In a recent episode of the show “Sharing Life Issues”  The Open Mic Edition, hosted by Damaris,” the topic of relationship allowances sparked a spirited discussion. The question at the heart of the matter was whether giving your partner a monthly allowance is a good idea or not.

The conversation unveiled a fascinating array of perspectives from both the show’s guests and its listeners. Among the many voices, one young man’s dilemma stood out. He shared that his girlfriend was demanding a monthly allowance of 20,000 Naira because her friend’s boyfriend was giving her 30,000 Naira every month, the catch? He was earning just 60,000 Naira monthly. The pressure was on, and he faced a daunting ultimatum: pay up or face a breakup.

It’s clear that the concept of relationship allowances divides opinions. On one side, some question the relevance of such allowances. Lydia from Uyo wonders why a capable and respectable woman would demand financial support in a relationship, suggesting that it might indicate a lack of seriousness or commitment. To her, financial assistance should be voluntary, not mandatory.

Mr. Sam, in a text message, echoed this sentiment, suggesting that relationships should be built on mutual giving rather than resemble a financial transaction.

Apostle Effiwatt raised a critical point, emphasizing that being in a relationship should be about shared goals and a shared future. If one partner starts seeing the other as a source of income rather than a life companion, it raises questions about the relationship’s true nature.

Mr. Ukeme Umoh emphasizes that when entering a relationship, both parties come together with the intention of building something meaningful. It’s not a scenario where one person becomes an employee, paid to simply exist in the relationship. He fondly recalls his mother’s wisdom, stating that genuine love is synonymous with giving – it’s a mutual exchange of affection and support. For Mr. Umoh, a healthy relationship thrives on reciprocal benefits. However, when one individual insists on being compensated, it transforms the relationship dynamic into something resembling employment rather than a genuine connection.

May Wellington and Mr. Dachief Umoh echoed similar sentiments, expressing discomfort with the notion of relationship allowances. They argued that love should entail mutual support and care, not financial transactions.

Ms. May argues that it’s unnecessary to demand a monthly allowance because, in a relationship, a man will naturally provide for his partner if he possesses the financial means to do so. And

Mr. Dachief Umoh expresses his viewpoint, emphasizing that, from his perspective, the idea of providing a monthly allowance doesn’t align with his understanding of relationships. He firmly believes that he doesn’t owe anyone money as long as marriage isn’t involved. For him, giving financial support should be based on genuine need and not an entitlement mentality. He prefers a dynamic where assistance is given when it’s needed, rather than committing to a monthly allowance. Mr. Umoh emphasizes that a relationship involves two individuals collaboratively addressing their respective needs. It should be a symbiotic partnership where both parties contribute to fulfilling each other’s requirements.

Throughout the discussion, a recurring question emerged: Do women also provide financial support for their partners in relationships? The men wondered if this was a one-sided expectation.

In the end, the debate left us pondering: If so many people, including guests and callers, are against relationship allowances, who are the individuals actually paying them? It’s a complex issue that continues to challenge our understanding of love, commitment, and financial dynamics in relationships.

Written by Maris ‘Damaris’ Iloka.