Our Gemara on this daf continued to discuss the legal implications of a psychological phenomenon that a woman is more likely to dodge the truth and fib out of a wish to please her husband, and perhaps out of fear of his reaction if she did object. This is based on a mishna (Gittin 55b): 

If one first purchased from the husband the rights to use a field belonging to his wife, and afterward he returned and purchased the same field from the wife, so that if the husband were to predecease or divorce her, the purchaser would then own it fully, his purchase is void. The woman can claim that she did not wish to quarrel with her husband and to object to the transaction, but that in truth she did not agree to the sale. By contrast, if he first acquired the field from the wife, and afterward he returned and purchased the same field from the husband, his purchase stands. This is because since she agreed first, it seemed to be a genuine act and not out of fear of reprisal.

While in some ways, female and male patterns of behavior have changed in modern times, it is important to respect that there are also patterns of behavior that remain typically and statistically feminine or masculine for many people. These patterns need to be respected and not ignored. Men and women have different tendencies and emotional defenses.

Often, when men are frustrated, they turn to aggression. When women are frustrated, they may turn to more passive forms of aggression. This is not always true, but it is a pattern of masculine and feminine behavior. Thus, if a woman feels angry or trapped, she is less likely to respond with aggression and more likely to take covert action, such as lying. 

The idea that women under pressure are more prone to evade the truth is not a criticism. It is an observation that the sages had, most likely coming from compassionately taking into account the fact that they are more likely to feel physically overwhelmed and threatened, and tend to react less aggressively than men do in a similar situation. This has to, in some way, affect how one behaves. It is just as much the man who contributes to the pattern as the woman, but nevertheless, it is a pattern that is important to recognize in a realistic manner.

In fact, it is described within the Torah both in regard to Sarah outright lying out of fear (Bereishis 18:15), and Rivka engaging in subterfuge and manipulation of Yitschok in pursuit of obtaining a blessing for Yaakov (see the beginning of Bereishis 27). Rivka also hid the real reason that Yaakov had to run away (Esau’s murderous rage) by making it about Shidduchim (End of Bereishis chapter 27 and the beginning of 28). It is notable that there is not much commentary from the sages on their behavior, even though typically when a patriarch or matriarch is described by the Torah as sinning, it is mitigated with contextual explanations and justifications, such as by Reuven or Dovid Hamelech (see Shabbos 55b-56a). Yet, when it comes to Sarah’s or Rivka’s behavior, we are mostly met with silence. I believe the reason is that it does not require justification; it is simply the way between men and women.

There are practical relational applications to this principle. As the person in the relationship who naturally tends to more aggression, it is incumbent upon the man to check and double-check if his wife truly agrees to something or is just feeling intimidated. Rabbi Shlomo Hoffman (Sichos al Shidduchim V’Shlom Bayis, pp. 147-148) tells over that one Erev Yom Kippur, Rav Isaac Sher did not let him daven at the Yeshiva because he said, "You did not get permission from your wife." Rav Hoffman objected, “But I did ask her, and she said yes.” Rabbi Sher said, “That’s not mechilla! Any good wife would say yes under those circumstances! You need to ask her with real options, such as, “Should I go daven at yeshiva, or maybe I’ll daven vasikin and then I’ll watch the children while you go daven.” Rabbi Sher did not let me daven at the Yeshiva until I traveled back home and obtained "real permission."