First, Cohen argues that one of the roles of the men in house was to actively protect the sexual purity of the women in his care. Moreover, for women, part of their role was to maintain her purity before the eyes of others. Therefore arguing that adultery for women could be interpreted as them not being satisfied by the man, assuming that he was not doing his job to uphold the marriage. Also, men and women were separated, unless necessary, to maintain the purity of the women and this left little room for women to interact with men outside of their home. One might argue that this is why cases of adultery were taken so seriously due to the fact that since there was little room for interaction, the people in question would have to go to great …show more content…
The basis of the case is that the defendant had won over the affection of Theodotus, much to the dismay of Simon. Anticipating that this would create hostility between the two men, the defendant left Athens with Theodotus and when they returned he was attacked by Simon. The importance of this case is not that it discusses sexual violence, instead it looks at violence as the result of something that previously occurred that was sexual in nature. Moreover, it discusses the law on hubris and intentional wounding; by arguing that the attack from SImon was intentional then it would be regarded the same as a murder trial. However, the importance is placed on whether hubris was involved. Moreover, Cohen argues that the basis behind hubris is the act of whether or not someone is dishonoured. In this case, it is evident that “Simon initially committed hybris when he entered the home of the defendant and in the presence of respectable women he tried to initiate a fight” and later when he instigated the attack on the defendant. It should be noted that hybris was defined a form of aggravated assault so outrageous that is was subject to a special form of public prosecution, in this case it is Simon’s arrogance and self