Competition between OW & BW

[Dexter Morgan]

So, I was reading another thread and realized that I was interested enough in this topic to start a thread.

 

In my opinion, women are a very competitive lot. I work almost totally with men, so possibly I see the competition between women in a little different light - but when I'm placed into a temporary location/position for a few weeks/months and interact mostly with women instead of men, it's always a huge adjustment as the competition can be most uncomfortable.

 

Though I think the WS "put" the OW & BS into competition with each other in a specific relationship, basically I believe that many (most?) women are simply competitive - for many things but often for the attention of men.

 

My husband and I have gone to parties and I'll watch (some) other women and how they approach my husband. They are definitely in "competition" with me for his attention. He hasn't done a blessed thing, other than be there. He says this never happens when I'm not around... (obviously I only have his word for this - as I'm not around to see it ).

 

And I do believe that some women are into the competition of attracting married men, not necessarily because of the man, but rather because he is married. Some prefer MM because of not wanting commitment, true. But I believe there is often a competitive factor as well.

 

JMO - comments?

 

I would never be in competition with OM. The prize to compete for isn't worth winning, so OM can have it.

[atlnay]

I once new a girl who was having an affair who said she found it sexually arousing if she knew a man had children. It had a magnetic draw on her, she claimed.

 

I don't know if she is an exception, but I get more women making eye contact when I am walking with my child than without. I find that slightly disturbing.

 

A friend of mine told me he gets more attention when he's out with his daughter. Not just attention, but women actually come up and talk to him, under the guise of calling her cute or playing with her.

[White Flower]

So, I was reading another thread and realized that I was interested enough in this topic to start a thread.

 

In my opinion, women are a very competitive lot. I work almost totally with men, so possibly I see the competition between women in a little different light - but when I'm placed into a temporary location/position for a few weeks/months and interact mostly with women instead of men, it's always a huge adjustment as the competition can be most uncomfortable.

 

Though I think the WS "put" the OW & BS into competition with each other in a specific relationship, basically I believe that many (most?) women are simply competitive - for many things but often for the attention of men.

 

My husband and I have gone to parties and I'll watch (some) other women and how they approach my husband. They are definitely in "competition" with me for his attention. He hasn't done a blessed thing, other than be there. He says this never happens when I'm not around... (obviously I only have his word for this - as I'm not around to see it ).

 

And I do believe that some women are into the competition of attracting married men, not necessarily because of the man, but rather because he is married. Some prefer MM because of not wanting commitment, true. But I believe there is often a competitive factor as well.

 

JMO - comments?

I think you are right about women in general being very competitive. Studies have shown that female chimps will compete with other female chimps by offering sex for food so there is no denying that women/females of any species will compete for a higher status even though we have grown so much more spiritually than our homo-erectus ancestors.

 

I work with a lot of women. They are all competitive.

 

But it is funny when I think of this regarding MM and his W. I never felt that I was in any kind of competition. I knew that he loved me when he was with me and that was all that mattered. I had enough self-worth to not worry about being competitive. Perhaps if I did not have my own assets or education I might think differently? Maybe because I can take care of myself I don't need to be in competition?

 

But a little birdie has told me she is trying harder to compete sexually now that D-day has come and passed. We are not together now and I told him I won't go back to the A. Even though she is there physically claiming (or trying to claim) her H, I STILL don't feel the threat of competition.

 

I guess I'm satisfied in knowing she can't ever take away what we had.

[White Flower]

Who knows? I've never met a sociopath. But that theory (the one I tossed out) is as plausible as the one about the OWs who became OWs because they were dumped. Not all OWs are victims. Some choose that option from a position of strength, not weakness.

I have met a few sociopaths and guess what? They're not all animal killers. In fact, some are quite brilliant leaders looked up to in society. I only fear the kind that have not learned their boundaries (because most do overcome this) and of them, there are only a few.

 

And I agree on the rest of your post. Well said, even though I changed my stance later in the A.

