We’re financially compatible — trust us, it matters more than sex!

By Jean-Claude Chalmet, as told to Anna Maxted for The Times, 16 January 2026.

Couples fight over money more than sex. The therapist Jean-Claude Chalmet on how to avoid financial incompatibility — and four writers on how they split the bills

Love starts a relationship, but money can determine whether or not it survives. No wonder new research shows that financial compatibility with a partner is as crucial as sexual compatibility, and money causes more rows than sex. It’s true that under financial stress, there’s more danger of love fading because we yearn for security. But even if you have plenty of money, if you can’t agree on how it’s divided, saved or spent, it’s a safe bet that sex will also be in short supply.

In that sense, compatible approaches to money are even more important than sex because consistently being at financial odds is so corrosive to love and desire. Whether it’s one partner’s reckless overspending causing stress or debt, the deliberate use of money to control the other, or resentment over a disparity in earnings and status, money issues kill lust.

Don’t brush money issues under the carpet

When I discuss relationship finances with couples in my practice, certain issues arise again and again, such as a lack of transparency, and fears and expectations around spending and saving that have never been discussed and often remain taboo. Some use money to regulate their emotions, or to maintain a certain power structure in the couple where one is subordinate and controlled — how they organise their finances can reflect how safe or invested they feel in the relationship.

The key questions you need to ask yourselves — and each other

In my clinic, I ask both partners: what does money represent to you in emotional terms — freedom, safety, control or love? What would you be most afraid of if you fully shared your finances with your partner — or if your finances were fully separate?

Whatever model you have chosen, is it serving your relationship, or is it protecting you from it? Is your relationship transactional or emotion-led? What are you in it for? Love without money can be powerful but fragile. Money without love may be stable but empty. It can survive, but it comes at the cost of your soul. The truth, I often find, is that financial and emotional intimacy mirror each other.

Sharing everything can be bonding — but also overwhelming

With one shared bank account only, you create a sort of “we-ness”. For me, that signifies huge relational trust and confidence in having the same long-term goals. These couples experience themselves as a team rather than as two separate units. It’s very grounding and powerfully bonding. But for others, it might feel overwhelming or engulfing.

Are you a couple — or are you roommates?

For couples who have individual accounts only, it’s always interesting to me how they deal with expenses. Is it 50:50 or proportional to incomes? They often tell me they need their “independence” or “personal identity”. I see this most often with people who’ve suffered a divorce where they got financially screwed or there was financial abuse in a previous relationship.

The advantage is that there’s no conflict on spending or control. Each one does what they want. The other can’t say “I think you overspent” or “Did you have to buy that?” Many couples in the therapy room feel that it fosters equality rather than dependency. However, I always say: “Watch out, are you a couple or are you roommates?” Because very often, subconsciously, they are scorekeeping, or there’s some form of competition.

If they want independence and self-sufficiency, I say go for it. But you have to have a really solid, mutually pleasing agreement on who contributes what, and I suggest that it’s proportional to earnings. I really push these couples on how secure and trusting they feel in the relationship because the dynamic around money is often a barometer for emotional intimacy.

If one person earns more, it may lead to tension

As for the hybrid — couples who have a shared account and separate accounts of their own, I find this is good for connection and autonomy. It allows for individuality, yet it doesn’t dominate the relationship dynamic. It comes with its own challenges, though. If one is the bigger earner, there can be tension — will the lower earner be able to count on the higher earner if there’s a big expense or something goes awry?

Are arguments about money hiding a deeper problem?

While lack of money, just like lack of sex, can often be the death knell for a relationship, time and time again, I have seen that the more money there is in the relationship (especially when there’s a huge difference in earnings), the fewer emotional returns there may be. Couples get caught up in buying houses, travel, and holidays — but don’t focus on the relationship they share.

When couples fight about money, they need to ask themselves: are they fighting about the matter at hand, or what money represents in their relationship? Is it control versus trust? Is it material versus emotional investment? Is it security versus freedom?

Of course, how couples arrange their finances is deeply personal. What suits the Smiths might not suit the Joneses. But if people ask me, “How do you see the relationship between love and money?” I always say: “In a relationship, love is essential. Money is contextual. But alignment between the two is everything.”