The latest social-media firefight started, as these things often do, with something embarrassingly small. A man saw a woman eating alone at a restaurant. He approached, exchanged a few pleasantries, grabbed her number, and went home feeling like he had bagged a win. Hours later, his simple “Hi, it’s Henry…” text was met with hostility potent enough to peel paint. Her grievance? He did not pay for her food.
Not a date. Not a plan. Not a promise. Just a random meeting that apparently should have included a debit alert.
The screenshots went viral, of course, because nothing excites Nigerians quite like a gender-war skirmish. The man shared their chat; someone dramatised it into a skit; the internet picked sides; and before long, half the country was either defending “female expectations” or diagnosing “modern entitlement syndrome.”
The entire exchange was bizarre. The woman insisted that courtesy demanded he pick up the tab. The man insisted he was not hired to provide charity for strangers. She called it chivalry. He called it madness. And Nigerians, ever ready to turn private embarrassment into public discourse, turned it into a national referendum.
But underneath the memes and the mockery lies a deeper cultural malfunction that nobody wants to admit: our dating landscape is a battlefield of mismatched expectations, over-corrections, and economic fatigue.
Somewhere along the way, we veered off the traditional road and found ourselves in a no-man’s land where both genders want the perks of old systems but none of the responsibilities.
Women fought for economic independence, and rightly so. Nobody wants to be financially trapped in a relationship. But independence also came with a subtle side effect: some women are tired. Tired of carrying both the financial and emotional labour of life. And in that fatigue, some have embraced a new gospel: “I make my own money, but I still want to be catered to.”
On the other side, many men are stuck in a corporate identity crisis. They’re expected to be traditional providers in an economy where even the traditional provider can’t provide for himself comfortably. They’re paying bills in a country where salaries don’t keep up with inflation. And now, even greeting a woman comes with financial liabilities.
This is what happens when societal systems evolve, but expectations remain fossilised. The result? A generation where some women don’t want to cook, clean, or play homemaker, and that’s perfectly fine, but still expect men to shoulder all costs.
Meanwhile, some men now see dating as a hostile takeover and retreat into hyper-frugality. The two camps are locked in a competitive dance of “Who brings what to the table?” while the table itself is shaking under the economy. The Henry incident simply exposed what has been simmering all along.
Let’s call it what it is: entitlement is now a currency. It’s traded, negotiated, justified, and monetised. Some women expect financial investment from men they barely know. Some men expect submission, domesticity, and emotional labour from women they haven’t earned. Everyone is demanding ROI before the relationship even begins. And the truth? It works for some people.
Some women have entire lifestyles bankrolled by men, married men, single men, men with legitimate income, and men with questionable streams. Some men genuinely enjoy spending because their identity is tied to providing. Some women offer absolutely nothing beyond aesthetics, and it is enough for the men who want exactly that. Some men have nothing to offer except money, and it is enough for the women who want exactly that.
It’s a parasitic partnership that somehow manages to be symbiotic. Everybody eats. Everybody is (or seems) satisfied.
So while we roll our eyes at the “pay my bill because you collected my number” crowd, we must admit that for a subset of society, this formula works. The problem is not the system. The problem is that the rest of us get dragged into a playbook we never signed up for.
Let’s be honest, money has now become the primary relational KPI. People don’t date humans anymore; they date lifestyles. “What can you do for me?” replaced “Do you have good intentions for me?” long ago.
And because social media now functions as the HR department of dating, people curate unrealistic standards borrowed from influencers who don’t even fund their own lives. Suddenly, love must be sponsored. Romance must be underwritten. Even a simple conversation is now an invoiceable event.
That viral incident gained traction because everyone recognised the symptom: fear. Fear that dating is now an ambush. Fear that someone is about to guilt-trip you into financial obligations you never budgeted for. Fear that vulnerability now requires receipts.
If a simple greeting now comes with a bill, imagine what an actual date might cost. Actually, you don’t even need to imagine; some women already demand new clothes, fresh hair, and cab fares to show up for the man who will, of course, fund the entire date. The easy solution would be to ask women to stop expecting random men to pay for things. But entitlement is profitable, and profitable behaviours rarely die.
The other solution would be to ask men to stop engaging women they can’t “afford.” But many men actually want to impress women financially.
The real solution is uncomfortable but necessary: we need to reset expectations.
If you want a traditional provider, embrace traditional responsibilities. If you want independence, don’t weaponise it. If you want a financial partnership, communicate it. If you want chivalry, understand it comes with reciprocation, not entitlement.
Everyone has the right to their preferences, but not at the expense of another person’s sanity.
That woman wanted ‘courtesy’. He wanted boundaries (at least let me know you before I spend on you). However, the message is clear: dating has become a marketplace, and the price of admission is rising.
If we don’t recalibrate, even a simple “Hi” will soon come with a charge.
