The Mission Of Man
The Lord God said to man, be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it, take dominion over it.
That wasn’t a polite suggestion, it was a command. We have an interesting explanation of that, when following His teaching to the Pharisees in Matthew 19:3-9, the disciples said to Jesus “If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry.” Jesus replied and said
“Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been given. For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother’s womb; and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men; and there are also eunuchs who made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it.”
Eunuchs are men who are not physically capable of engaging in the act of marriage and to them the commandment “be fruitful and multiply” does not apply because they do not have the capacity to obey that command. The statement of the disciples that it was better not to marry is contradicted by the command to be fruitful and multiply. Jesus told them the only acceptable reason for a man avoid marriage and fatherhood was to become a “eunuch” (celibate) for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. And He was very careful to not make that a command, saying it was a statement only for those to whom it had been given.
In the early church there were some who believed that Christ was speaking literally in that passage and they castrated themselves. Origen (later declared to be a heretic) comes to mind as the primary example, but he was not the only one. There is now some argument as to whether Origen castrated himself, but there is no evidence to believe the testimony of men such as Eusebius was incorrect.
Jesus, responding to the statement by the Disciples that it was better not to marry, was reminding them of the obligation of the first command. Unless a man is choosing to be like Paul and not take a wife for the sake of having more time and energy to preach the Gospel, a man is still required to obey the command of be fruitful and multiply.
Some will think I’m beating a dead horse with this, but it’s important. What is marriage? How does it start? What are the rules? How do we know this? Learn this and know it so you won’t be fooled.
Jesus cited Genesis 2:24 as the authority and definition of marriage. In Matthew 19:3-9, the Pharisees came to Jesus and asked Him what the grounds for divorce were. Their exact words were “can a man divorce his wife for any reason at all?” but the thrust of the question was the grounds for divorce.
Divorce was a procedure instituted by Moses and the relevant text is Deuteronomy 24:1
“When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out from his house [emphasis added]
The question the Pharisees were really asking was what “indecency” meant. According to Moses, if a man found some “indecency” in his wife, before he thew her out of his house he had to give her a certificate of divorce and put it in her hand. The certificate of divorce was her second witness that she was not married and thus not committing adultery. Moses was responding to a situation in which men were discarding their wives, formalizing a situation that was already occurring. Instead of commanding that the men stop kicking their wives out of the home, he commanded that they do it in such way as to allow her to go on with life.
Note, however, that before one can divorce a woman one must first be married to her and Jesus quoted the authority on marriage for the Pharisees. First He quoted from Genesis 5:2 saying:
“Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female,
Then Jesus continued, quoting Genesis 2:24 saying:
‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’
And having quoted the authority on marriage, Jesus gave His teaching on the original standard of marriage regarding divorce:
“So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”
In other words, the original standard contained no grounds for divorce. That triggered the Pharisees and they demanded to know why Moses commanded them to give the woman a certificate of divorce and send her away. Jesus responded and made His point, again:
“Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way.” [emphasis added]
Notice that He said Moses “permitted” them to divorce their wives, but from the beginning it has not been this way. The standard of marriage has existed from the beginning and it did not allow divorce. Having made His point and completely reframed the issue, He finally answered the question of the Pharisees, which was what the meaning of the word “indecency” was (the grounds for divorce), in accordance to the permission Moses gave. Jesus continued and said:
“And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
This is one of the most contentious passages in the New Testament and is one of the most misquoted, but it isn’t the subject of this post. I covered it in depth here and less exhaustively in the last post. Divorce was a rather contentious issue during the time of Jesus and there were two schools of thought. The Rabbi Shammai and the Rabbi Hillel were leaders of the two opposing factions who had radically opposing views on the acceptable grounds for divorce. According to Shammai a man could only divorce his wife for serious infractions. Hillel, on the other hand, taught that a man could divorce his wife for any trivial reason such as burning his meals.
It was to address this contentious issue that Jesus quoted Genesis 2:24 as the authority to define how a marriage is initiated before giving His teaching on divorce: “So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” Notice that the Pharisees made no objection to Jesus citing Genesis 2:24 as the authority on marriage, nor did they argue with His teaching. Not only did Jesus cite it as the authority for divorce but the Pharisees recognized it as such.
