Sex with four woman and 'justice'?

Sex. It is considered the ultimate intimacy between two people, the underlining of a caring relationship between one man and one woman, etc etc. And yet, sex with more than one partner is considered as 'fooling around', leaving a man without juridical ground to defend his rights, as soon as the judge finds out he is 'fooling around'.

Indeed, in ancient times when sex was inevitably coupled with having children and creating a family, sex must have been introduced as part of a formal bond between man and woman, in order to avoid women to be left behind by their irresponsible 'mates'. And since man always had difficulty in distinghuishing their own bread from the kids from the milkman, one can also understand that no man ever wanted to be unsure about his fatherhood. So man became fierce defenders of jalousy. And sultans locked up their women in a harem guarded by eunuchs with the physical impossibility to trade places with the sultan.

In these modern times, one should expect sex to be released from the bonds of marriage. Pre-marital sex is now more or less accepted in Western democracies -- although not by everyone. Sex does not automatically lead to having children any longer, so it can be seen as being seperate from marriage or as being part of a friendship without having to induce any jalousy. But having sex with more than one partner is still considered as 'fooling around'. And within divorses, the one partner having sex besides his or her marriage is still considered the erroneous one -- without even questioning why that person had a second sex partner, or without questioning whether it happened with mutual consent.

Within this context, how is sex with four women going to be accepted by the outside world, and by court? And how is the sultan in question ever going to defend his rights in court, when sex with someone else than his one own wife is the only right he has?