I also believe as you do. I am not a single parent, but I am far from being well off financially. I also have a preference for paying my way. If I had to say no to an activity because it was out of my financial capabilities, I would feel uncomfortable. I would also feel that they may think, that I am fishing for them to offer to pay my way. Neither scenario would work for me.

Tell him what you're telling us. Talk it out.

I think that would depend on the person. I'm guessing that being the case, they would want to go places and do more things than I would want to ?

It's worked out that I have always been sole breadwinner in my relationships (or nearly so) and so I can provide the counter-perspective here. A man earning six figures is going to have concerns about being regarded as a sugar daddy. However, we can spot it from miles away and it's pretty easy to tell the difference between an opportunist and someone who's just not in a good place financially at the moment. Your job is to make sure money doesn't become a vehicle to rope you into a bad relationship, or to keep you down. Also, that the man does not automatically judge financial hardship as "all your fault somehow". If the man is not a political or religious conservative, he probably won't.

My first two wives had disabilities and so had little choice to rely on my income. A downside of that is that there's a psychological tendency to have a love-hate relationship with the man's financial independence and your dependence upon it, which tends to make one feel infantalized even if the man doesn't use it in that way. For my part, I made sure to be transparent and fully share financial decisions and refer to our money as "ours", etc. My attitude is that it is "ours" no matter its source. After all, post-retirement, no one is earning money and it's still "ours". The only exception would be if my partner were immature or irresponsible with money and chronically made frivolous or wasteful expenditures; but that's a completely separate issue from any of the above, and frankly I wouldn't be in a lasting relationship with someone like that to begin with.

As for my current relationship, she was stuck in a profession that she did not like, and I gave her space to find work that was nourishing to her soul, just as she did for her first husband when he was pursuing his graduate degree. This ended up being largely volunteer work, and I'm fine with that. She's self-actualized and I just regard her as doing the lion's share of "giving back" to society in the relationship while I shore up our retirement nest egg. It's an excellent division of labor. She still makes some $$ and it's enough to cover our vacations, and that helps her feel productive too. Also she once was a six-figure wage earner herself, so it helps her to know what she's capable of.

So to me, income mismatch is not inherently a problem, it's differences in how one regards and utilizes money. You need a similar level of wants and needs and of ability for delayed gratification, similar attitudes towards wealth and debt management, etc. And you need mutual commitment to gender equality and similar views on gender roles and relationship roles. If those things are in place then income disparity is not in my view a practical, insurmountable, or even big problem.

The person who invites another person on a romantic date pays. If he doesn't, I just leave and never contact him again. I have enough on my plate without paying for the company of some guy. If he wants to be with me, he can pay, or I'm much better off single.

Be open about it. He will understand. And if he wants your company, and invites you, he should pay. You invite him and you pay.

Be open about it. He will understand. And if he wants your company, and invites you, he should pay. You invite him and you pay.

if i were to ask you anywhere it wouldn't be because i needed somebody to pay half...