Relationship argument: "You don't want to hang out often as I do, so you don't care as much as I care." Is this a fallacy? If so, which is it?

Yes, this is a real life situation that I'm currently enduring. It "feels" like a fallacy, but I have no idea if it actually is. Is it a fallacy? If so, under what category does it fall?

This is typical testing a relationship. One party is trying to ascertain how much you care about them, in my view at least, not necessarily how much you care about being around them. In my experience the party needs reassurance that your level of care does not coincide with your want to be around them. I'm assuming the person who wants more "hanging out" is hinting at taking the relationship to the next level. Just be blunt. Lay your cards on the table and see what who wants from the relationship.

You have to parse the compound sentence; split it into its two declarative parts:

1. You don't want to hang out as often as I do.
2. You don't care as much as I care.

Statement #1 can easily be scientifically determined if it is true of false by talking to the "you" referred to in the sentence and asking him or her if statement #1 is true or false. (In the real world, how Statements 1 and 2 are interpreted depend largely on the context in which this conversation occurred and the body language of the person involved in declaring these statements.)

Statement #2 cannot be easily scientifically determined because it involves mind reading, which is impossible for Homo sapiens (except for Mr Spock and other Vulcans like him) at the present time.

If Statement #1 is true, then Statement #1 would be called a "Pacing Statement" or "Pacer" by those savvy in PSYOPS. Statement #2, on the other hand, would be called a "Leader Statement": It's a statement used to "lead" or manipulate one into thinking or feeling something and ultimately doing something. It's a technique of Mind Control. When you hear Statements 1 and 2, you need to say to yourself, "Crikey! I'm being gaslighted!" :D

“You don't want to hang out often as I do, so you don't care as much as I care.”
I generally prefer not to delve into the realm of the highly speculative (except when presenting alternative scenarios, consistent with Expected Value Theory outcomes) but will make an exception. Affairs of the heart are infrequent subjects for application of logic and logical reasoning within this forum and the opportunity to probe the presence of logical fallacy herein is too good to pass up.

Let’s parse the OP’s statement:

“You don’t want to hang out as often as I do” I believe this is clearly a proxy for “You don’t want to spend as much quality time with me, as I want to spend with you.” This could also be interpreted as “ I perceive that you’re spending less quality time with me than you used to spend” or “I want to spend MORE quality time with you than we’ve been spending together thus far.” (These distinctions are largely without difference.)

“….so you don’t care as much as I care.” The strong implication is that by your not wanting to spend more quality time together there exists an imbalance of emotional feelings. In other words, there is a tacit equivalence of quality time spent together with depth of reciprocal feelings, i.e., on the part of your Significant Other.

Combining the above we have, as re-stated: “You don’t want to spend as much quality time with me as I would like, thus I’m concerned that your feelings for me (and our evolving relationship?) aren’t as strong as are mine for you.”
Bringing this full circle, in the restated form I don’t think a tautology applies. I see no redundancy here. I don’t think we can discount the presence of a logical fallacy, specifically a non sequitur.

The validity of equating amount of time spent together with depth of shared emotional feelings is questionable and at the least, is personality subjective; I would argue that, generally speaking, the assumption of this condition constitutes a non sequitur. [After all, “Absence makes the heart grow fonder” (1602 – anonymous).]

In any event, if the previous analysis seems too astringent, perhaps Gene Pitney can best cut through it all: www.youtube.com/watch?v=C. . .