The discussion is not just about who pays for dinner, but how the relationship is understood when money is involved: tradition and 'chivalry' versus equality and co-responsibility. In several videos, Morant argues that 'gestures' like inviting and paying for everything have been lost, stating that for him, loving means 'giving' and assuming the role of provider.
The fine line between being traditional and falling into a model that many voices consider sexist lies in whether the economic role is fixed by gender, reinforcing an asymmetrical relationship.
Critics of this stance do not question generosity but the implicit message that can reinforce a power dynamic where one party has greater decision-making capacity. Feminism has emphasized the need for care and finances not to fall by default on one side, ensuring that no one feels subordinate due to economic reasons.
Experts point out that any agreement on expenses must be real, negotiated, free, and reviewable, not an imposed norm or a social expectation. Otherwise, money can become a mechanism of control or a source of dependency within the couple.
The controversy has served to highlight the importance of financial transparency. The option of distributing expenses proportionally to each person's income (for example, 70-30) is increasingly gaining ground, as this prevents one party from being financially strained and ensures the system does not generate resentment or inequality.
