yes I know what you mean here although I am worry, for some reason, about the narrow specifics: the role is essentially a liturgical one and can perhaps only make real sense when seen in the light of the church as a whole.
The words in psalm 45 (44)especially in the second half are often used, call to me every time I read them.

Listen, O daughter, give ear to my words:
forget your own people and your father's house.
So will the king desire your beauty;
he is your lord, pay homage to him.

And the people of Tyre shall come with gifts,
the richest of the peoples shall seek your favor.
The daughter of the king is clothed with splendor,
her robes embroidered with pearls set in gold.

She is led to the king with her maiden companions.
They are escorted amid gladness and joy;
they pass within the palace of the king.

I also find reverberations in the Torah's rules for the tribe of the levites (descendants of Levi, son of Jacob). God makes it clear that these people, who are given all the priestly functions around the ark of the covenant and the sacrifices, are to be given no inheritance in the promised land: everything they have is to be given them by the other 11 tribes. [links there also, perhaps, with the Hindu monks who live by begging alone and with the original Franciscans who gave everything they had away . . . .]

There is also a very practical consideration because the monastic or eremitic life involves a great deal of silence and prayer which make one-to-one relationship in the normal sense extremely difficult unless the partner shares the same liturgical life. There is a point where liturgy and practicality meet.

Not coming from a believing or Catholic family has meant that I have battled all my life with this notion of 'vocation' although I must be careful not to blame them. I think my year of chronic illness has helped me come to terms with this in unexpected ways.