

I am in no way qualified to answer this but it doesn't sound right.  Obviously if there is infidelity then that is often put into a prenup.  But this is diffrent.  I think I heard that Madonna had her husband sign some kind of contract which regulated their sex life (along with everything else he did!)

At the very least, the wife’s atty would argue that the no sex no divorce settlement clause violates public policy, if not unconscionable, because the guarantee of sexual relations is effectively part of the consideration the H receives for the contract.

       This issue would be appealed to the state supreme court and thereby multiply the atty fees exponentially, particularly since most sophisticated prenups contain atty fee provisions requiring the losing party to pay the winning party’s atty fees.  So even if there is some chance that a court would uphold the clause, it is a really stupid idea unless you are one of the divorce lawyers- the H would end up paying far more than he gains.

          As a matter of law, such a clause would have no effect on child custody issues and I think most courts would strike the clause as having no effect on alimony and property settlement division for the reasons you mention. Depending precisely how the clause is drafted it might also fall within the state prostitution solicitation statute.  

Even if it were legal can you imagine the husband trying to prove that the wife refused him sex.  It would boil down to his word against her's unless they were into some sort of voyeurism wherein they enjoyed having other people watch them have sex. In that case it would be to the wife's advantage.  At any rate, deposing the parties and any witnesses that might be involved would be at least interesting if nothing else.

I can see the wife's attorney arguing that the agreement was a contract of adhesion because the terms were "boiler plate" and not negotiated thus leaving the wife with no option other than take it or leave it.

Another point of contention might be the word sex.  The wife's attorney might file a declaratory relief action requesting a summary judgement dismissing the lawsuit because the word sex was subject to interpretation by the parties and it was never clarified as to what each party interpreted the word sex to mean.

Keep up posted on your co-worker's attempt to blaze new trails in pre-nups.

for societal reasons, if nothing else.

The guy's a bit of a BS artist anyways.

What MIGHT be enforcable in a Pre-Nup is a simple 'no fault' clause wherein EITHER party may terminate the marriage for NO reason other than 'I want a divorce' and the terms of the Pre-Nup go into play.  This eliminates the bickering about lack of sex etc.  

NOT A LAWYER and THANK GOD daily that I am not.

MVR

Simply, include a condition: "should his wife cut him off with sex or forget his name, she is not entitled to any divorce assets".

Why would this work?  There are two conditions linked to the money, with sex being one of them.  But, it definitely is not "with sex for with money", since it could be "without forgetting for with money".

So, it seems the contractual objective is not unlawful if written that way.  Using money to buy sex is illegal, but using money to buy a marriage package including sex is not (here, the marriage package includes only two things).

If i'm not mistaken, there is a term that is grounds for divorce in most states called "Emotional Abandonment".  It has to do directly with the lack of sex between spouses.  I'm not certain if it would apply, but I would think the guy's lawyer would know about it.

Just a note...it is also referred to as, of course, physical abandonment.