> Somebody who is fun to be with, who makes me feel good, warm, and fuzzy inside, who at times makes me feel safe and at other times dares me to go farther. Somebody who is willing to go to new depths of vulnerability together, so that I can trust that they see me, the whole me, even the crummy parts, and I can see them, the whole them, even the crummy parts, and be loved and accepted nonetheless.

Cool. If I had stated that I am like this, then someone else would've complained that this is overly romantic view and in reality a relationship is built with someone who can help with boring everyday tasks like doing the laundry or watching the kids. The point is, even if I were Jesus Christ himself, someone would find a flaw that makes me undateable in their opinion.

> This is transactional language.

Because all relationships are transactional. Welcome to adulthood. I don't really have time to argue with someone who still believes in Santa Claus.

> Living with another person who you enjoy living with, economically speaking, means splitting at least rent and electric bills (water bills are more linear with the number of people in the house), sometimes splitting a car payment (if you are a one-car household); when you split rent, you split the rent of the kitchen, the bathroom, the living room, and at least one bedroom, that are all shared. You eat better by cooking for two and sharing.

It's strange to me that you tell me not to be transactional, but then you point to money as an example of an advantage of being in a relationship, not emotional support. Also, there's a huge difference between "without a relationship, I'll literally starve to death" and "without a relationship, I'll go on holiday once a year instead of twice a year".

Something tells me that your view of relationships is incoherent at best.