[White Flower]

A perceived position of strength.

 

And isn't that a loaded statement? Because we all do what we perceive to be right for us, even if it means following someone else's religion, someone else's laws, and someone else's rules. One day, none of us will follow any of this because we will evolve and perceive things differently.

[White Flower]

I know I am competitive.

Yeah, me too.

[bentnotbroken]

Yeah, me too.

 

 

:laugh::laugh:What out world!

[White Flower]

:laugh::laugh:What out world!

Who knew the competition would make us besties???

[bentnotbroken]

Who knew the competition would make us besties???

 

 

:laugh:Who knew?

[bentnotbroken]

:laugh::laugh:What out world!

 

 

 

OOPs:o:oone daiquiri to many. I meant Watch out world!

[White Flower]

OOPs:o:oone daiquiri to many. I meant Watch out world!

Daiquiri, ha! I'm drinking Merlot.

 

And here's some more competition for you: you have double the amount of posts as me and we joined LS about the same time. Guess you won Bent!

[bentnotbroken]

Daiquiri, ha! I'm drinking Merlot.

 

And here's some more competition for you: you have double the amount of posts as me and we joined LS about the same time. Guess you won Bent!

 

 

Nope. No winning here....

[Moanin]

Example: My MM is sex starved... she withhold sex for X reason.. he comes to see me.. we have great sex... even things she doesn't do with him (ie bj) ... I wear sexy lingerie... soft music... candles.. etc.. etc.. the whole nine yards... he's in heaven when he comes to see me... he returns home.. happy... she's happy cause he has stopped begging for sex.. she thinks he finally 'lost' his libido... the kids are happy cause their parents are happy.

 

I totally agree with this statement as well as find it humorously written....well done!

[White Flower]

Nope. No winning here....

I believe any time we learn we win. But I do think taking a break once in a while is good for us.

[NoIDidn't]

And isn't that a loaded statement? Because we all do what we perceive to be right for us, even if it means following someone else's religion, someone else's laws, and someone else's rules. One day, none of us will follow any of this because we will evolve and perceive things differently.

 

It wasn't supposed to be a loaded statement. I could have worded it better. Its more of a self-perception. Perception of a situation and of one's self aren't the same. Its possible to over estimate the level of one's strength.

 

What you speak of regarding those other things may not necessarily be a matter of self-perception other than just conformity to other's expectations and not a true assessment of perception of a situation other than to just go along to get along.

 

This from ScienceDaily:

ScienceDaily (Jan. 11, 2010) — The less you use your brain's frontal lobes, the more you see yourself through rose-colored glasses, a University of Texas at Austin researcher says.

 

Those findings are being published in the February edition of the journal NeuroImage.

"In healthy people, the more you activate a portion of your frontal lobes, the more accurate your view of yourself is," says Jennifer Beer, an assistant professor of psychology, who conducted the research with graduate student Brent L. Hughes. "And the more you view yourself as desirable or better than your peers, the less you use those lobes."

The natural human tendency to see oneself in a positive light can be helpful and motivating in some situations but detrimental in others, Beer says.

 

It would be interesting to see how frontal lobe usage has been measured in diagnosed sociopaths (since this is what the topic was about here).

 

I really didn't mean for it to be "loaded". Its just that a person can perceive themselves totally different from the way they actually present to others.

[White Flower]

 

I really didn't mean for it to be "loaded". Its just that a person can perceive themselves totally different from the way they actually present to others.

And perhaps I shouldn't have used the term, 'loaded' as it means different things to different people. Perhaps I meant 'vague'?

[OWoman]

This from ScienceDaily:"In healthy people' date=' the more you activate a portion of your frontal lobes, the more accurate your view of yourself is," says Jennifer Beer, an assistant professor of psychology, who conducted the research with graduate student Brent L. Hughes.[/quote']

 

:laugh: well, my self-perception must be spot-on, then, given all the working out my frontal lobes get each day :laugh:

 

But NID, anyway, when "perception" is reinforced consistently over time from multiple sources, it tends more and more towards "objectivity", wouldn't you agree? Not just in the sense that the psychologists claim "perception is reality", but even in some positivist sense....?