One of the critical insights Jesus provided was in verse 8, when He said
“Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way.” [emphasis added]
All it takes is a brief glance at Genesis 2:24 to see that divorce was not mentioned. Understand that Genesis 2:24 is God’s grant of authority to the man to marry, but that grant of authority to marry contained no authority to end the marriage once it had begun. Likewise, there was no limit placed on the number of times a man may marry. It is these two points, both unstated, that inform us of what the commitment standard of marriage was designed to be. We know that because Jesus pointed it out for us.
- The commitment of the man is permanent but non-exclusive.
- The commitment of the woman is permanent and exclusive.
As to what Genesis 2:24 means, that has been covered repeatedly, most recently in Biblical Marriage. That is how marriage is begun from God’s perspective. There is, however, another perspective. It was observed a very long time ago that controlling a person’s expression of sexuality is to control the person. The church decided to use control of marriage to gain control of the nobility because marriage sat at the center of their multi-generational dynasties. Control of marriage gives control of families. Or, to put it another way:
When you’ve got them by the balls, their hearts and minds will follow.
Modern marriage is a legal partnership defined as a monogamous relationship, governed by a mostly unwritten marriage contract and controlled by statutory law which can be dissolved for any reason or even no reason at all. The process of dissolving this marriage contract is called divorce and it converts the marriage contract to a divorce contract. Under current statutory law, legal practice and various other rules, women are significantly advantaged in any divorce proceeding. One of the best sources of real-world information about divorce and child custody is real-world divorce. This resource contains a state-by-state breakdown of the way divorce, alimony and child support actually works in that state. A must-read for every man.
NOTE: Don’t let the differences between states fool you. Louisiana, Arkansas and Arizona, for example, have a statutory “covenant marriage” on their books. According to the law, under such a marriage the divorcing party typically has to attend marriage counseling and then must prove the other spouse cheated, is a felon, a drug user, or something like that. Or, they have to live separately for a specified period of time.
Does it remove the no-fault divorce issue? No. All she has to do is move to another state, wait for the statutory period of time (often three to six months) to prove residency and file for a no-fault divorce under that state’s laws. Back home, under the terms of the Covenant Marriage, hubby can do nothing. Depending on the circumstances, choosing the correct state to file for divorce can make a tremendous difference in how much she receives from him. And if he’s high-income, the rewards of jurisdiction shopping will be significant.
The basic facts of modern marriage are that currently there is about a 42% divorce rate. Women still file about 70% of the divorces, but in the other 30% where the man files, a significant percentage of those divorces were caused by the wife manipulating her husband into filing for divorce. As of 2014, government records indicate that 93% of the individuals collecting child support and alimony are women. Which means that if the couple is in a state that does not award 50-50 custody as standard, 93% of the time the husband will not get primary custody of the children and he will be forced to pay child support. With no fault divorce this process can be initiated at any time for any reason or no reason at all and there is no defense against it once the process is begun.
Note that I said “The process of dissolving this marriage contract is called divorce and it converts the marriage contract to a divorce contract.” Getting a divorce does NOT end the marriage contract, it converts it into a divorce contract and allows the courts to force performance (almost always by the man) in accordance with its decisions for many, many years to come.
If there are children, the woman has the option of converting her “marriage provisioning model” into a “child-support provisioning model” at any time and there is nothing her husband can do to stop her. He will be separated from his children and ordered by the court to pay a certain amount each month. If he fails to do, the prosecutors office (consider the fact it is the prosecutors office handling this) can terminate his professional licenses, rescind his passport, drivers license, hunting, fishing and boating licenses and have him incarcerated for failure to pay what was ordered.
The woman sits back and the state takes care of this, utilizing their resources and the police power of the state to enforce the mandatory payments. If the man becomes more successful in the future, the woman can petition the court to order an increase in the amount the man pays, but it is very rare that a court will reduce the amount a man has to pay. In fact, courts sometimes “impute” a higher income than the man actually has, claiming he should be able to earn that amount, then calculate the required payments based on that “imputed” amount.
Again, read Real World Divorce in order to understand what Modern Marriage is all about. In the following links, I’m pointing to Christian blogger Dalrock. He does a masterful job of pointing to the problems and laying them out clearly. He provides no solutions, but when it comes to explaining what the real world problems are, he is the best.
The overriding assumption of both conservatives and feminists is that husbands must be held in check, and that wives need tools to threaten their husbands to keep them at bay. Giving wives authority over their husbands is seen as not just good for the wife herself, but for the family and society as a whole.
