Hello, Kyra--It does seem that child-free people are still dealing with #3, #4, and #5 involving retirement funds and assets and spousal support. Seems like they both have a stake in the price or, rather, the percentage of who gets what, so by having a stake, they probably have a distorted view of who should get how much, wanting to lowball/highball that percentage in their own favor, naturally, so...same applies. An outside entity may be needed to help make those decisions. But I keep hearing storied of child-free divorces...like when it came time to sell the house and decide who got what...for me, that's stuff I'd want all the agreements hammered out in advance. Another reader, Brian Lee, had a situation like you described--a child-free divorce. Some of what I wrote to him may apply here as well: I keep wondering: How can I detect that a person would be, for example, the kind to quit his job and start mooching off me? If I could detect that before I married him, I'd know not to marry him. I keep thinking that if we're working through a pre-nup, and I see him resisting anything that's important to me--like any clauses about not being able to quit employment and rely on me, and no spousal support if they quit a job...then that resistance would be a hint that I'm not with a person I feel safe with. I'd be looking at their lifelong employment history and credit score and tendency to be self-reliant and bill-paying history and views about finances and their future plans for employment/retirement and whether they've developed a career as opposed to having a 'biding time' kind of job, as tho they're biding time til someone comes along to mooch off...I've already decided that I won't agree to buy mutual property--like a house--while married if the guy isn't willing to do a post-nup to account for how we'd handle the house in a divorce. If he said, "no post-nup", I'd say "then no buying a house together". One of my concerns has been marrying a guy with children. If I'm sharing a house and my husband passed and his kids think they're supposed to get their share of their inheritance a.s.a.p., then...I've got to have it built into the -nups that that won't happen, that I won't lose my home. I guess that means I'm a very pragmatic romantic. I want to have it 'all' in the sense that I can have this warm, trusting, healthy relationship, yet...not get shat upon if it turns out I trusted the wrong person...still trying to figure out what reasonable protections can be put in place so both of us are protected in the case that either of us becomes non-trustworthy. So maybe...we've all got to keep pooling our information about this..." But the overarching thing for me is I'm not going to assume a guy is going to do right by me. I can do my due diligence in choosing a good man, but that doesn't mean I won't also do my due diligence in not entering any financial arrangement that puts me at risk. I kind of think that means I'm best suited for someone who is compatible with me on this as well--they won't resist pre-nups or post-nups or any of that, because they too understand that it's easier for use to be happier with each other when we don't have a nagging concern that the other person could financially damage use...So...that's where my thinking is today til I learn something new that shifts my thinking down another rabbit hole:)