[OWoman]

Another take on this issue:

 

BWs often complain about what they perceive as "proud OWs" (or, as some prefer to term themselves, "unapologetic OWs". I suspect that, at the heart of this, lies agency.

 

Being a BW is not something to be proud of. Yes, one can feel proud of the way one has handled the situation, but the situation itself is not one that engenders pride. (Nor, am I claiming, that it engenders shame, as some BSs seem to feel - and thus, want to hide their status from others IRL.) Rather like being raped or mugged, it's something that is done to one, rather than something one chooses oneself. A BS does not have agency in choosing that status.

 

An OW, on the other hand, does. (I'm not referring here to those OWs who did not know the MM was M.) She is active, makes a choice to engage in the A, and has agency both in choosing to continue it and in choosing how to conduct it. But many OWs deny their agency, claiming to feel powerless, the recipient of the actions or otherwise of someone else (the MM) on whose choosing (M or OW) their status depends.

 

Once DDay arrives, the BS has agency - the BS can choose how to respond to the discovery of the A. The OW has no agency IN THAT DYNAMIC, but still retains her own agency in her own A dynamic.

 

The BW (post-DDay, ie, the BW who knows she is one) resents the OW for having (and having had, throughout) agency where she was herself denied that; the OW resents the BW having agency over the outcome of the discovery (ie, whether the M continues or breaks up).

 

I think this issue around agency is at the root of the "competition" between OW and BW.

[bentnotbroken]

Another take on this issue:

 

BWs often complain about what they perceive as "proud OWs" (or, as some prefer to term themselves, "unapologetic OWs". I suspect that, at the heart of this, lies agency.

 

Being a BW is not something to be proud of. Yes, one can feel proud of the way one has handled the situation, but the situation itself is not one that engenders pride. (Nor, am I claiming, that it engenders shame, as some BSs seem to feel - and thus, want to hide their status from others IRL.) Rather like being raped or mugged, it's something that is done to one, rather than something one chooses oneself. A BS does not have agency in choosing that status.

 

An OW, on the other hand, does. (I'm not referring here to those OWs who did not know the MM was M.) She is active, makes a choice to engage in the A, and has agency both in choosing to continue it and in choosing how to conduct it. But many OWs deny their agency, claiming to feel powerless, the recipient of the actions or otherwise of someone else (the MM) on whose choosing (M or OW) their status depends.

 

Once DDay arrives, the BS has agency - the BS can choose how to respond to the discovery of the A. The OW has no agency IN THAT DYNAMIC, but still retains her own agency in her own A dynamic.

 

The BW (post-DDay, ie, the BW who knows she is one) resents the OW for having (and having had, throughout) agency where she was herself denied that; the OW resents the BW having agency over the outcome of the discovery (ie, whether the M continues or breaks up).

 

I think this issue around agency is at the root of the "competition" between OW and BW.

 

 

Very insightful.

[White Flower]

Very insightful.

Agreed. Thanks OWoman.

[NoIDidn't]

Another take on this issue:

 

BWs often complain about what they perceive as "proud OWs" (or, as some prefer to term themselves, "unapologetic OWs". I suspect that, at the heart of this, lies agency.

 

Being a BW is not something to be proud of. Yes, one can feel proud of the way one has handled the situation, but the situation itself is not one that engenders pride. (Nor, am I claiming, that it engenders shame, as some BSs seem to feel - and thus, want to hide their status from others IRL.) Rather like being raped or mugged, it's something that is done to one, rather than something one chooses oneself. A BS does not have agency in choosing that status.

