Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-5r2nc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-13T12:22:23.006Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

9 - The Legal Meaning of Sex (and Romantic Relationships)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 October 2023

By
Robin Fretwell Wilson ,
So Young Park  and
Rebecca Valek
Edited by
Brian G. Ogolsky
Brian G. Ogolsky
Affiliation:
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
Get access

Summary

Between the no-fault divorce revolution and various court rulings classifying sexual behavior between two adults as a private, intimate matter, some scholars have noted a shift away from traditional morality around sex in conjugal, cohabiting, and dating relationships in family law. The act of sex in a romantic relationship is often perceived as one’s complete liberty without bounds. Many underrate the legal consequences attached to their sexual behavior. However, sex is still the defining consideration that creates legal recognition of a romantic relationship between two people. It creates legal duties to each other and any minor involved in the partnership, irrespective of biological ties, in a relational parentage era. Past and recent court rulings, including rulings from nonmarital, intimate partner violence, and parentage cases, are provided as examples to recount the legal meaning of the act of sex.

Keywords

lawpolicycourtlegalprecedent
Type
Chapter
Information
The Sociocultural Context of Romantic Relationships , pp. 151 - 167
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2023

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

A.B. 1522, 2012 Cal. Legis. Serv. Ch. 718 (Cal. 2012).Google Scholar
American Jurispurdence Proof of Facts 3d 765 (1989).Google Scholar
American Law Institute. (2002). Principles of the law of family dissolution: Analysis and recommendations.Google Scholar
Ammarell v. France, No. 316CV00708RJCDSC, 2018 WL 2843441, at *1 (W.D.N.C. June 11, 2018).Google Scholar
Bailey, M. J., Guldi, M., Davido, A., & Buzuvis, E. (2012). Early legal access: Laws and policies governing contraceptive access, 1960–1980 [Working paper]. University of Michigan. www-personal.umich.edu/~baileymj/ELA_laws.pdfGoogle Scholar
Baker, K. K. (2006). Asymmetric Parenthood. In R. F. Wilson (Ed.), Reconceiving the family: Critique on the American Law Institute’s Principles of the law of family dissolution (pp. 121–141). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511617706.008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blickstein v. Blickstein, 99 A.D.2d 287 (1984).Google Scholar
Braver, S. L., & Ellman, R. M. (2013). Citizen’s views about fault in property division. Family Law Quarterly, 47(3), 419–435. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2328982.Google Scholar
Burden v. The United Kingdom, App. No. 13378/05, Eur. Ct. H.R. (Grand Chamber, 29 Apr. 2008). www.legislationline.org/download/id/7073/file/ECHR_Case_Burden_v_UK_2008_en.pdfGoogle Scholar
Chang, J. & Litoff, A. (2012, April 4). Sexual Assault Victim Ordered to Pay Alimony to Attacker Fights to Change California Law. ABC News. https://abcnews.go.com/US/sexual-assault-victim-ordered-pay-alimony-attacker-fights/story?id=16075409Google Scholar
Connell v. Francisco, 898 P.2d 831 (1995).Google Scholar
Connor, A. (2009). Is your bedroom a private place? Fornication and fundamental rights. New Mexico Law Review, 39(3), 507–526. https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/nmlr/vol39/iss3/4Google Scholar
Deal, R. L. (2021). Marriage, family, & stepfamily statistics. Smart Stepfamilies. www.smartstepfamilies.com/view/statistics.Google Scholar
D.G. & S. H. v. K.S., 2016 WL 482622 (N.J. Super. Ct., Ocean County, Aug. 24, 2015, approved for publication, Feb. 5, 2016).Google Scholar
Elisa B. v. Superior Court, 117 P.3d 660 (Cal. 2005).Google Scholar
Feinberg, J. (2012). Exposing the traditional marriage agenda. Northwestern Journal of Law & Social Policy, 7(2), 301–351. http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/njlsp/vol7/iss2/3Google Scholar
