You're on the side where what you give each other is in total alignment: you enjoy their sex and companionship, and they enjoy yours. You're not in the place the provider is, where he provides resources in exchange for sex. The equivalent exchange the lover engages in is a far healthier exchange; you can maintain this as the alpha provider, too, so long as you continually deemphasize provision (and it is just 'there' as a part of the relationship, rather than the main event) and refuse to allow women to renegotiate the relationship as a 'provision-for-sex' arrangement.
You know what else we call a provision-for-sex arrangement? It's the deal you make with sex workers. On a risk-adjusted basis, sleeping with high-end escorts is a lot cheaper than being a provider. I think this frame should be made abundantly clear whenever women propose that 'renegotiation'. But it's not just about money, it's about time as well because money is ultimately the ability to buy another person's time. It happens a lot in marriage where the woman asks you to do chores (which is generally something that's tradable for money) and she'll give you sex in return. As soon as that arrangement is accepted the relationship is instantly doomed.