having been an avid Love Island watcher, the default question the contestants ask one another is: "what's your type?"


in the past 10 months, three weeks, five days, 21 hours and 18 minutes that yours truly has been single, i have come to really refine my life of requirements for a future significant other. apparently, i am (quote/unquote) demanding for even owning such a list but i believe there ought to always be a profile requirement for who can get the job done and done well, darling.


requirement #1: must be roman catholic.
this pretty much goes without saying. practising or not, the sole purpose of my being in a relationship will end in marriage and i do have my heart unassailably set on fulfilling the sacrament of marriage ergo, should the interested party not already be roman catholic, this will be an automatic disqualification.


requirement #2: must not rely on me to be the primary income earner.
i am not of the extreme where i would explicitly stipulate the range of income i would require my significant other to be earning. truth be told, this would probably be more to do with one's generosity and self-awareness of one's role within the relationship. i might be hideously "traditional" in requiring this but i am simply not for being the primary breadwinner in the family. that is that.


requirement #3: must be immensely respectful of me.
requires no drawn out elaboration, i believe.


requirement #4: must be family oriented.
in saying this, i do not mean that he must want to sire children of his own. it is completely fine for men to admit to never wanting offspring but being family oriented to me means staying close to family—spending time with parents, siblings, nieces and nephews and always wanting to come home to me.


requirement #5: must be taller than me.
and finally, here is one for the aesthetics department. ideally, i would want for my significant other to be at least six feet tall but as this is purely for vanity's sake, i would be happy to accept anybody who is taller.


these are non-negotiable for me. any and everything else is (pastel pink) icing.


now, dealbreakers.


i suppose the clause For Better Or For Worse is meant to circumscribe that the relationship once agreed to and undertaken, should not, must not and cannot be terminated. howbeit, my view on this is very simply that, either party should always and must always love and respect themselves first and foremost and should a blatant clear and direct breach occur on any initial agreed upon terms and conditions, it is already an unmistakable non-verbal indication that the wish is to terminate the bond. with that, respect should be given to honour said party's decision. though i would never enter into a relationship with one foot constantly out the proverbial emergency exit, every building is built in with a fire escape for valid reason.


the two things i have zero tolerance for are cheating and abuse in any way, shape or form. in the past, i had been (far) too lenient with the constitution of what actions would be classified as such. now with a lot more experience and indisputable clarity, i am proud to say that i have made improvements in assertively enforcing this. based on my last relationship, i did falter but i am so much more equipped now to be unapologetic with my rejections. good thing it only took a whole decade! truth be told, the more time passes, the more i am uncertain i will actually be married because as mentioned, i have been told on more than one occasion that my requirements are excessive. that in and of itself is already telling of how low the quality of available men are in this day and age and i never have been the sort to succumb to low quality—and i never will. if it will mean that i die alone and cold, so be it. the cold has never bothered me anyway.