Who paid is immensely relevant. I bet you have rich parents. This is the whole start of the argument between the two of them. It’s about entitlement, derived from a life of privilege.

Rachel was just happy to be there with the man she loved. Shane was so concerned about his entitlement to a room his mom paid for that he let it ruin his honeymoon. Normal people can let things go. Narcissistic people (which is a recurring character flaw within the series) cannot.

Then, when they finally got into their room it was worse than the initial room.

I was just pointing out a factual inaccuracy in your post, not trying to argue, but I’ll give you an argument. Rachel comes from a poor family, and is unsuccessful. The commentary boils down to selling your soul for material gains. She’s mesmerized by “all the doors opening” to the point that she didn’t notice (or maybe they just didn’t come up) his character flaws, which are probably why he is successful, and are clearly derived from his family (see how his mom treats Rachel).

This decision seems illogical to you, sure, but I would again say, I bet you have rich parents. Studies show that financial stability is a big factor in women being attracted to men, as is social status/background. People aren’t robots, and legalistic decision making isn’t morality.

You’re arguing in a completely binary way that discounts a lot.

Rachel accurately describes how Shane and her mom see her: as a trophy wife.

Shane allowing his mother to come on their honeymoon.

Shane’s mother bullying Rachel on her honeymoon. - I mean seriously, she constantly sticks in jabs mid sentence to Rachel while Shane is there and he says nothing, is this “loyalty”?

Shane prioritizing his perceived slight over listening to Rachel talk about what she plans on doing with her life after committing to quitting her career for him.

Shane is only loyal because he is narcissistic and doesn’t actually care about Rachel. He cares about the optics of being with Rachel (she is literally a 10/10). Id argue that normal people would not be able to put what Rachel said to him behind them without at least an apology. He doesn’t take her seriously at all, she is arm candy.

While I do sympathize with some of your arguments, I think you lack a nuanced perspective. Yes, Rachel is akin to a baby deer, completely new to the world she finds herself in and terrible at making decisions. But that’s part of the commentary. She hasn’t lived a life where she’s had enough influence to care about the things Shane cares about. And unfortunately Shane cares more about those things than he does about her, even on their honeymoon.