Page 19 | To think you should never cohabit with a man unless he’s paying the majority of the bills?

BunnyLake · 19/04/2025 15:46

ThisSereneSnail · 19/04/2025 15:38

He’s quite happy with lunch and even happier that I have standards, a spine, and a sense of humour. Being cherished and having a voice aren’t mutually exclusive.

Show quote history

So why are you on here? What made you think, I know I’ll pose this question on MN.

Are you the protect and provide poster?

Original poster

ThisSereneSnail · 19/04/2025 15:46

Hwi · 19/04/2025 15:00

I think you should never cohabit with a man if you are not married. Marriage is some sort of a guarantee - well, in case you divorce. Otherwise you are providing sex on tap, housekeeping services and all the time he is looking for a better option, whilst your reproductive health suffers and he is able to breed into his 80s. Look at the threads on here - oh, we have been together for X years and he took off - what recourse do I have? Bugger all is your recourse. Oh, I helped to build up his career and he has just hopped off into the sunset with a woman he works with.... What recourse do I have? I don't know why women are so intent to make the same mistake again and again.

Obviously, if you are playing the long game (Kate Middleton) and what is her face that snatched the Duke of whatever when the Duke was on a 'temporary break' with his long-term girl-friend, other rules apply, I am sure.

But if they are not oligarchs, or royalty and you have no 'cunning plans for future', why let those wankers get away with no obligations?

Obviously, if you are the Duchess of whatever/Senior Partner/etc. and he is a plumber, then you may not want to marry him, but in the majority of cases it is bog-standard people playing stupid games with non-committing.

There’s actually a lot in your comment I actually agree with, especially about women giving too much too soon without clarity or commitment. Whether that’s cohabitation, emotional investment or domestic support, it should come with standards.

I don’t necessarily believe marriage is the only guarantee but I do believe in not moving in with someone unless he’s showing up with real intention and responsibility. Too many women treat live-in relationships like a shortcut to closeness… but end up settling for the illusion of partnership without the foundation. That’s the part I’m not here for.

OP posts:

ByQuaintAzureWasp · 19/04/2025 15:45

Sounds like a contrived excuse for you to pay less Op

Parker231 · 19/04/2025 15:45

ThisSereneSnail · 19/04/2025 15:42

Ha, depends on what you’re after. Masculine Provider Energy doesn’t do cashback but it does offer stability, initiative and loyalty as standard.

Bit harder to find on a comparison site but worth holding out for.

Show quote history

DH doesn’t need to provide financially for me as I can do that myself but he has always offered stability, initiative and loyalty as have I - it’s called an equal partnership.

HornungTheHelpful · 19/04/2025 15:44

ThisSereneSnail · 19/04/2025 14:09

I’m not trying to convince anyone, just sharing a perspective that works for some of us. It’s not about “surrendering” - it’s about being intentional with the dynamic you want. A lot of women don’t want to carry half the load and still be expected to lead emotionally and practically too. And based on the replies (both for and against), I’d say the conversation’s more relevant than it looks.

Show quote history

I see the logic of what you are saying in your subsequent posts provided what you mean is you want to provide emotional etc leadership and “in exchange” your partner provides what you term “financial leadership”. But that’s you. Fair enough, and I think all you’re really saying is you value the different inputs equally (good luck finding a bloke who does) but to suggest that everyone should (a) do so (though I think they should do); and (b) that the male should always provide the “financial leadership”. If I had an “equal” split but each with a particular “role”, I would want the financial role. As it is I do pretty much everything and it’s infuriating. I’m working on it and if I succeed we will be splitting the roles between us for practical reasons, but no reason why one person shouldn’t take each role, but to suggest financial should always be the man isn’t even an accurate reflection of historic roles, leave alone a good template for relationships today

BunnyLake · 19/04/2025 15:42

Lascivious · 19/04/2025 13:48

Are you the ‘protect and provide’ poster?

Certainly sounds like it.

