SOTB!!! on Spotify


Speed ontheBeat Speed ontheBeat Author
Title: Rem's Rant: Put a Title on It
Author: Speed ontheBeat
Rating 5 of 5 Des:
Let's talk relationships. Specifically, let's talk "titles." Now, I've heard people saying "Oh, a bond is better ...
Let's talk relationships. Specifically, let's talk "titles." Now, I've heard people saying "Oh, a bond is better than the title." I've got to LOL at this.This sentiment is trash for a plethora of reasons. But, instead of calling you (the reader) "trash" for potentially agreeing, here are a few reasons why I personally don't agree. 

The applied logic involving a "title" not so much to define a relationship versus simply giving it an identity is the respective party's level of commitment. Whereas for a man to place a tag on his union is like the end all to the pursuit of all other women during the course of a relationship. This is in contrast to, from what I've observed, a woman's motive behind giving her union a name. I've learned over the years that there's always some divine form of planning when it comes to anything a woman does. And putting a name to her relationship is definitely one of those things. Correct me if I'm wrong--and I'd even welcome the scrutiny in the unlikely event--but for a woman to identify a man as her own he'd have to meet a series of requirements.

  1. What does HE have to offer?
  2. What is HE doing to better himself?
  3. How it all correlates to ME?

These 3 "simple" questions, believe it or not, will lead you down the path to relationship's perdition or paradise. That is because where your eyes see "simple," I see complex. There are no easy answers to these questions. This is why the general consensus surrounding relationships is that, "we just talk" or "he/she holds me down. So, there's no need for a title." I almost forgot my personal favorite: "What's understood doesn't have to be explained." These handles and ideas, when describing the extent of a union, will all send you straight to perdition even with the greatest of intentions.

As a prior serviceman, I know a thing or two about titles. You wouldn't go to work and do your job as the supervisor to be referred to as anything less. So, why does it suffice to put forth the active effort to be a significant other to have it downplayed and have you looked upon as just somebody I "talk" to? Do you think that the POTUS goes in to work every day as the Leader of the Free World to be addressed as just "Barack" or "Barry?" Of course not! His point of address is "Mr. President." 

And, I'm definite that he doesn't compromise that to appease those who call him something meaning less than he is worth. So why do we? No, really. Why do we?

I'd like to propose something. The underlining factor to it all, relationships, "titles," and so on, it has everything to do with commitment. Would you profess your love to the masses or are you too encapsulated by the facade that thinks everyone else's opinion is more valuable than that of the individual that you're guilty of investing in? Granted we've all been led to believe that titles mean nothing but in the event that infidelity is introduced need I remind you that it cannot exist without a handle. I can't "cheat" on a person that I have no tie to regardless of the unspoken agreement that's been established. So, fidelity and a title must coincide; it will surely be a factor in determining how a person responds to attention garnered by the opposing sex. In fact, at some point, it becomes absolutely necessary to tag a relationship to make it successful.

Post a Comment