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