Fineman, M. A. (2004). The autonomy myth: A theory of dependency. The New Press.Google Scholar
Fisher v. Fisher, 540 A.2d 1165 (1988).Google Scholar
Fuller v. Fuller, 461 N.E.2d 1348 (1983).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gertrude L.Q. v. Stephen P.Q., 466 A.2d 1213 (Del. 1983).Google Scholar
Goldfarb, S. F. (2016). Divorcing marriage from sex: Radically rethinking the role of sex in marriage law in the United States. Oñati Socio-Legal Series, 6(6), 1276–1302. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2890997Google Scholar
Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965).Google Scholar
Hackbarth, K. (2013). Chapter 718: Financial protection for victims of sexually violent felonies by a spouse. McGeorge Law Review, 44(3), 655–660.Google Scholar
Harvard Law Review. (2006). Family law same-sex couple’s parental rights and obligations California supreme court holds child support provisions of its uniform parentage act applicable to same-sex couples Elisa b. v. Superior court. Harvard Law Review, 119(5), 1614–1621.Google Scholar
Havell v. Islam, 301 A.D.2d 339 (2002).Google Scholar
House of Lords Debate. (2013, July 29). c1608. www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id=2013-07-29a.1546.6&s=deech+speaker%3A13524#g1608.1Google Scholar
House of Lords Debate. (2013, July 29). c1611.https://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id=2013 www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id=2013-07-29a.1546.6&s=deech+AND+Burden#g1611.0Google Scholar
Howard S. v Lillian S., 876 N.Y.S.2d 351 (2009).Google Scholar
Hunter, L. P. (2012). Know your rights: The legal guarantees you are- and aren’t – entitled to as part of a cohabitating couple. Essence. https://facultywork.wlulaw.wlu.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/16/2012/10/robin-wilson-in-essence-magazine1.pdfGoogle Scholar
In re Clifford K., 619 SE 2d 138 (W.Va. App. 2005).Google Scholar
In re Nicholas., 46 P.3d 932 (Cal. 2002).Google Scholar
In Re Parentage of LB, 122 P.3d 161 (Wash. 2005).Google Scholar
Janice M v. Margaret K., 948 A.2d 73 (2008).Google Scholar
Kansky, J. (2018). What’s love got to do with it?: Romantic relationships and well-being. In Diener, E., Oishi, S., & Tay, L. (Eds.), Handbook of well-being (pp. 1–24). DEF Publishers. www.nobascholar.com/chapters/10/download.pdfGoogle Scholar
Kulstad v. Maniaci, 220 P.3d 595 (Mo nt. 2009).Google Scholar
Lawrence v. Texas. 539 US 558 (2003).Google Scholar
Littlefield v. Littlefield, 292 A.2d 204 (Me. 1972).Google Scholar
L.S.K. v. H.A.N., 813 A.2d 872 (Pa.Super. 2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyons v. Lyons, 187 A.D.2d 415 (1992).Google Scholar
Marsh, J. (2017, March 10). Historic ruling grants ‘tri-custody’ to trio who had threesome. New York Post. https://nypost.com/2017/03/10/historic-ruling-grants-custody-to-dad-and-mom-and-mom/Google Scholar
Marvin v. Marvin, 18 Cal. 3d 660 (1976).Google Scholar
Marvin v. Marvin II, 122 Cal.App.3d 871 (1981).Google Scholar
McAllister v. McAllister, 779 N.W.2d 652 (N.D. 2010).Google Scholar
McCann v. McCann, 593 N.Y.S.2d 917 (1993).Google Scholar
McNiff, E. (2010). Woman charged with adultery to challenge New York law. ABC News. https://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/woman-charged-adultery-challenge-york-law/story?id=10857437Google Scholar
Meyer, D. D. (2013). Family diversity and the rights of parenthood. In McClain, Linda C. & Cere, Daniel (Eds.), What is parenthood: Contemporary debates about the family (pp. 124–146). New York University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meyer, D. D. (2016). The constitutionality of ‘best interests’ parentage. William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal, 14(3), 857–881.Google Scholar
Moffitt, R. A. (1998). The effect of welfare on marriage and fertility. In Moffitt, Robert A. (Ed.), Welfare, the family, and reproductive behavior: Research perspectives. National Academics Press.Google Scholar
Nicolas, P. (2011). The lavender letter: Applying the law or adultery to same-sex couples and same-sex conduct. Florida Law Review, 63(1), 97–127. https://digitalcommons.law.uw.edu/faculty-articles/291Google Scholar
Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015).Google Scholar
People v. Harris, No. D059126, 2012 WL 1651015 (Cal. Ct. App. May 11, 2012).Google Scholar
Pitts v. Moore, 90 A.3d 1169 (Me. 2014).Google Scholar
Pharr v. Beck, 147 N.C. App. 268 (2001).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poyner Spruill LLP. (n.d.). Alienation of affection & criminal conversation. www.poynerspruill.com/for-family/family-law/alienation-of-affections-criminal-conversation/Google Scholar
Quisenberry v. Quisenberry, 449 A.2d 274 (Del. Fam. Ct. 1982).Google Scholar
Rubano v. DiCenzo, 759 A.2d 959 (1998).Google Scholar
Schneider, C. E. (1985). Moral discourse and the transformation of American family law. Michigan Law Review, 83(8), 1803–1879. www.jstor.org/stable/1288953CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shanley, M. L. (2001). Making babies, making families: What matters most in an age of reproductive technologies, surrogacy, adoption, and same-sex and unwed parents. Beacon Press.Google Scholar
State v. Kellogg, 542 N.W.2d 514 (Iowa 1996).Google Scholar
Sweeny, J. (2019, May 6). Adultery and fornication: Why are states rushing to get these outdated laws off the books? Salon. www.salon.com/2019/05/06/adulteryand-fornication-why-are-states-rushing-to-get-these-outdated-laws-off-the-books/Google Scholar
Taylor v. Taylor, 465 N.E.2d 476 (1983).Google Scholar
TB v. LRM, 786 A. 2d 913 (Pa. 2001).Google Scholar
T.F. v. B.L., 442 Mass. 522 (2004).Google Scholar
The Illinois Marriage and Dissolution of Marriage Act, 750 ILCS. 5/301(2) (2015).Google Scholar
The Law Commission of Canada. (December 21, 2001). Beyond conjugality: Recognizing and supporting close personal adult relationships. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1720747 www.againstequality.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/lcoc_beyond_conjugality.pdfGoogle Scholar
Tuskey, J. (2006). The elephant in the room – Contraception and the renaissance of the traditional marriage. Regent University Law Review, 18(2), 315–325. www.regent.edu/acad/schlaw/student_life/studentorgs/lawreview/docs/issues/v18n2/5%20Tuskey.pdfGoogle Scholar
Uniform Law Commission. The Uniform Parentage Act § 609 (2017).Google Scholar
U.S. Census Bureau. (2021a). Table FG6. One-Parent Unmarried Family Groups with Own Children Under 18, America’s Families and Living Arrangements: 2021. Retrieved from www.census.gov/data/tables/2021/demo/families/cps-2021.htmlGoogle Scholar
U.S. Census Bureau. (2021b). Table UC3: Opposite Sex Unmarried Couples by Presence of Biological Children1 Under 18, and Age, Earnings, Education, and Race and Hispanic Origin of Both Partners, America’s Families and Living Arrangements: 2021. Retrieved from www.census.gov/data/tables/2021/demo/families/cps-2021.htmlGoogle Scholar
V.C. v. M.J.B., 748 A.2d 539 (2000).Google Scholar
Wilson, R. F. (2008). The harmonisation of family law in the United States. In Boele-Woelki, K. & Sverdrup, T. (Eds.), European challenges in contemporary family law (pp. 27–52). Intersentia: Antwerp. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1031149Google Scholar
Wilson, R. F. (2009). Beyond the bounds of decency: Why fault continues to matter to (some) wronged spouses. Washington and Lee Law Review, 66(1), 503–514. https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlulr/vol66/iss1/12Google Scholar
Wilson, R. F. (2010). Trusting mothers: A critique of the American Law Institute’s treatment of de facto parents. Hofstra Law Review, 34, 1103–1190.Google Scholar
Wilson, R. F. (2019). Relational parents: When adults receive rights in children because of their relationship with a parent. In Dwyer, J. G. (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of children and the law (pp. 476–502). Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wisconsin Statute § 944.15 (1973).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walters Kluwer. (2007). Casenote Legal Briefs: Contracts. Aspen Publishers.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×