Love Don't Cost a Thing

But Women Keep Paying For It

Mar 07, 2025

Introduction: Love Should Not Cost Women Their Financial Autonomy

Love should not come at the cost of a woman’s financial independence. The risk is high, and the rewards are not guaranteed.

Society—across cultures, genders, and sexual orientations—conditions women to believe that financial sacrifice is part of love. Merging finances, splitting resources, and binding economic fate to a partner is framed as the natural next step in commitment. This expectation is not neutral. It is shaped by heteronormative financial norms that dictate who provides, who sacrifices, and who loses the most when relationships fail.

We see this across all relationship structures. In heterosexual relationships, women are expected to take on unpaid labor, absorb financial burdens, and sacrifice economic opportunities for their partners. In queer relationships, gendered power dynamics still manifest, with femmes and women often taking on more financial risk. The expectation that financial decisions should align with romantic commitments keeps women financially vulnerable, trapped in relationships longer than they should be, or delaying personal goals for the sake of a shared financial future. Women are expected to prioritize romance in ways that jeopardize their long-term earning potential.

But what if we rejected this model entirely? What if financial security wasn’t tied to partnership at all?

Personal Observations: The Financial Risks of Enmeshment

Financial enmeshment is often framed as a symbol of trust and commitment. But what if real trust and commitment meant protecting each other’s independence rather than merging everything into a joint fate?

Many women who make financial decisions within a relationship find that their entire economic reality revolves around their partner. You decide where to live based on their job. Your income contributes to shared expenses, reducing your ability to build wealth independently. Your social life, mobility, and career opportunities become entangled with the relationship’s financial structure.

And if the relationship ends? You don’t just lose love. You lose stability, housing, resources, and, sometimes, the ability to leave safely.

Women are significantly more likely to postpone or avoid leaving relationships due to financial constraints. And that’s not just in extreme cases of financial abuse—this happens in everyday relationships where financial reliance makes separation harder than it should be. Love should not require women to sacrifice their ability to walk away freely.

The Research: Financial Dependence and Its Consequences

This isn’t just anecdotal—it’s backed by data.

Nearly one-third (29%) of women feel trapped in relationships due to financial dependence (Financial Reporter).
Financial abuse is present in 94-99% of abusive relationships (About Financial Abuse).
Lesbian and bisexual women experience intimate partner violence at higher rates than straight women (44% of lesbians and 61% of bisexual women) (Patterns of IPV and Perpetration Among Sexual Minority Women).
Women’s financial satisfaction increases when they manage their own money, while men’s satisfaction increases when they control the couple’s finances.
(Psychology Today)

When women’s financial stability depends on their partners, a power imbalance results that dictates everything—from daily decisions to long-term freedom.

A Broader Critique: Heteronormative Capitalism and the Flow of Resources

Financial enmeshment doesn’t just impact individual women—it reinforces broader systems of inequality.

We are socialized to believe that merging finances with a partner is smart or natural. But this system funnels resources into certain relationships at the expense of others.

Our choice of partner dictates who gains financial security, stability, and mobility—and who loses it.
Race, gender expression, class, desirability, and social capital shape how relationships distribute resources.
Women and femmes, regardless of their partner’s gender, are more likely to invest emotional, financial, and unpaid labor into their relationships, further concentrating wealth and security in the hands of those with more structural power.

This is by design. Heteronormative capitalism depends on women aligning their financial security with their romantic relationships—because it ensures that women’s labor, care work, and financial resources remain tied to intimate partnerships rather than redistributed in ways that challenge the system. It further concentrates resources in some areas while siphoning them from others.

Reimagining Financial Decision-Making Beyond Romance

What if women stopped centering romantic relationships in financial decision-making?

Instead of pooling resources into a nuclear household, what if we built economic networks with other women, queer communities, and chosen families?
Instead of structuring financial priorities around a partner, what if we prioritized political investments, community wealth-building, and mutual aid?
Instead of assuming love = financial merging, what if we shifted the definition of commitment to include protecting one another’s autonomy and security?

True financial security for women doesn’t come from choosing the right partner. It comes from structuring economic decisions outside of romance altogether.

Love should never require financial sacrifice, and for too many women, it still does.

Bibliography

Combahee River Collective. "The Combahee River Collective Statement."

Accompanying Playlist: Love Costs

Killer Instinct

Discussion about this post