Goldenpupik: the only boich svara here is yours. You are taking that Tosefos grossly out of context.
What is Tosefos’ kasha? In this case, his opening line reveals the implicit kasha: why can’t the man claim that the woman’s luck caused her to be sick (and therefore he shouldn’t have to feed her)?
The first answer accepts the validity of the kasha and says because since she’s not obligated in pru u’rvu, she can’t be punished (in other words, there’s no mitzvah for her to marry).
The second answer, per Tosefos’ M.O., rejects the validity of the kasha. A woman is her husband’s field and not the other way around, which in this case means that the obligation is on the man to feed the woman, not on the woman to be fed by the man.
This has nothing to do with ishto k’gufo. I don’t know your husband, and I’m not impugning his status, but in this case what you have said in his name is wrong.
Additionally, in light of the explanantion of this Tosefos, your “stira” in your second post doesn’t begin.