When the facade of “Its for the children!” is stripped away, child support is all about removing fathers from the lives of their children. If anyone has any doubt as to the true purpose of child support, they need only look at how it is enforced in practice.
[With respect to]… women’s intrasexual competition, what matters most is proving investment by a worthy man. In this sense the claim that “women are the gatekeepers of sex but men are the gatekeepers of commitment” is incomplete. More accurately men are the gatekeepers of investment, a category which includes commitment.
Domestic Abuse as a Power Play: Welcome to Duluth
In addition to the divorce issues, there is a “parallel track” of domestic abuse/violence litigation and prosecution that presumes the woman to be the victim, the man the perpetrator and generally requires the man to prove himself innocent. This can be initiated at any time by dialing 911 and in most jurisdictions the police are required to arrest the man. Under the Duluth model of domestic abuse, a man can be convicted of domestic abuse for requiring a family budget which limits the amount each of them can spend. One thing I must say about Dalrock, as cringe-worthy as I find his commenters, the man absolutely nails it when it comes to documenting things like the Duluth Model:
- All Roads Lead To Duluth
- Setting The Record Straight On Duluth
- Another Case of the Duluth Model Working As Designed.
Then we have the situation where things get REAL for men.
From that, we have a tale of two responses.
First, we have (again) Dalrock:
what should he have done differently given a violent and unstable wife? The only answer is to walk on eggshells and keep her from becoming unhappy, and focus on taking precautions to make it harder for her to use the domestic violence system against him. (emphasis added)
Then we have Vox Day at Alpha Game:
The solution is simple. It is very simple and it’s very effective. If a woman physically attacks you in a manner that indicates her serious intent to harm you, then you beat the living shit out of her. Beat her so badly, so painfully, that she fears for her life. (emphasis added)
Only an idiot would have any difficulty determining which is the superior solution. If it’s possible to save said marriage, which of these solutions will do so? Which of these solutions will cause the wife to respect her husband?
Why Would A Man Choose A Deal Like That?
As it turns out, this situation has produced the expected result: 70% of men between the ages of 20 and 34 are NOT MARRIED. Dr. Helen Smith wrote a book that observes and explains this phenomena called “Men On Strike: Why Men Are Boycotting Marriage, Fatherhood And The American Dream, And Why It Matters“.
American society has become anti-male. Men are sensing the backlash and are consciously and unconsciously going “on strike.” They are dropping out of college, leaving the workforce and avoiding marriage and fatherhood at alarming rates.
It’s all so very simple, one would think. In fact, this is the impetus behind the MGTOW Cargo Cult. However, the desire to make men pay must find a way to make men pay.
Traditionally one could not get divorced unless one was married, an idea that goes all the way back to Moses. Given the extremely unequal treatment men receive in family court and the propensity of women to frivorce their husbands, a trend developed in which men began living with women but refusing to get married. (This is one of the reasons for the widespread use of domestic abuse/violence as a technique of control.) Faced with this situation in which men were not voluntarily submitting to marriage, courts began “deeming” a couple to be married if they lived together as husband and wife (shared a bed). Once the couple has been deemed to be married, the court proceeds with the divorce.
We see a further progression in this, in that the State of Alabama is in the process of removing any requirement for State sanction of marriages. On a popular level this is about the opposition to “gay marriage” but the reality is this will make all sexual relationships subject to being “deemed” to be a marriage, which can be followed by a court-supervised plundering. Expect to see other states follow suit. The truth is that since 1878, the Supreme Court has held (Meister v Moore) that Marriage is a “fundamental right” and laws requiring marriage licenses are “merely directory.” The term “directory” means that such a law is nothing more than a polite suggestion.
The Modern Marriage Solution
There is no point in listing all the problems with modern marriage because at the point of being dragged into court they don’t matter. Once in court, a divorce proceeding is very similar to being charged with some crime in Federal Court: 97% of the time you will lose. In a divorce proceeding you will lose 97% of the time for the “crime” of being in possession of a penis.
I leave it to others to dissect the various issues that cause women to file for divorce. Better is to lay out the solutions and why the solutions solve the problems.
First, maximize your potential and become fit to rule. That isn’t a requirement, it’s just very good advice. Following it will allow the man to solve problems before they become problems because as a rule, women do not desire to end a relationship with a man they are highly attracted to.
Second, ensure any woman you are courting is eligible to marry. It isn’t that difficult and the process itself is a compliance test for the woman that will give a good indication of whether she is actually attracted to you. If she’s a virgin the odds of divorce are around 5%, but if she’s not a virgin at least you know you’re not committing adultery.
