The Game Insists $5k Minimum Every Two Weeks Is the Only Way to Take a Woman Seriously

When The Game, the rapper known as much for his musical hits as his unfiltered takes on life, weighed in on what it takes to “take a woman seriously,” social media didn’t just react—it erupted.

His assertion was simple, yet explosive: “$5,000 every two weeks is the bare minimum for any woman you intend to take serious.You should give her at least $7,000 to $12,000 every two weeks.” In Los Angeles, where money flows freely but standards often flow even faster, this statement struck a nerve.

It wasn’t merely a comment on dating—it was a declaration that has many asking uncomfortable questions about the intersection of wealth, romance, and gender expectations.

On the surface, The Game’s advice reads like a financial checklist, a spreadsheet disguised as relationship guidance.

But beneath that, there’s a storm of implications.

He frames monetary provision as the only way to demonstrate commitment, a controversial stance that has sparked outrage and curiosity alike.

Critics argue that it reduces intimacy to a transaction, as if devotion can be bought and measured in tens of thousands of dollars.

Supporters, however, point to Los Angeles’ exclusive circles and high-priced lifestyles, suggesting that perhaps, in such rarefied air, money does speak louder than love.

The debate intensified when clips of his interview began circulating on TikTok, Instagram, and Twitter.

Viewers dissected every word, some laughing, some gasping. The language The Game used was deliberate, almost provocative.

He emphasized that men who claim to love women but fail to meet these financial benchmarks are setting themselves—and the women they supposedly care about—up for failure.

“That’s the bare minimum. That’s low,” he said, drawing a line between casual dating and serious commitment.

The way he framed it made it impossible to ignore the economic realities that often underpin relationships in cities like Los Angeles, where rent alone can run into five figures, and the culture of display is relentless.

Public reaction was polarized.

Some argued that The Game was speaking to a truth rarely admitted out loud: that power, prestige, and money dominate romantic interactions in elite circles.

Others called it absurd, highlighting that the majority of relationships exist far from Hollywood mansions and luxury cars.

They questioned whether reducing women to financial recipients was even remotely ethical.

The tension lies not only in the numbers he suggested but in what they symbolize: influence, status, and the idea that love must be as extravagant as a celebrity lifestyle to be meaningful.

What makes the story more compelling—and more divisive—is that The Game’s advice is not just theoretical; it is framed as a prescription for exclusivity.

In his view, if a man cannot meet these financial standards, he is unworthy of pursuing a serious relationship.

This has led some commentators to brand the statement elitist, while others argue that he is simply being honest about what it takes to survive in certain social echelons.

The underlying suggestion is that men must invest heavily—not just emotionally, but monetarily—to prove their seriousness.

In a society where wealth often equates to value, The Game’s words resonate with a subset of those living in high-stakes, high-cost environments, and alienate those who see relationships as more than fiscal calculations.

Adding to the controversy, fans and critics alike dissected his phrasing.

The use of “bare minimum” implied that even the suggested $5,000 biweekly might be insufficient for those truly seeking to take a woman seriously.

Meanwhile, the escalation to $7,000–$12,000 painted an almost dystopian image of commitment, where love and money are inseparable.

This framing has led to heated online debates, with some arguing that The Game is normalizing transactional dynamics that could erode traditional romantic values, while others insist he is simply reflecting an uncomfortable truth about what it costs to maintain relationships at the highest social strata.

As discussions raged across social media, some commentators highlighted the gender dynamics at play.

The notion that women expect, or even require, such sums of money to be considered “taken seriously” has been dissected from multiple angles.

Feminists questioned whether this perpetuates stereotypes, while cultural critics examined how fame, wealth, and celebrity influence perceptions of what is “normal” in relationships.

The Game, intentionally or not, became a lightning rod for broader societal debates about money, gender, and status.

For the average person scrolling through their feeds, the story reads like a mix of scandal, advice, and absurdity.

There’s a thrill in seeing extreme wealth and relationship advice collide so openly, particularly when delivered by someone whose life is already lived in the public eye.

Yet beneath the spectacle lies a deeper tension: the line between reality and exaggeration, between aspirational and transactional, is blurred.

Whether one agrees or disagrees, the controversy forces a reflection on the values we attach to love, commitment, and social currency.

In the end, The Game’s statement does more than shock.

It compels readers to examine the uncomfortable truth about how society often equates financial power with relational legitimacy.

It also exposes the stark contrast between celebrity culture and everyday experience, and the ways that extreme wealth reshapes social norms.

Some may dismiss it as reckless or outlandish, others may see it as brutally honest guidance for a rarefied world few will ever enter.

What is undeniable, however, is that these comments have ignited a conversation far beyond the entertainment pages—one that challenges assumptions, invites debate, and keeps millions of viewers watching closely to see who will speak out next.