SINGAPORE: In the city-state’s animated dating scene — think café-hopping along Tiong Bahru, spur-of-the-moment weekend excursions to JB, and treating each other to sumptuous dinners and Grab rides — romance frequently comes with a price tag. While spending on a partner is a normal chunk of contemporary relationships, a question gradually emerges: How much is too much?
One Redditor recently opened a Pandora’s box with an honest post about his own experience:
“My ex gradually started treating my money like it was her own… almost like she was entitled to a monthly allowance. It got to the point where I felt more like a provider than a partner. It became mentally and financially draining.”
That post struck a chord with many netizens. Some weighed in to say the answer isn’t as straightforward as a dollar amount; context matters.
“Spending $500 a month is very different for someone earning $3,000 versus someone earning $10,000,” one Redditor pointed out.
It’s not one-size-fits-all
One frequent idea in most of the comments was that relationships, like finances, should revolve around what’s sustainable for the individual.
“There’s no ‘right’ amount. Just spend what you’re comfortable with. Your partner shouldn’t be your provider, but you shouldn’t be stingy either,” another netizen shared, then concluded with “Spend within your means.”
For many Singaporeans who are navigating love in a city known to be extremely expensive means finding a pace that works for both partners, whether to pay separately, take turns, or balance costs based on individual strengths and contributions.
One commenter shared her approach: “Whoever picks up the bill just pays and doesn’t ask for money back. I usually handle groceries, and he pays for meals out or car maintenance. We don’t track who’s paying more — it just feels natural.”
The unspoken currency
Notwithstanding the different arrangements, one general truth surfaced. Open communication is key. Outlooks around or about money can change as relationships develop, and when they’re not responded to, bitterness grows.
“Just because someone is okay with a financial dynamic at the start doesn’t mean they’ll feel the same way a year later,” one Redditor said. “It’s important to check in and realign expectations.”
Another commenter shared how she and her partner steer differences in financial aptitude with emotional intelligence and support:
“I’m not able to contribute much financially right now, so I make up for it with household chores and other ways. People express love differently — some with money, some with acts of service.”
Financial boundaries – start early, stay clear
For some duos, clarity came early and on purpose. One female commenter shared how she and her now-husband laid the foundation during the dating stage:
“He was upfront about his financial boundaries from day one. We did a 50/50 split for dates and discussed money openly once we got serious. Now that we’re married, we keep our finances separate but divide expenses fairly — he tracks shared costs, and I cover my spending. We agreed on how to split things like the HDB loan and bills.”
When giving becomes too much
But what happens when one partner is giving too much, for too long? That’s when the bond risks shifting from partnership to dependency — or worse, entitlement.
The original poster’s narrative is a tale of unclear boundaries. What began as lavish acts of romance gradually turned into tacit expectations. It didn’t take long before he felt love was more like a transaction — one that left him emotionally washed out and financially stressed.
The bottom line
In a city like Singapore — where the cost of living can clamber fast — dating isn’t just about fondness and love; it’s also about alignment.
The strongest relationships aren’t demarcated by who pays for what, but by how willingly partners talk about it, and how equitably they manage it together. Whether you’re ordering bubble tea or making reservations for a Bali getaway, the real investment is in shared respect and communication.
After all, love might be priceless, but planning for it certainly isn’t.