If men did those two things the rate of divorce would plummet.
That’s where the standard marriage advice ends and it isn’t even “standard” advice. The problem with modern marriage is the structural problem of monogamy, which means an automatic monopoly for women. The marital standard of commitment designed by God called for a permanent but nonexclusive commitment on the part of the man and that critical design component is absent today.
Marital Structure Is The Critical Factor
Feminists understand that as a relationship structure, polygyny destroys feminism because by definition the structure highlights the fact that men and women are NOT equal. When one woman told her friends she was entering into a poly relationship, her friends went nuts. One of them thoughtfully summed up why “polygamy” was SO BAD:
Women automatically KNOW that the structure of a poly relationship allows the man to ‘next’ the women within the bounds of their relationship (it gives the man power and control). Women naturally compete but the only way they can compete for his attention is to give him what he wants: sweetness, attractiveness, submission and sexual availability (it “damages gender equality”). Nagging, withholding sex, fighting and passive aggressive bitchiness doesn’t get them anywhere because he can spend time with someone else (it “rips away” the things a SIW holds dear).
The husband has to be more aloof to manage relationships and the structure places him in a far more dominant position, which is attractive. It’s also provides immediate negative feedback when he slips and goes beta on them. Which helps keep him more attractively dominant and masculine. The collective attraction of the group validates their individual attraction to him (selection bias). The women can get their emotional needs met with each other, a group of friends who share a common interest in the success of the relationship. The opposition to such a relationship from outsiders creates an “us vs them” scenario, which draws them closer together.
And, no, the vast majority of men can’t do that. So what? Become the man who can if you want it. If you want a successful marriage and children, poly is the only thing left that doesn’t get automatically destroyed in family court. It has to be done carefully to avoid potential problems, but it’s not difficult. If a man can spin plates it’s just a matter of spinning said plates into a poly relationship. If they are attracted enough, they’ll do it. Once they realize they get more by sharing, not less, they don’t want to leave.
Women are always at the mercy of “the herd” of women who form their social circle of influence. Women need other women at an emotional level but the problem is the influential women in a wife’s life today are highly unlikely to be family members. They will be women who don’t have any interest in the wife having a successful marriage and in many cases they are opposed to it. With a polygynous marriage, women can have a self-contained “herd” within the marriage. Fellow-wives who are friends and share an interest in having a successful family.
Ask yourself: Why Does Everyone HATE Polygyny?
In a world in which we have the so-called “gay marriage” and all manner of BDSM D/s and DD/lg type relationships along with the tradcon mono-marriages, live-in arrangements, FWB relationships, casual sex and various mixtures of all that, why is it that polygyny is hated by everyone?
- Modern churches will accept openly homosexual unions without blinking an eye.
- Women with women? Yawn. Churches welcome them and love them.
- Men with multiple women? What’s to see here?
- People living together without being “married”? So what?
Nobody cares, but let a few Christian women marry one Christian man and settle down to get busy making babies… and everyone goes nuts. Churches that will welcome homosexuals and not let it bother them will get so uncomfortable with a poly marriage that they ask the poly folks to leave.
Satan desires to destroy families and he does this by causing all manner of marital conflict. His master-stoke was getting the church to throw out the Biblical standards of marriage and claim that monogamy was the only acceptable form of marriage. Not only that, but the church laid the “moral foundation” for feminism by claiming that men and women were held to equal standards of sexual morality. They did that 1500 years ago. 100 years ago women “won” suffrage and finally got the chance to completely screw everything up, which they promptly did.
Wizard’s First Rule states that “People will believe a lie because they either want it to be true or they fear it to be true. People are Stupid.”
The end result is there are a lot of rather sincerely wrong and misled Christians out there who believe the lie that God has a problem with polygyny. Nothing could be further from the truth, because it’s actually Satan who has a problem with polygyny. The reason is polygyny is the critical part of marriage that keeps the “monogamous” marriages working correctly.
People are stupid and they believe the lie even though there is nothing in the Bible to support it because they want it to be true. This is because of fear and envy on the part of the women and envy and jealousy on the part of the men. The real reason feminism hates polygyny is not only does polygyny destroy the belief that men and women are equal, but polygyny is far more beneficial to women than monogamy.
