While the general law may result in justice between heterosexual intimate partners in particular claims for a beneficial interest in the family home, it does so on its own terms-terms drawn up according to contractarian principles reflecting male sex-right, that subsist even as the world and the institution of marriage (and marriage-like relationships) have changed. This paper uses examples from the case law across four common law jurisdictions to expose the terms on which the contractarian nature of intimate partner trusts permits claims for a distribution of intimate partners' property, and how it excludes. In particular, it identifies the pervasiveness of the sexual contract in subsuming women's expression of individualism to those of her intimate partner, and the implications of this for the derivation of a property interest in the family home. In conclusion it suggests that the transactional norms of property that reflect and uphold the sexual contract should give way to a relational approach in analysing the distribution of intimate partners' property.The formal equality ushered in by the Married Women's Property Acts ('MWPA') whereby married women might own property in their own right has not been matched by women's broader substantive equality with men (where 'equality' is discussed, eg, by Graycar and Morgan 2004;2010;Bonthuys 2013). For many Western women, even as education and paid employment have dramatically improved their economic opportunities, their investment in children, the home, and their relationship continues to come at the cost of genuine economic independence, and their economic and personal security (Summers 2016, preface; Australian Human Rights Commission 2009). This paper analyses one component of women's access to economic resources: the principles underpinning judge-made law concerning spousal distribution of property in the family home. 1 It suggests that the law of intimate partner trusts contains a duality that represents the long shadow of the sexual contract, and that the foundation of the general law in this field needs adjustment to deliver equality. Despite the advent of family law statutes, this paper is limited to the operation of judge-made law (general law) which is concerned with principles of property distribution under general law principles. It does not canvass the redistributive effect of family law statutes such as Divorce Reform Act 1969 (UK); Family Law Act 1975 (Cth); Divorce Act 1968 (Canada); Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1963 (NZ). Statutory advances are important but mask the underlying gendered orientation of the common law's approach to determining property interests.While the general law may result in justice between heterosexual intimate partners in particular claims for a beneficial interest in the family home, it does so on its own terms. The law searches for exchange in the style of a transaction, preferring an expression of intention supported by contribution identifiably related to property acquisition. These are the terms drawn up according to contrac...