This is not an offer but it is related to marketplace norms.

Bryan Caplan argues that romantic relationships are the last refuge of the just price theory. Relationships are expected to "equal" in that both parties the burdens and benefits are split equally. If I do the dishes, my partner is expected to sweep the floor. If I pick which restaurant we go to tonight, my partner gets to pick next week.

I'm wondering if LWers would react if, hypothetically, they were offered the chance to be in an "unequal" relationship. Let's say you are looking for a long-term mate. A particular brilliant and attractive mate, the kind that would normally be "out of your league" offers you the following terms:

• You do 70% of the housework.
• You pay for 70% of the household expenses, even though you are both earn the same amount.
• 70% of the time, they get to decide what happens on date nights. (ex. which movies to watch, what restaurant to eat at)

Would you consider this offer, weighing the value of an attractive mate verses the costs of an unequal relationship? Or would you be offended that this person differed you an unequal relationship, when clearly only equal relationships can be just?

Conversely, suppose a mate who was normally "below your league" offers to reverse the deal: you only do 30% of the house work, ect. Would you be consider a lopsided arrangement with an unattractive mate, or would you reject it out of hand as being exploitative?