 

An OW, on the other hand, does. (I'm not referring here to those OWs who did not know the MM was M.) She is active, makes a choice to engage in the A, and has agency both in choosing to continue it and in choosing how to conduct it. But many OWs deny their agency, claiming to feel powerless, the recipient of the actions or otherwise of someone else (the MM) on whose choosing (M or OW) their status depends.

 

Once DDay arrives, the BS has agency - the BS can choose how to respond to the discovery of the A. The OW has no agency IN THAT DYNAMIC, but still retains her own agency in her own A dynamic.

 

The BW (post-DDay, ie, the BW who knows she is one) resents the OW for having (and having had, throughout) agency where she was herself denied that; the OW resents the BW having agency over the outcome of the discovery (ie, whether the M continues or breaks up).

 

I think this issue around agency is at the root of the "competition" between OW and BW.

 

I agree with bent. This is a great and insightful post!

[silktricks]

First, let me say that I think this is an excellent and very thoughtful post. Now to some of the points you made:

 

Being a BW is not something to be proud of. Yes, one can feel proud of the way one has handled the situation, but the situation itself is not one that engenders pride. (Nor, am I claiming, that it engenders shame, as some BSs seem to feel - and thus, want to hide their status from others IRL.) Rather like being raped or mugged, it's something that is done to one, rather than something one chooses oneself. A BS does not have agency in choosing that status.

I believe it is rare for a life altering experience to be simply neutral as regards shame or pride. I chose to tell no one of this experience, partly because of having the experience before and gaging reactions and partly because I believe it would have prevented a full recovery of our marriage.

 

Even here on LS I've seen (and experienced) rejection because I chose to attempt to work things out. Some people seem to think that they know best regardless of the situation. If you choose to do something other than what they either did or would choose in a like circumstance, they tend to ridicule you.

 

The other thing that happens - no matter what choice you make - is you immediately become the subject of discussion - gossip. Since the situation you are in is a situation no one would ever choose, it is much easier to distance oneself from the possibility of it happening by blaming (or shaming) the victim of the problem - the BS. That doesn't always happen, but I've seen it happen enough to know that IRL I don't want that.

 

IMO BS do experience shame, as well, not because of our WS's actions so much, but rather because we are caught unawares. We didn't see what was happening even though it was right beneath our noses. There is a degree of shame in being that unobservant about our own lives.

 

An OW, on the other hand, does. (I'm not referring here to those OWs who did not know the MM was M.) She is active, makes a choice to engage in the A, and has agency both in choosing to continue it and in choosing how to conduct it. But many OWs deny their agency, claiming to feel powerless, the recipient of the actions or otherwise of someone else (the MM) on whose choosing (M or OW) their status depends.

 

Once DDay arrives, the BS has agency - the BS can choose how to respond to the discovery of the A. The OW has no agency IN THAT DYNAMIC, but still retains her own agency in her own A dynamic.

 

The BW (post-DDay, ie, the BW who knows she is one) resents the OW for having (and having had, throughout) agency where she was herself denied that; the OW resents the BW having agency over the outcome of the discovery (ie, whether the M continues or breaks up).

 

I think this issue around agency is at the root of the "competition" between OW and BW.

Now, in regards to agency being at the root of the competition between OW and BW. Though I do agree with what you have stated regarding agency, IMO the "agency" explanation is not a complete explanation of the competition. IRL I have known 2 women (at least) who do select married men almost exclusively. Unlike you and Lizzie, they do not select these married men because they do not want commitment. They select married men and immediately begin attempting to terminate their existing marriage.

 

One of those women will, if the marriage disintegrates, break up with the man and move on to another conquest. If it doesn't break up, after she has made sure the A is exposed, she will also move along. (She is a person I know well, and at some level we are friends, but this behavior has stopped me from considering her to be a good friend.)

 

The other actually would like to be married herself, but she always chooses married men to "date". I personally know of 5 different men she's been with in the last 11 years. Each time she's been thrown under the bus, but each time she return to the fray. IMO, those women are in general competing with married women, with no agency involved.