Given the declining number of attractive men, polygyny is more beneficial to women than monogamy because by grouping together they have the ability to get commitment from a quality man who would not be interested in any of them individually. With more wage-earners they have greater financial security. More help around the house means household chores get knocked out quickly, leaving more time for family. When children come the women are not alone and overwhelmed. So what if the man gets more sex with sexual variety? The women are the ones who win as long as he rules his family well.
With proper leadership, virtually every problem in modern marriage is mitigated by polygyny, for both men and women.
The Legal System
In the western world, polygyny is contrary to public policy, a throwback to the time when the church declared polygyny to be a sin. This means that a polygynous marriage cannot be recognized as a marriage or treated as a marriage in the eyes of the law, because the law has declared marriage to be a monogamous relationship. This only becomes a factor when someone (typically a woman) desires that the union be treated as a marriage in order to obtain some advantage or benefit.
NOTE: I believe a marriage should continue as it begins unless there is a specific problem that makes it necessary to change. If a man wants more than one wife he should round them up and marry them together at the same time. This, as opposed to the idea of marrying a woman in a traditional marriage in which she thinks she is his “one and only” (has a monopoly), then later deciding to add another wife simply because he wants variety. The issue is expectations, not morality.
As long as the marriage is successful and everyone is satisfied, they are invisible in the eyes of the law because it is public policy that what happens between consenting adults behind closed doors is private. However, a problem occurs when one of the wives decides she is dissatisfied and perhaps wants out of the marriage. She looks at all the advantages women have in monogamous marriages and wants the same advantages applied to her, so she looks for a way for the courts to legally dissolve her marriage under the same rules that are applied to legal marriages. In all likelihood she may not understand the issues involved.
It is not until this point that the court system (which includes the courts, attorneys, social services, counselors and others) gets the chance to crack this nut and as a rule it begins when one of the women goes to see an attorney.
As noted above, courts are in the habit of “deeming” a couple to be married because they live together and share a bed (living as husband and wife). In some jurisdictions the courts have engaged in a “divide and conquer” strategy with polygynous marriages, “deeming” them to be a marriage characterized by “separate concurrent monogamous relationships”. This occurs, as a rule, because the family does not all live under the same roof. This usually results from a couple being married for some time and for whatever reason, the husband adds another wife.
The beauty of the “separate concurrent monogamous relationships” doctrine is that it pits the women against each other. The first to file gets recognizes as the married partner, who (by definition) is the victim of her evil husband and deserves cash and prizes. The other woman is the “girlfriend” who gets nothing. Again, courts do not get the opportunity to review such arrangements unless and until the issue is placed before them, but this sort of ruling reverberates in the society and sows discord among women.
Understand The Environment, Do It Right
There is tremendous opposition to polygyny and if anyone wants to do this it must be done carefully in order to ensure that the entire structure isn’t destroyed later.
- Round up the women first, then marry them as a group. Let there be no possibility of misunderstanding, establish that everyone is knowingly entering into a polygynous relationship from the beginning and with their signatures they acknowledge that fact.
- Sign a written marital contract to govern the relationship. This contract will provide a written statement of the rights, responsibilities, duties and obligations of each party to the marriage. It will answer basic questions concerning the who, what, where, when and how of the relationship. The contract must be complete and well-written, so assistance in drafting the document or at least a review of the completed document by a good contract attorney is essential. I will be writing at least one post covering contract issues.
- Cohabitation is required, meaning living in and sharing the same household. The centerpiece of this cohabitation requires the husband and all wives sharing the same bed. The rule is: “Nobody Gets Married To Sleep Alone.” This is the critical litmus test that definitively proves a polygynous marriage. Do the wives share the same bed with their husband?
- When there are children, all wives are “mom” to all children with generally equal authority as “mom” with respect to all children. That goes a long way toward homogenizing the family and I’d even recommend wives induce lactation so all the women can nurse the babies. Which means that all the wives will bond with all the babies.
- Consider wrapping it in kink. In theory, by virtue of the wives sharing the same bed with their husband the arrangement is already wrapped in kink, but implications can be made that shift the focus away from a patriarchal domination of the marriage by the husband to the wives pursuit of orgasms through kinky group sex. “Nobody gets married to sleep alone” establishes all anyone else needs to know. After that “Nobody’s Business But Ours” is a good policy, but there are occasions when wrapping the relationship in kink is an excellent defense against 3rd party interference.
