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

[ThisSereneSnail]

Split finances = split energy.

She appears to be in a relationship
I'm wondering why the other acceptable partners didn't stick around.

Are you the poster who said the poor wittle mens felt all hurty if their partner earned more than them? Same bollocks about it affecting respect and attraction 🙄

Sorry but you sound absolutely bonkers! What is masculine provider energy? Why wouldn't you want an equal partnership financially?

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.

Well if you use MN as a comparison site for Masculine Provider Energy I'd say that a large proportion of men are failing the stability, initiative and loyalty tests on a daily basis.

I never said those who disagree with me don’t have self-respect - I said I value mine and I’m not going to dilute my standards just to sound more palatable. That’s very different from attacking anyone else’s choices.

As for my relationship - yes, he agrees, because we chose each other from a place of alignment. It works because we’re clear on what we both value and bring. That’s all it’s really about - choosing dynamics that feel right for you. Not everyone wants the same thing and that’s okay.

It’s not contrived it’s blatant

Are you the poster who doesn’t think women should answer the door after sunset and instead should send their very tall sons or husbands?

Sounds like balance to me - feminine provider energy and strategic Easter egg recovery mode? We love to see it.

Jokes aside, if it works for you both, that’s the whole point. I’m not saying one model fits all - just that for some of us, financial leadership from a partner feels grounding. You’re clearly leading in your own way and with Buffy on in the background, I can’t even argue.

So what happened to the other acceptable partners then?

The thing is, you think you’ve won by getting a bloke who will pay for you.

in reality you’ve ended up with a bloke that thinks women are not equal independent people. You’ve won the booby prize…

”the heat” is because some of us can remember when our mothers weren’t allowed to get their own mortgage without a man, and when marital rape wasn’t legally recognised in the UK, when women being beaten up was an unremarkable occurrence because the man was traditionally the head of the house and could do what he liked. And women’s rights globally are precarious enough without this surrendered energy gobbledegook which frankly sounds like new day, same old shit.

Fanny lodger

But what you seem to be signing up to is a man with the emotional intelligence of a toaster but that’s fine because he ‘provides’.

So basically you want a relationship that works for both parties?
Exactly the same thing that everyone wants in a relationship?

I can't particularly see that you're saying anything revolutionary op, just setting the obvious in a cloak of 'alignment' 'polarity' and other fancy words.

It sounds as though you have never had a long-term, successful relationship? Sorry if that is inaccurate. But if that is the case, you may discover that healthy relationships do not conform to outdated stereotypes about gender roles.

I've been married for 20+ years. Sometimes I have earned more than my husband, sometimes he has earned more, though the discrepancies have never been extreme. Our partnership is based on equality in all respects. You have mentioned "complimentary roles" several times. (BTW I think you mean "complementary.") That sounds like an oddly rigid approach. Surely it is preferable for each partner to provide support, stability, and protection (and whatever else you've mentioned) rather than a strict division based on some tired notions of masculinity and femininity.

And yes, I prefer a dynamic some might call “traditional,” but I also think it’s worth discussing why that still sparks so much discomfort in 2025. If it’s truly no big deal, why the heat?

Because unless you are new to MN you will be well aware that many men will fuck off and leave their partners and children without a backward glance. Choosing to put yourself in a financially precarious position if this were to happen is crazy to many of us.

Anyway, I think you're on the wind up so what's the point?

Not remotely. I don’t want to be WAG, a Victoria Beckham or anyone else - I want to be myself, in a relationship built on mutual respect, aligned values, and complimentary strengths.

Wanting a partner who leads financially doesn’t mean I want to sit around posing in sunglasses - it means I want to build something solid, where both of us show up in different but equally meaningful ways. If that’s hard to grasp without resorting to tabloid caricatures, that’s on you.

Am very pleased that we have brought DT’s - DD and DS to have higher standards in their lives. I’d be very disappointed if DD wanted a life like yours.

That’s all it’s really about - choosing dynamics that feel right for you. Not everyone wants the same thing and that’s okay.

Hang on. The title of this thread is To think you should never cohabit with a man unless he’s paying the majority of the bills? and now you're saying that it's ok to cohabit with a man who doesn't. I'm getting the feeling you don't actually believe the guff you're posting, you're just doing it for sport.🙄

Absolutely! Relationships where your’e doing all the emotional work is absolute crap and soul destroying. I would never choose an emotionally stunted but very high earning man again. If they’re not contributing equally on an emotional and connection level I guarantee they will also most likely use money as a weapon. Been there, done it.

OP you have a muddled idea of what a partnership in a relationship is. What is your actual experience of long term, committed relationships?

If you wanted an egalitarian relationship, you want someone who shared the emotional labour as well as the ‘providing’. Whereas it sounds to me as if you married a dud, and are trying to retrofit this as being a good thing because he pays the bills, even as you’re stuck with ‘tending to the relationship’ and remembering birthdays. Sounds great.🙄

Go outside and touch some grass.

Actually, perhaps not. The outdoors may be too masculine for you. Too much authority and leadership going on outside your sad, meek, beige walls for you to handle.

If he’s showing up financially and not emotionally then you’re on a hiding to nothing.

My view is about polarity and aligned dynamics - not gender. In any relationship, someone often leads more in one area while the other brings a different kind of strength. It’s not about a rigid formula - it’s about complementarity, not cloning.

So yes - same-sex couples can absolutely have versions of this. Emotional roles, practical support, financial leadership… these dynamics play out across all types of relationships, not just straight ones. It’s not “batshit” - it’s just not for everyone.

More like a paid lobbyist for a very sinister political ideology.