While the legal definition provided focuses on physical safety, the concept of coercive control in modern domestic litigation is broader than just fear of physical harm. It is about the systemic destruction of a person’s autonomy.
Defining Gett Abuse as Coercive Control
The withholding of a Gett, a Jewish divorce document, is not about preventing sex; it is about legal and social entrapment. In the eyes of Jewish law, Halakha, a woman without a Gett is an Agunah, a “chained woman.” Her legal status means she cannot remarry. The social isolation that follows prevents her from moving on with her life, dating, or building a new family within her community. There is also biological and generational control, because any children she might have with a future partner would be considered mamzerim, illegitimate under religious law. By withholding the Gett, the husband maintains a pattern of behavior intended to dominate and control her future. This is the definition of coercive control: using a specific lever of power to deny a person their basic civil and religious liberties.
Addressing the Sex Argument
Characterizing the victim’s struggle as just wanting to have sex is a form of minimization. The issue isn’t a physical craving; it is the right to consensual partnership. By preventing her from legally ending the marriage, the abuser is forcing her to remain “his,” even if they are physically separated. Coercive control is defined by the intent to subordinate. If the husband uses the Gett as a bargaining chip for money, custody, or simply to ensure she remains alone, he is exercising total power over her life’s trajectory.
Misconceptions in the Provided Questions
Is abstinence a threat to safety? While not a physical blow, the cumulative effect of being “chained” often leads to severe psychological trauma, depression, and learned helplessness, which are indicators of coercive control. Did he obtain a judicial order? He doesn’t need one. In this specific religious context, the husband holds a veto power that the secular court cannot easily override. Using a religious loophole to bypass secular freedom is a form of manipulation. Is it voluntary abstinence? It is involuntary because the woman is legally and religiously barred from seeking a new partner under the threat of severe social and religious consequences.
The New York Legal Context
It is important to note that New York law has evolved. New York Domestic Relations Law § 253 specifically addresses the “removal of barriers to remarriage.” The law recognizes that if one party has the power to prevent the other from remarrying, like with a Gett, they are interfering with the other person’s right to a civil divorce. While the criminal “coercive control” statute is often linked to physical safety, civil courts increasingly view the withholding of a Gett as economic and psychological abuse.
The Core Issue
The abstinence is not the crime; the chaining is. The refusal to grant a Gett is a tool used to keep a woman under a man’s thumb long after the relationship has ended. That is the essence of control.
Written with the help of AI.
Writing by Dr. Dannielle Blumenthal 