But you also ‘give’ her money because you make more (or all)? So when you break up, she doesn’t live on the street? Even if she is the one that does the breaking? If it’s not 50/50 as in married/no prenup, you are valuing her to some amount you made up (together?); even if it’s only x% of spending, that’s also a valuation. Is there a yearly inflation correction? Balance of power is firmly in the corner of the largest earner: cannot see how this is healthy.

True! Another reason why we need a more egalitarian society. If all the high earners are men, relationships are gonna be doomed with financial asymmetry. I think that sucks.

Unless you go the trad, Islamic route and say, "Yeah, this is my domestic slave." I think that sucks even more.

Really? You don't see how it might be healthier if someone arbitrarily making more money because other industries are undervalued doesn't force their partner to share half the expenses while they live comfortably? If my partner is making 2k a month and has to pay half their income for our rent, that seems way more stressful to them than the potential "balance of power" if I chip in more (because I can?).

You're thinking a little too hard about it, and it comes off like this nickel and diming is gonna kill a relationship more than the financial asymmetry itself. We've talked through expectations through the relationship and what happens if we break up, and we're both happy. You have so many question marks I don't know what's rhetorical or what isn't, but no, she's not gonna be homeless if we break up because she has a career.

> you are valuing her to some amount you made up (together?)

We just pay for rent and shared expenses proportionally to our income. We don't monitor it super closely, rent is always your biggest expense, so it's not a big deal if I pay for dinner once or she does.

And to say my relationship is unhealthy because of this really shows your world view. Maybe a relationship is all about money to you, but we value each other for reasons beyond that.