Edited February 1, 2010 by silktricks

[angie2443]

The other thing that happens - no matter what choice you make - is you immediately become the subject of discussion - gossip. Since the situation you are in is a situation no one would ever choose, it is much easier to distance oneself from the possibility of it happening by blaming (or shaming) the victim of the problem - the BS. That doesn't always happen, but I've seen it happen enough to know that IRL I don't want that.

 

IMO BS do experience shame, as well, not because of our WS's actions so much, but rather because we are caught unawares. We didn't see what was happening even though it was right beneath our noses. There is a degree of shame in being that unobservant about our own lives.

 

.

 

I agree with the bolded parts.

 

I think shame is also felt because our gut tells us something is wrong, but we listen to our Husbands or wifes instead. In my situation, my H was friends with his exbff quite awhile before I knew him. I met her early on in our relationship. I felt odd the very first time I met her. I felt like the odd one out. I didn't feel this way around his other friends. When I mentioned it, he put the blame on me, saying I made her unconfortable. My mistake, and the shame I feel about the situation, is that I turned away from what my gut was telling me and let myself be gaslighted. It wasn't untill I started to follow my instincts that I regained some of my confidence back.

 

So, for me, and I think many other BS, the shame comes from trusting someone else more than themselves.

[White Flower]

I agree with the bolded parts.

 

I think shame is also felt because our gut tells us something is wrong, but we listen to our Husbands or wifes instead. In my situation, my H was friends with his exbff quite awhile before I knew him. I met her early on in our relationship. I felt odd the very first time I met her. I felt like the odd one out. I didn't feel this way around his other friends. When I mentioned it, he put the blame on me, saying I made her unconfortable. My mistake, and the shame I feel about the situation, is that I turned away from what my gut was telling me and let myself be gaslighted. It wasn't untill I started to follow my instincts that I regained some of my confidence back.

 

So, for me, and I think many other BS, the shame comes from trusting someone else more than themselves.

This is a very good observation. There is a book called The Gift of Fear which is based more on basic instincts, survival, and how to trust our gut to save our lives or save ourselves from being victimized in more violent ways but the premise is the same. Most humans have the 'gift' or gut instinct or intuition that tells us something is wrong but we allow our minds to let logic take over. Our spouses 'reason' with us (gaslighting) and that 'truth' is easier and preferable to believe than the ugly reality of the real truth. After D-day, we are ashamed of ourselves for not trusting our intuition.

 

I have told MM that he has ruined the intuition of his W and his daughter. He shamefully agreed with me. I believe this has a great deal with why he stays. He probably figures that staying makes up for screwing with their basic survival skills.

[SoleMate]

I don't usually quote an entire post, but this one was so good I had to:

 

I will NEVER, even if I live 1,000 years, understand the supposed "logic" in choosing a married man to have sex with because "you're not seeking commitment."

 

There are PLENTY of single guys out there looking for FWB relationships. PLENTY. Join ANY dating site - you can't swing a dead cat around without hitting thousands of guys just looking for a cheap thrill - with no strings attached. Seriously - do these women who claim they prefer married men "because they don't want a commitment" honestly think they're so damned wonderful that a single guy will fall madly for them even though he only originally wanted an FWB situation? LOL.

 

Please.

 

I'm not a BW, but I'd gouge my eyes out before wasting my time with a married liar.

 

So true! A single woman who is "out there" for no commitment sex with non-attached men can write her exact ticket the way she wants it and have countless males dancing to her tune.... And all without the risk of finding some BS' talons in her face, or the guilt of disrupting a home, or the endless frustrations and humiliations and rampant lying that obviously go with the OW role. I'm not personally looking for NSA sex, but if I were, it would be a piece of cake to find it with non-married, non-attached men. The bizarre claim that somehow MM are preferable for NSA sex is just that, bizarre.