To think you should never cohabit with a man unless he’s paying the majority of the bills?

Shouldn't you be quiet and finish the master's ironing? Otherwise he won't pay your allowance.

Couple building a life together should have one pot, and equal spending money, they will both go further

Any financial arrangement Can work providing that you’re upfront about it and everybody goes into it with their eyes wide open.
With my particular set up it’s feast or famine. I’ve either got 100 grand in the bank account or I’ve got 10 grand on my credit card.
I’m perfectly happy to live that way. I’ll live by the sword or I’ll die by it.
It’s not for everyone.
And if I moved in with somebody , he would have to cover the bills on a day-to-day basis on the basis that I will then just drop a huge lump sum on the Mortgage, buy him a car book a world cruise, but I wouldn’t be covering the phone bills and that would be the only basis on which I could proceeded. For everybody’s mental health.

In fact Melania Trump is an excellent example of what OP thinks is the right dynamic. I shouldn't think anyone expects Trump brings emotional support and strength into the family dynamic but he will be providing the money. OP is basically suggesting we all follow the Trump marriage blueprint.

I earn more money than DH, it would be incredibly unfair to expect him to pay the majority of the bills just because he has a penis.

50/50. Not because we're roommates but because we're a team and no one is expected to do the majority of anything, otherwise what's the point in having a partner?

A man should pay all of the bills, in my world. I don't do 50/50 relationships. But each to their own.

You state you provide the emotional support - what do you do? Concerning that your DH doesn’t also provide this - sounds like a very unhappy situation.

Gas and 'leccy?

I wouldn't. It's not a compliment.

Why don't you do an aibu thread and say this stuff clearly in the first post and do a poll? This will show us how many there are.

So is this thread you have started a hypothetical scenario or are you living this dynamic you describe?

I agree. It's very sad.

I have a romantic interest but definitely wouldn't move in with him as he's wealthy and I'm not?? I'd feel like a kept pet.

Should be fairly equally divided though with slight adjustment for difference in salaries.

Being clear that you have such low standards that you're expecting virtually nothing from a partner?

Have you ever read a MN thread about childcare/cooking/housework?
Sadly, there seem to be a lot of fully grown adults of the male kind who feel that that sort of thing is beneath them.

So… if your goal is roles that complement each other, then you would see how that is not limited by gender… yes? And how this would vary from person to person, relationship to relationship? i.e. the woman could be the “financial leader” and the man could be the “soft emotional… supporter”, or whatever (or - shock horror - they could both do both!)… in which case you agree that YABU to broadly suggest that the man in every relationship simply needs to pay more, yes??

So you would expect to be kept by a man for allowing him the pleasure of living with you?

It's like the OP completely expects that a man won't bring anything to the relationship more than a financial contribution and so is insisting that should be substantial.

It's quite sad that you can't envisage a relationship with someone who matches your contribution in terms of emotions, mental load etc. I suspect it's actual quite a defensive mindset from someone who has never had a relationship with someone who is emotionally competent and capable of sharing the mental load.
There are a lot of men children out there so it doesn't shock me.

I think it's sad that she thinks this is the normative situation, dressing it up as masculine and feminine energy. (Possibly has watched 1 too many American tradwife videos on tiktok).

For a minute there I thought I'd been transported back to the 1950s.
Wake up OP, it's 2025.

Most women don't need to contribute more in 'emotional support' because they've chosen a partner who is their equal in all ways. 'Emotional check ins' are unnecessary in a healthy relationship with open communication.

You've just proved you don't know what it means.

An equal relationship doesn't mean you split all bills exactly in half, you both bring in the same amount of money.

An equal relationship means that you are partners. You lean on one another. You split the load as a whole between you equally. For some (you) that might mean the man goes out earning the money while you provide the emotional intelligence. For others (most) it means the money comes in from one or both of you, you both show up emotionally, you both raise your shared children. You don't depend on either of you to do any one particular part of it. You just both show up when needed.

THAT is the true meaning of an equal or "50/50" relationship.

And you 100% don't understand that.