Original poster

ThisSereneSnail · 19/04/2025 15:42

Stravaig · 19/04/2025 14:58

I can't see anything on the comparison sites about Maculine Provider Energy. Are they better than OVO? What are their switching incentives?

Ha, depends on what you’re after. Masculine Provider Energy doesn’t do cashback but it does offer stability, initiative and loyalty as standard.

Bit harder to find on a comparison site but worth holding out for.

OP posts:

ghostyslovesheets · 19/04/2025 15:42

ThisSereneSnail · 19/04/2025 15:40

When someone can’t disagree without rage or insults, it usually means the idea hit a nerve. I’m not asking anyone to live how I live - just naming what works for me. If that bothers you so much, maybe ask why.

Show quote history

So you live like this with your partner?

or are you single and trying to edumacate women who are in relationships/married how to ‘wife’ properly - based on zero personal experience?

IpsyUpsyDaisyDoos · 19/04/2025 15:42

ThisSereneSnail · 19/04/2025 15:40

When someone can’t disagree without rage or insults, it usually means the idea hit a nerve. I’m not asking anyone to live how I live - just naming what works for me. If that bothers you so much, maybe ask why.

Show quote history

So what was the point of this thread? If you don't care whether anyone agrees with you, just want people to do what works for them in their relationships and you're not suggesting anyone live how you live?

Why post saying you should never cohabit with a man unless he’s paying the majority of the bills?

Parker231 · 19/04/2025 15:42

Watch out everyone - it’s a first time poster!!

Thepeopleversuswork · 19/04/2025 15:42

Some of us value traditional masculine provision - not out of weakness but because we bring a different kind of strength.

Some of us value being able to do our own provision because we don't want to be left up shit creek if the male doing the providing vanishes into the wide blue yonder. And because we don't want the "masculine provision" to force us into domestic roles which we don't want to occupy.

So no, thanks, I'll keep my hand in with the provision and would prefer an equal partnership.

Charlize43 · 19/04/2025 15:40

Are you Melania Trump?

Original poster

ThisSereneSnail · 19/04/2025 15:40

VicksJunkie · 19/04/2025 14:55

Oh aye, “traditional masculine provision” yeah? Fuck off with your trad wives bullshit.

When someone can’t disagree without rage or insults, it usually means the idea hit a nerve. I’m not asking anyone to live how I live - just naming what works for me. If that bothers you so much, maybe ask why.

OP posts:

DefinitelyMaybe92 · 19/04/2025 15:38

ThisSereneSnail · 19/04/2025 15:30

Not at all - I’ve never said that. Women can work, thrive, and still prefer a dynamic where their partner leads financially.

It’s not about whether a woman has a job - it’s about how she wants to show up in a relationship. For some of us, emotional contribution, home management or softer energy comes more naturally and we value a partner who compliments that with structure and provision. Self-respect isn’t about what you do, it’s about owning your values without apology.

Show quote history

It really does sound like you’re suggesting that if a man isn’t the bread-winner, he’s not masculine, and if a woman is the bread-winner she’s not feminine/“soft”?? IF that is what you’re suggesting, you might need to broaden your horizons. Again, this all sounds to me like the propaganda that is being spewed from far-right US social media right now, regurgitated.

Sweetpeasaremadeforbees · 19/04/2025 15:38

Well, when the "energy" of the "masculine provider" finds a focus elsewhere and you're left up financial shit creek sans paddle as the "leadership" has checked out, all that emotional nurture won't amount to a roof or an income.

^ This. If you want to rely on a bloke financially whilst doing all the shitty life admin stuff fill your boots OP, I'd rather have a relationship where both of us do our fair share of all of it.

Original poster

ThisSereneSnail · 19/04/2025 15:38

SoSoLong · 19/04/2025 14:55

Does your protector and provider know you're wasting your time on MN instead of cooking his dinner?

He’s quite happy with lunch and even happier that I have standards, a spine, and a sense of humour. Being cherished and having a voice aren’t mutually exclusive.

