Definition
In law, *intercourse* carries two distinct meanings that operate in largely separate legal contexts:
1. **Commercial and communicative intercourse.** The broader, older legal meaning: communication, commerce, or the passage of dealings between persons, communities, or nations. In this sense the word describes any form of transactional or communicative exchange — trade between nations, correspondence between parties, or the movement of persons and goods across jurisdictional lines. This meaning overlaps substantially with *commerce* as used in constitutional and international law.
2. **Sexual intercourse.** The narrower, more colloquial meaning: carnal connection between persons. In criminal law, family law, and statutory contexts, *intercourse* (often qualified as *sexual intercourse*) defines the act at the center of rape, statutory rape, adultery, fornication, and related offenses. The precise legal definition of what conduct constitutes sexual intercourse varies by jurisdiction and statute, particularly as legislatures have modernized criminal codes to address a wider range of conduct.
When the word appears alone in a legal document, without a qualifying adjective, historical courts were careful to note that it does not by itself import sexual meaning. The commercial and communicative sense was the primary legal usage through much of the nineteenth century.
---
Common Language
**Modern common usage (Wiktionary):** Wiktionary's lead entry identifies Intercourse as a town in Pennsylvania — a reflection of how thoroughly the sexual meaning has displaced the general term in contemporary popular awareness. In ordinary modern English, *intercourse* used alone almost invariably implies sexual intercourse.
**Historical common usage (Webster's 1913):** Webster's treats sexual intercourse as a specific compound form, distinct from the general meaning of mutual dealings or communication between persons — "this sweet intercourse of looks and smiles" (Milton). The general sense was still the primary entry.
The gap here is significant for legal researchers. In nineteenth- and early twentieth-century legal texts, *intercourse* standing alone almost always means commerce or communication, not sexual connection. Modern readers applying contemporary instinct to historical sources will systematically misread the term. The shift is near-total: the general meaning has essentially evacuated ordinary English, leaving only the qualified compound (*sexual intercourse*) in common use, while legal and historical texts preserve the broader sense prominently.
---
Common Confusion
The two meanings of *intercourse* create a genuine interpretive hazard in historical legal research. Constitutional commerce clause cases, treaty texts, and early interstate commerce discussions use *intercourse* in the general sense throughout. Readers trained on modern usage — where *intercourse* alone signals a sexual meaning — will misread tone, subject matter, and legal stakes. Conversely, in criminal law contexts, especially older indictments and statutes, the word may appear without qualification where modern drafters would use *sexual intercourse* explicitly. Neither meaning should be assumed from the word alone; the surrounding legal context must govern.
---
Why It Matters in Research
**Historical corpus traps.** The general commercial meaning dominates pre-twentieth-century legal texts. Supreme Court opinions discussing the regulation of *intercourse* between the states, or *intercourse* with foreign nations, are addressing commerce and movement of persons — not anything sexual. Researchers using keyword search across the Law Mind corpus should filter heavily by date and subject-matter context before drawing any inference from hits on this term.
**The qualifying-word rule.** Black's 2nd Edition explicitly flags, with citation, that the word *standing alone* does not import sexual connection. This was a live interpretive question in cases involving indictments and statutory construction. When researching criminal law materials, note whether the charging instrument or statute uses the bare term or a qualified form.
**Anderson's cross-references reveal the structural split.** Anderson directs readers immediately to separate entries — COMMERCE for the interstate/international sense, ACCESS and COHABIT for the interpersonal/sexual sense. This bifurcation is the right framework: treat the two meanings as belonging to different conceptual neighborhoods in the corpus, connected only by a shared word.
**Modern statutory drafting.** Contemporary criminal codes rarely use *intercourse* alone; most now specify *sexual intercourse* and define it with precision. Researchers comparing historical indictment language to modern statutes should expect terminological discontinuity even when the underlying conduct is the same.
**Passenger Cases connection.** Burrill's cross-reference to the Passenger Cases (7 How. 283) situates the commercial sense of *intercourse* squarely in the constitutional debate over state power to regulate the movement of persons — a major antebellum controversy. That linkage is a useful anchor for researchers working on early commerce clause or immigration history.
---
Historical Dictionary Support
The four source dictionaries converge on the commercial/communicative definition as the primary legal meaning, with no disagreement on that core. Black's (both editions) and Burrill's track closely: communication, literally a running or passing between persons or places; commerce. Burrill adds the Latin derivation (*intercursus*, from *inter* + *currere*) and the Passenger Cases reference, giving the commercial meaning its clearest constitutional grounding.
Anderson's is the most useful for navigational purposes: rather than defining the term at length, it immediately redirects to the conceptually appropriate entries, confirming that the legal system of his era treated the two meanings as belonging to distinct doctrinal areas.
Black's 2nd Edition adds the most practically important detail: the explicit statement, supported by citation to *People v. Howard*, that the word alone does not import sexual connection. This was not merely a lexicographic observation — it reflects real litigation over how indictments and statutes should be read. No other source dictionary in this set makes that point explicitly, which means researchers relying only on Burrill's or Anderson's would miss a significant interpretive rule.
What the historical dictionaries collectively omit: any treatment of how the sexual meaning was defined or delimited for purposes of criminal liability — questions of penetration, completion, consent, and the like. Those questions were litigated extensively but belong to the substantive criminal law entries (rape, carnal knowledge, statutory rape) rather than the definitional entry for *intercourse* itself.
---
Jurisdictional Note
The precise statutory definition of *sexual intercourse* for purposes of criminal liability varies significantly across U.S. jurisdictions, particularly following the wave of criminal code reforms in the late twentieth century. Some states define it narrowly; others encompass a broader range of conduct under the same term. Researchers working on comparative criminal law should consult the operative statute directly rather than relying on any generic definition.
---