‘How the Law Expects and Accommodates Deceit in Courtship, Sex, and Marriage’

“This post turns to a new aspect of the legal history of intimate deception. When I started researching Intimate Lies and the Law, I suspected that judges might deny remedies to deceived intimates because they thought deception within intimacy was too trivial a subject to be worth judicial attention. However, I soon discovered that many judges deny remedies not because they think intimate deception is unimportant, but because they think it is vitally important. These judges are committed to preserving existing norms in courtship, sex, and marriage and convinced that those norms naturally – even inevitably – include pervasive deception. This view extends back decades …” (more)

[Jill Hasday, Legal History Blog, 19 February]

Leave a Reply