Suddenly he wants a prenup.

Just sign right here, hon!

The advice column I’m critiquing today is from Social Qs by Philip Galanes, New York Times, April 23 2025.

Having recently said I seldom disagree with Social Qs, I now disagree with it for the second time in two weeks.

Hence, this post. It had to be done! as Trump said about the tariffs.* Here goes.

The letter-writer is engaged—hurray! Two times in the last year, she and her fiancé discussed getting a prenup. In the end, they agreed they didn’t need one, because “we think our marriage is forever, and we trust each other.”

Now, with the wedding just weeks away, her fiancé says he has to have one. Crafty, right? “Agreeing” they didn’t need one, then springing it on her a couple of weeks before the wedding?

The LW tells Social Qs her fiancé has way more money than she does, and earns much more, too. I know you’re surprised to learn that, Reader.

She writes: “I told him that if we divorced, I wouldn’t want anything except child support if we have kids.” But he still wanted her to sign.

She must reeeally want to marry him, because despite all that, she told him she would.

So what finally drove her to write to Social Qs? Since she’s already caved on the prenup? Now her fiancé wants her to pay half the legal bill! For what she regards as “an unnecessary agreement.” What should she do?

First, Social Qs says everyone has “insecurities” that never really go away. This means every marriage has built-in flashpoints. If the LW marries her fiancé, over the years they’ll “probably have many discussions about money or security (or whatever this prenup represents to your fiancé).”

AdviceObsessed thinks the prenup represents money, to the fiancé. And she thinks it’s a leap of faith to assume he’s acting out of insecurity, instead of, say, a cool intention to protect what he will continue to regard as his own.

It’s a leap, but then, prenups don’t bother Social Qs. It recommends the LW think of hers as just another insurance policy. “I don’t think my house is going to flood,” it writes, “but I still have flood insurance. We can’t know the future!”

Of course we can’t. But any kind of insurance affects the behavior of those who have it. Having flood insurance, to pursue Social Qs’ analogy, is what lets you build, say, an enormous house on a hurricane-prone island. The reason you can do that is you’ve largely neutralized your risk.

In much the same way, having a prenup can affect how spouses behave.

Let’s say the LW signs, and the couple marries. Will her awareness of the prenup affect her willingness to stand her ground in a serious disagreement?

Will the prenup affect her husband’s willingness to compromise? They’ll both know he’s protected himself from one of the most significant (to him) risks of divorce.

But that’s just when they’re fighting. Unfortunately, this prenup reveals the main difference between them is fundamental: While she thinks their marriage is forever, because they trust each other, he’s not so sure.

How can we know that? We know it because he won’t go forward without an exit plan that protects him.

There’s just no way read this any differently.

In fact, even Social Qs seems to see this. How else are we to understand its airy suggestion: “Why defer these decisions to the midst of potentially heated divorce proceedings?”

Or this: “Do not sign an agreement without having it reviewed independently on your behalf….You need protection, too.”

Then it proposes a plan for, yes, dividing the legal costs of the prenup.

The LW’s fiancé couldn’t possibly make it plainer: He will marry her, but he won’t take his hand off his wallet. And both Social Qs and the great might of the New York Times will be on his side.

Is there ever a role for a prenup? Yes, of course. Second marriages with children on both sides come immediately to mind, if only to reassure those children. And since we’ve all just read about the nuptials of Jeff Bezos and Lauren Sanchez, it’s clear that some very wealthy people men marry, with eyes wide open, women who are clearly in it for the money.

Those brides expect their new husbands to limit what they’ll get, and not too many people feel sorry for them.

But in a marriage of property on one side, and love and trust on the other, a prenup is a flashing red light. Social Qs is right that this LW needs protection, but it’s wrong about the form that should take. She doesn’t’ need a prenup, she needs a breakup.

*Not to be construed as an endorsement of Trump. Just a weak joke.