I was looking for the SlackJaw publication label as I read this but never found it. Instead, I found a series of replies noting that this is not, in fact, satire but a genuine attempt to define a partner only in terms of what they will do for you and should be in your eyes - save a nod to materialism in a wedding status flash reward. The use of 'we' shows an intention of mutualism, yet you describe ideal outcomes and relations that you alone have decided in advance. The discovery and dialogue process with a partner is most of the journey in my opinion. Dialogue is not debate nor compromise, but a discovery of confluence.

Your honesty is appreciated and your decision to put your vision out to the world's critics is notable. I struggle with my own filters in sharing introspection. If anything, this piece reveals more about your worldview than your ideal partner. Going upstream to humbly examine the assumptions and philosophy that led you here would be a sequel this meta-dialogue in the comments is calling for.