Lady Sparks Outrage As She Sets ₦100,000 Minimum For Hair Money From Potential Partner
A Nigerian lady has sparked reactions on social media after declaring that she would block a man who offered her ₦50,000 to make her hair, insisting that her minimum expectation was ₦100,000.
According to Bush Radio Academy, the lady made the statement in a video shared on X, formerly known as Twitter, where she discussed her financial expectations in relationships and urged men to pursue partners whose demands they could comfortably afford.
She explained that women have different expectations when it comes to financial support from their partners, noting that while some might appreciate receiving ₦5,000, ₦10,000 or ₦20,000 for their hair, such amounts would not meet her personal standards.
The lady maintained that any man who intended to pursue a relationship with her would need to understand her expectations, adding that she would not consider someone who could not provide at least ₦100,000 for her hair.
“If you’re still toasting me and give me ₦50K to make my hair, I’m going to block you. That’s why we say men should be with women within their reach, or whatever it’s called,” she said.
She further argued that offering her less than ₦100,000 for her hair would make her question the man’s ability to take care of her in a relationship.
“For me, if you give me anything less than ₦100K to get my hair done, nah. I feel like you cannot take care of me. You cannot even be my partner, honestly,” she added.
The lady also claimed that her boyfriend understood her financial expectations and would not offer her an amount below what she considered acceptable.
However, she advised men against stretching themselves financially to impress women, urging them instead to seek partners whose expectations matched their financial capacity.
Her remarks have reignited conversations on social media about financial expectations in relationships, the cost of maintaining personal appearances and the balance between romantic gestures and financial compatibility.
Comments
0 comments