OP posts:

Bluebellwood129 · 19/04/2025 15:36

ThisSereneSnail · 19/04/2025 15:35

It sounds like you’re leading in the way that works for your relationship and that’s exactly my point. My ethos isn’t about forcing one dynamic on everyone - it’s about clarity, intention and complimentary roles.

If you’re the provider and your partner brings something valuable to the dynamic in other ways - emotionally, practically, energetically - that is aligned. I’m speaking from the perspective of a woman who values masculine provision in her relationships. That doesn’t mean women can’t provide - it means I choose not to be the one doing it in mine. Power to you for knowing what works in yours.

Show quote history

You're not bringing anything of value to the relationship

Original poster

ThisSereneSnail · 19/04/2025 15:35

Whatsgoingonherethenagain · 19/04/2025 14:52

I pay all the bills. Every single one.

i’m the higher earner too.

how does that fit into your ethos @ThisSereneSnail ?

It sounds like you’re leading in the way that works for your relationship and that’s exactly my point. My ethos isn’t about forcing one dynamic on everyone - it’s about clarity, intention and complimentary roles.

If you’re the provider and your partner brings something valuable to the dynamic in other ways - emotionally, practically, energetically - that is aligned. I’m speaking from the perspective of a woman who values masculine provision in her relationships. That doesn’t mean women can’t provide - it means I choose not to be the one doing it in mine. Power to you for knowing what works in yours.

OP posts:

DoYouReally · 19/04/2025 15:35

I hate these type of posts.

It's always difficult to tell if the OP is high/drunk or just a little dim/uneducated. At least you could try to reason with the latter.

Parker231 · 19/04/2025 15:35

ThisSereneSnail · 19/04/2025 15:30

Not at all - I’ve never said that. Women can work, thrive, and still prefer a dynamic where their partner leads financially.

It’s not about whether a woman has a job - it’s about how she wants to show up in a relationship. For some of us, emotional contribution, home management or softer energy comes more naturally and we value a partner who compliments that with structure and provision. Self-respect isn’t about what you do, it’s about owning your values without apology.

Show quote history

I work in Corporate Finance and have much greater financial skills than DH, a doctor. Our salaries have over the years been quite similar and we have jointly contributed to the running of our home and bringing up our children.

What is ‘softer energy’?

VeraWangTea · 19/04/2025 15:34

Soft energy?

What tariff is that on then?

ghostyslovesheets · 19/04/2025 15:34

FastnetLundyRockall · 19/04/2025 15:34

so apparently we’re back to the “men as leaders, women have softer energy” old stereotypes then in OPs world. I personally prefer to retain full equality at home and in workplace which means I can be as spiky and churlish as I want to.

Yup 😃

FastnetLundyRockall · 19/04/2025 15:34

so apparently we’re back to the “men as leaders, women have softer energy” old stereotypes then in OPs world. I personally prefer to retain full equality at home and in workplace which means I can be as spiky and churlish as I want to.

Whynotaxthisyear · 19/04/2025 15:33

ThisSereneSnail · 19/04/2025 14:14

I’m not “up to” anything - I said what I meant and clearly it has resonated (positively or not). If people disagree, they’re free to say so. But implying there’s some hidden agenda because the post struck a nerve is a bit telling, no?

Show quote history

Well, no. Just as when we challenge a racist position or people who want to make homosexual marriages illegal m, it doesn’t mean that we secretly agree. Some of us are glad to have moved on from the indefensible beliefs of the last century.

Parker231 · 19/04/2025 15:32

ThisSereneSnail · 19/04/2025 15:30

Not at all - I’ve never said that. Women can work, thrive, and still prefer a dynamic where their partner leads financially.

It’s not about whether a woman has a job - it’s about how she wants to show up in a relationship. For some of us, emotional contribution, home management or softer energy comes more naturally and we value a partner who compliments that with structure and provision. Self-respect isn’t about what you do, it’s about owning your values without apology.

Show quote history

How long have you been married?