If the above points are accomplished, it is impossible to apply the “separate, concurrent monogamous relationships” doctrine to the marriage. By any standard by which the man and any given woman are deemed to be married, the man is also married to the other wives and the wives are married to each other. This means that by definition, the union is a polygynous marriage in which the man is equally married to all wives at the same time. According to public policy a polygynous marriage cannot be recognized as a marriage, which precludes a divorce action. In effect, polygyny presents the court with a poison pill it cannot swallow.
Not being able to view the arrangement as a marriage, the marriage contract becomes an enforceable cohabitation agreement. It has often been said that it’s now easier to get out of a marriage than a cell phone contract and it’s true. Family law is the Alice In Wonderland area of law in which agreements such as pre-nuptial and post-nuptial agreements can be discarded at will if the judge decides to do so. However, the lunacy of family law can’t be applied to a polygynous marriage because it isn’t a marriage in the eyes of the law and cannot be deemed to be a marriage because that is contrary to public policy.
This situation tends to anger the courts, especially the judges, because correctly structured and arranged a polygynous marriage either eliminates or severely limits their power to do as they wish, which quite often is to punish the man. Judges are offended and angered when they cannot do as they wish.
The marriage contract’s severance clause must specifically state the contract converts to an enforceable cohabitation agreement in the event a court of competent jurisdiction declares the union not to be a marriage, which means that (gasp!) everyone will still be required to perform according to the agreement. The agreement must be fair, but this does not prevent using an agreed-upon vesting schedule to determine what assets would accrue to individuals at what point in the marriage if someone decides to leave; or, if in the event of the death of the husband, the wives decided to end the marriage.
If one woman wants to leave and she has no children, she can leave and the conditions are determined by the contract, there is nothing for the court to determine. If she has children, the courts will have the authority to determine who gets custody. The standard of child custody determination is known as “best interests of the child”.
Question: Is it in the best interests of the child to preserve the status quo, living in the family home with their father and at least one wife who has been caring for the child all his/her life, or should they be forced to leave and live with only their mother? If the other wives have children, is it in the best interests of the child to be separated not just from their father and the other “mom”, but also separated from his/her siblings and required to leave the family home in order to live alone with their mother?
Obviously, if all the wives have children by the husband, the issue of separating siblings becomes a rather difficult point because courts are loath to separate siblings and it is the established doctrine of the family courts to not separate siblings absent extraordinary circumstances. If a wife wants to leave and there are siblings involved, then it’s very unlikely she will get custody of her children. It follows that she will be required to pay child support to the father of her children, a significant negative incentive to leaving.
Does anyone wonder why such an arrangement is viewed by the courts as evil, wicked and oppressive to women? It uses established doctrines that were designed to punish men to protect the children from harm by eliminating any reward for divorce.
Under this arrangement the incentives are aligned to reward staying in the marriage and penalize leaving the marriage. Which is as it should be. In any case of alleged domestic violence or abuse, the dynamic is not one of “he said – she said” because there are multiple women involved.
At the end of the day, in general the only way a marriage gets the attention of a court is if one party to the marriage brings it before the court. However, it is also true that a 3rd party can make domestic violence/abuse allegations and create problems. All of the above is part of a strategy that creates incentives, both positive and negative, for the parties to the marriage to work out any problems on their own. Barring egregious behavior, as long as all parties support the contract and relationship, the contract itself can be a solid defense against any 3rd party claims of domestic violence/abuse.
Keep in mind, as a polygynous relationship, you wrote your own rules (your contract) specifically because what you’re doing is so unusual. The contract has a fair and equitable procedure by which any of the women can leave the marriage. It provides checks and balances. In other words, it provides recourse and the individuals waive their rights in specific areas in order to obtain what they desire.
The Duluth model of abuse can be specifically waived as a matter of equitable contract and as long as all parties support the contract, no-one else has standing to challenge the contract itself. This situation changes if one of the parties to the contract screams abuse, but even at that point the contract is a significant mitigating factor and an affirmative defense if it specifically waives the so-called “abuse” in plain language. This is where having more than one woman in the household is invaluable in terms of testimony.
For those who object to this characterization, read this. Pay particular attention to what Justice Scalia said in the Smith case, because we aren’t just talking about contracts, we’re talking about fundamental rights.
In closing, note that all of this assumes the man is not interested in ending the marriage and destroying the family. Consider all the reasons why a man might want to divorce his wife, and observe that virtually all of them revolve around monogamy and are solved by polygyny.