Equity speech warning lol
Often, when party 1 (say you in this case) gives more than party 2 (her) gives back,
My read on the OP was so much more than a lack of sex or sexual desire but maybe I was reading more into it than what he intended?
Also, I don't understand how you can argue with a reduction which
I agree with Glen.
I think he has a better chance of getting the change he wants if he works WITH her to get it, instead of taking away from her in some bizarre attempt to manipulate the situation into "fairness and equity"
Miranda wrote: "I won't ever see the relationship
between intimate partners to be the kind of "business deal" you do. I
just don't operate that way. I give, because it brings me happiness to
do so. I would hope that my partner would give to me for the same
reason. Just because he doesn't give in the same way that I would, or
in the way that I would prefer, does not mean that his giving is less,
and that I should reduce my giving nature in response to it. Intimate relationships are not "tit-for-tat" arrangements, and when the score keeping starts, the love is gone, imo."
Read up on 'tit-for-tat' before you judge it. The simple meaning of 'equivalent retaliation' doesn't quite do it justice.
"Reciprocal altruism works in animal communities where the cost to the benefactor in any transaction of food, mating rights, nesting or territory is less than the gains to the beneficiary. The theory also holds that the act of altruism should be reciprocated if the balance of needs reverse. Mechanisms to identify and punish "cheaters" who fail to reciprocate, in effect a form of tit for tat, is an important mechanism to regulate reciprocal altruism."
Tit for tat, that is a slippery slope.