A prenuptial agreement that included a clause prohibiting either spouse from gaining more than a specified amount of weight during the marriage — with financial penalties attached to violations — attracted significant attention when it surfaced, touching a nerve about the intersection of romantic commitment and body policing.

Such clauses are not unknown in prenuptial agreements, though they are unusual. Prenuptial agreements traditionally address the financial dimensions of marriage and potential divorce — the division of assets, treatment of prior debts, provisions for children from previous relationships. Behavioral clauses that go beyond finances into lifestyle territory are rarer and legally uncertain; courts in many jurisdictions are skeptical of clauses deemed contrary to public policy.

The weight gain clause prompted reactions that split fairly predictably along gender and body image lines. Critics pointed out that such clauses are overwhelmingly targeted at women, reflect deeply problematic assumptions about the relationship between physical appearance and spousal value, and turn the ordinary changes of a human body — changes that accompany pregnancy, illness, aging, stress — into contractual violations.

Supporters, or at least those willing to argue the point, suggested that honesty about physical standards in long-term partnership is preferable to resentment expressed indirectly — that making preferences explicit, however uncomfortable, is at least transparent.

The psychological literature on body image and relationship satisfaction is relevant here. Pressure from a partner about weight is consistently associated with poorer relationship quality, lower self-esteem in the pressured partner, and, ironically, weight gain. The clause, in other words, is likely to produce the outcome it claims to prevent.