Prince Charming and the Fair Maid in Divorce Court

Reading Spider Robinson’s Callahan's Lady, I came across a supposition he made that has stuck in my head. Robinson contends that there are three purposes to marriage; three needs that marriage meets. Marriage provides financial, emotional, and sexual support.
That has to be one of the most succinct assessments I have ever read. Having come by this newfound insight, I was all ready to chide a friend of mine who has neatly split the three between different men in her life. One thing lead to another, and I didn’t get a chance to see her for a while. In the interim, I had an epiphany. Why is her approach so wrong?
Our society (she would say culture, but that’s another point of disagreement for another rant,) says that it is only acceptable to seek the three supports from the same individual. But is that really the best way to handle things?

Financial support: We’ve pretty much bollixed that. (Yet another one of the unintended consequences of Johnson’s Great Society.) It used to be that for an woman to receive financial support from a man, she was expected to respond by filling his emotional and/or sexual needs. (I use women in this example, because traditionally the man was the bread winner. In my own personal life, Mags and I have this backwards. In out entire married life, she has allowed me to make more than she does for exactly six months, then she went and got herself a better paying job and that was the end of that.) By providing a safety net, not only did the woman get a chance to escape from the possibly excessive needs of the man. (Even abusers are receiving emotional support from the abused. As sick and twisted as it is, it validates their masculinity.) Woman now had a chance to survive on her own without a man’s direct help. The rise of women in the workplace and the two career family have only hastened this severing.

Emotional support: Haven’t we always turned outside the marriage for additional support in this area? The wife with her girlfriends, and the husband with his drinking buddies?

Sexual support: Ah, here’s the kicker. This is the last of the supports that society insists come only from within the relationship. Despite the efforts of some of the more radical elements of the counter-culture in the seventies, the idea that it is only acceptable to get one’s sexual support from one’s spouse has held firm. The best that was achieved was taking the traditional definition that the only relationship suitable for receiving sexual support was marriage and broadened it to include the monogamous relationship with or without the blessing of the state. The AIDS epidemic has reinforced the idea that the only suitable place to receive sexual support is from a long-term, monogamous relationship.

Still, like any triangle, the FES support system is only as strong as it’s weakest leg. When confronted with a deficiency in one area, the idea of turning outside the relationship for support is frowned upon. (Rightly so, IMHO.) I also find it interesting that the two legs that the sexes seem to equate with each other are so totally different. It’s been my experience that women seem to see Emotional and Sexual support as linked, while men seem to pair Financial and Sexual. There are many variations on this and exceptions to the rule, but one only needs to look at "Men’s" and "Women’s" magazines to see this.
Magazines aimed at men tend to feature pictures of attractive, nude or scantily clad women and articles about all the latest (expensive) toys. The message being clear: "Make enough to afford these (the toys), and you’ll attract one of these (the desirable women.)"
Women’s magazines, on the other hand, (to borrow a line from Coupling) feature two hundred pages on why men are jerks, and an article on why you should wake one up with a blowjob.
My friend, by splitting the FES triangle apart, has managed to protect herself from the dangers of a relationship. If any part of the triangle falters, she can turn to the men fulfilling the other two legs for support in that area. The traditional couple, receiving all three legs from each other, are in a theoretically stronger position. Yet, should one of the legs falter, it endangered the entire relationship. Should the traditional relationship fail, the triangle comes crashing down, damaging or destroying the bulk of the primary support system.

I was raised to believe in happily ever after. Prince Charming, having rescued the Fair Maiden from the clutches of whatever danger had her in bondage, then settled down to a life of domestic bliss. In the world I came from, divorce was unheard of except in the most dire of circumstances. Even then, it carried a stigma that hung over the heads of the couple like a cloud.

Except in the real world, Prince Charming wakes up and rolls over one morning to find the Fair Maid has gotten older, put on weight, and lost interest in sex. What’s more, she has become cold and distant, and threatens to destroy him financially should he leave her. (Half the kingdom is HERS dammit!) Confused, he finds the sympathetic ear of a local bar-maid. If things go really wrong, he takes the cute girl to bed, and the Fair Maiden finds out. Soon, the kingdom is locked up in divorce court while Prince Charming and the Fair Maid are spitting venom at each other.
When it works right, the FES system can make a relationship stronger. When it breaks down it is devastating. Which way is right? Or is it a matter of the person? I can’t figure this one out.