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

[ThisSereneSnail]

Split finances = split energy.

Is masculine power energy what my DH uses to open the lid on the jam? Other than that and changing tyres we’re 50/50.

But OP you’re all over the place with your views and perspective. You talk about masculine energy and equate it to paying, and leading, then flip flop around with wordy posts that are, frankly, complete meaningless bollocks.

you refuse to talk about your own relationship experiences, yes talk in the general hyperthetical about how things should be, then loads of flannel about how it’s just a choice.

you talk like an AI that’s been asked to post a controversial opinion then defend it

You do you

lots of men on here like to control all the money

good luck love👍

I am my partner's equal, intellectually and financially.

Leadership in a relationship, to me, doesn’t mean control or issuing orders - it means initiative, direction and being able to carry the weight when needed. It looks like someone who steps up, who’s dependable, and who provides a sense of structure that allows the other person to lean into their own strengths.

That doesn’t mean there’s no teamwork - it just means we don’t have to mirror each other to function well. Some people like identical roles. Others prefer complementarity. I’m not asking anyone to adopt my dynamic - just explaining what I believe in.

As for work ethic - that’s quite an assumption to make from a few comments online. But I’ll leave that with you.

What the fuck is all this… energy/vibe/dynamic/bringing to the table stuff.

You sound like you went to Glastonbury one time, smoked a joint and have come back thinking you’re super kooky with all this ‘I’m doing life my own way man, I’m just soooo totally non conformist and won’t stand for split energy as it totally ruins my vibes’.

AND WHY HAVE YOU DESCRIBED THAT LEADERSHIP AS MASCULINE???

sorry to shout, you’re just not responding

Of course not. I’ve never said emotional intelligence or shared contribution in other areas doesn’t matter.

Wanting financial leadership in a relationship doesn’t mean tolerating emotional neglect or someone who does nothing at home - that would be a bad deal for anyone. I’m talking about alignment: each person showing up in the way that best plays to their strengths and values. That doesn’t mean one person does everything and the other does nothing. It means the partnership actually feels balanced, even if it’s not split 50/50 down the middle.

But what did you want to gain from posting?

You say you're happy with your boundaries, you stand firm in your convictions. What did you need to post for then?

I think in the olden days, we used to call this sort of thing 'having daddy issues'. Masculine provider energy is a less judgemental turn of phrase, perhaps, but i would bet my old boots that it's basically the same thing.

So literally....relationships are given and take? They're 50/50? Playing to each others strengths?

You've digested a relationship book and are now spouting it at people like you have all the answers?

Look you don’t want a man who shows up and takes an equal responsibility for the mental load and emotional contribution in a relationship.
that’s fine. You do you. But some of us want more from a man. We find it sexy that a man can provide and also contribute in the soft skills and domestic domain. And the men we find hot also find women who provide and also contribute the soft skills etc hot as well.

some of us just have higher standards than you do. We insist on a man having both and we are willing to also bring both to the table.

some women sadly don’t expect this and have to settle with a man who only brings one thing to the table. Or in some cases, nothing at all

I think we all take risks in relationships - including the risk that someone won’t value us beyond surface-level traits, no matter the dynamic. What I’m describing isn’t about “rinsing” or dependency - it’s about alignment. Some of us choose to be with partners who value what we bring outside of income and show that appreciation through financial leadership. That doesn’t make us passive or powerless, it just means we prioritise different forms of contribution.

Looks fade, sure, but so does charm, drive or ambition. The goal is to build with someone who sees your worth holistically, not conditionally.

This is a bunch of pure fanny

And me - 30 years happily married so we must be doing something right!

What if he’s also showing up emotionally, practically and also doing some of the invisible labour?

I think you're all being horrible. Why shouldn't AI seek love too?

What is this invisible labour?

I’m genuinely not saying men can’t do domestic or emotional labour - many do, and your relationship sounds like one where that balance works beautifully. What I am saying is that in many cases, the invisible load falls more heavily on women and that’s often overlooked when people argue for strict 50/50 financial contributions.

I’m not suggesting a rule for everyone - I’m describing a preference that aligns with my values and how I show up in a relationship. That doesn’t undermine equality - it reflects that people can value different contributions and choose dynamics that feel good to them. True equality is about having the freedom to choose, not one model being right for everyone.

😍

I wouldn’t and I don’t. My point wasn’t that women should carry more emotional labour but that many do, often by default. It becomes the norm in a lot of relationships without people realising the imbalance until it starts to feel draining. I think it’s fair to expect a partner to step up but it also means being honest about what kind of dynamic works for you - which for me includes clear roles, shared values, and mutual appreciation.

Exactly. She’ll come along and deny this with some wishy-washy brain-rot paragraph I’m sure, but it’s very evident that her view of the roles of men and women is so narrow that she can’t conceive that this could possibly be the case. Therefore, in her mind, the man MUST provide more financially instead in order to make up for his shortcomings from an emotional/support/home admin perspective.

You are describing an ancient and dusty 1950s style dynamic.
Hubby gets home and you have a martini prepared for him, a steak on the go, and your best frillies on in case he fancies a bit of the other. If you have to 'carry the emotional load' in a relationship whilst he earns the cash, then you are not in a relationship - you are a hooker with extras.

OP, you've tied yourself up in knots with your very muddled thinking. You appear to have very little understanding of healthy relationships which makes me think you're likely single.

Oh FFS.