Female subs as "the other woman"

[Chiara_searches]

That whole "all women" thing.... I wonder of some of you are misreading it.

I read it as "in that moment of passion and connection she was everything".

NOT as anything extending beyond an episode of passion or connection.

I mean, for fuck's sake, if a man looked to me for everything and didn't have other friends etc, I'd think there was something SERIOUSLY wrong with him. Same goes the other way, obviously - I'm not fucked up - my lover is a massive part of my life but so are work, my family and my friends - not to mention my time alone.

I agree. You have to have outside interests. Your time with your SO might be intense and a substantial part of your life, but you have to be able to exist on your own. You have to be able to make decisions and deal with, well, life.

 

[SweetMystery]

That whole "all women" thing.... I wonder of some of you are misreading it.

I read it as "in that moment of passion and connection she was everything".

NOT as anything extending beyond an episode of passion or connection.

I mean, for fuck's sake, if a man looked to me for everything and didn't have other friends etc, I'd think there was something SERIOUSLY wrong with him. Same goes the other way, obviously - I'm not fucked up - my lover is a massive part of my life but so are work, my family and my friends - not to mention my time alone.

Yes...this. I would never hope or want to be his whole world. But in that "moment of passion and connection", I do wish to be everything. I want to be the one who makes his world stop in that moment, makes his grip on the headboard so strong that he snaps the spindle. I want my name to be the one that crosses his lips then. Not that another woman couldn't do those things...I just want it to be me.

 

[IrisAlthea]

I believe there is a Hollywood/fairytale idea out there that when you find your special, one, true love they will be everything to you, and you to them. This is an idea I find flawed and troubling.

Personally, I need other people, men and women, in my life. L and I are immensely compatible (you have to be if you live and work together 24/7) but by no means could we be completely fulfilled without the companionship and input of others. There are things I get from friends and peer groups that I could never get from him, and I'm certain the same holds true for him, when it comes to me.

The weight of an expectation that I could, or should, be every woman would crush me.

This!

 

[eastern sun]

That whole "all women" thing.... I wonder of some of you are misreading it.

I read it as "in that moment of passion and connection she was everything".

NOT as anything extending beyond an episode of passion or connection.

I mean, for fuck's sake, if a man looked to me for everything and didn't have other friends etc, I'd think there was something SERIOUSLY wrong with him. Same goes the other way, obviously - I'm not fucked up - my lover is a massive part of my life but so are work, my family and my friends - not to mention my time alone.

I read it as the basis for a relationship. Like, "you are all I want. all I need."

Not excluding work and friends and etc. Just "I will never need another woman as long as I have you."

 

[minx1]

But I'm thinking more of a situation where the female sub's ONLY relationship is with an attached man. Where he is her only significant other, but she is his secondary significant other.

And it's got me wondering. Does a submissive nature in a woman make it easier to tolerate that dynamic? Can the dynamic even be seen as part and parcel of the submissive's "service" to the man? Does the suffering, the always coming second, key into something that the submissive craves or thinks she deserves, or thinks is appropriate to her submission?

It's something that has been playing around the edges of my brain for a while, every time I read a post which makes it obvious that a female sub really suffers from feelings of loneliness, doubt etc when he's busy with his primary relationship.

I was the other woman for a few months a couple of years ago. I fought against it tooth and nail, once I fell in love with him, and wasn't happy until I became his only relationship. I think I would have left him before long if he hadn't left his wife for me.

And I keep wondering if that's because I'm a bedroom-only sub (or "bottom", if you must). So while I crave a power mismatch in the bedroom, I really don't feel I need to tolerate it outside the bedroom.

Please don't flame me. This is not intended to rile anyone. I'm just genuinely curious.

Cattypus thanks for asking these questions; I've been thinking a lot about this recently. Most people here will know that I was 'the other woman' in my relationship with my ex PYL.

I dont think its something I am even clear about in my own mind. I certainly didnt see acceptance of the situation as part and parcel of serving him, but perhaps part of me misguidedly felt as though I was lacking by not being able to accept it better and perhaps that feeling contributed to me 'trying' for so long. I didnt accept the situation because he was my Dom, I tried to tolerate it because I loved him and rather stupidly believed that we needed eachother.

Yup, the whole fucking love thing, that added to the mix blurs your hopes and dreams and standards and expectations.
Once I felt love the pain from being the secondary relationship was nothing less than hideous and something I never want to experience again.
Some people close to me think I stayed with him and in that situation for so long because I loved him so much and because I was totally committed to serving him. Well correct, I did love him and I was committed and loyal, but those were only part of the reason it lasted as long as it did. I had also invested an awful lot of time, money, emotion and had made huge life changes by moving across the world. I took the relationship and yes the dynamic seriously and I had a lot to lose (so I thought at the time), so I fought for its and my survival much longer than I should. It feels so stupid to write that now when with hindsight I was prolonging the agony and assisting in breaking myself rather than surviving.

I couldnt tolerate being the secondary relationship. I tried. I even wanted to succeed, but ultimately I couldnt do it. As someone who feels a lot, it's way too painful and it brings out the worst in me as a person.

It's not something I ever want to be again for any man, PYL or not. Once the blinkers came off I could see clearly what i wanted from a relationship.

I had emerged from the relationships demise almost broken, feeling worthless and not good enough. These days I think I'm worth a lot more. I think I deserve the best and if you think you deserve the best you have to have standards and expectations that deliver that.

Sorry this is all a bit disjointed. Its still disjointed in my head

I don't think the question is so much is it easier, but does being submissive make us more prone to it. Though I get your message, and can relate on some levels.

It is an interesting point. Worth exploring when I haven't been drinking.

Hell, i need to go think about this more. Before I started writing the above, I would have said no, being submissive doesnt make someone more prone to it but now I'm not so sure...in my case anyway!

What I mean by that is that Im not some doormat, but I do have some personality traits, some submissive some not; such as a desire to please, to succeed, to be resilient and loyal, that I reckon contibuted to me trying to make the situation work.
I'm a little embarrassed to admit this, but with hindsight i also think that once I was in love and heavily involved, it was a lot easier to keep me there and prolong it by throwing the submissive card at me and reminding me about my role and serving. I guess this blurred things a little for me at the time so that I couldnt see the wood for the trees. The result....a continous cycle of me fighting against the situation and then 'calming down' when the sub card was played.

Blimey. This is a bit confronting

 

[Cattypuss]

What I mean by that is that Im not some doormat, but I do have some personality traits, some submissive some not; such as a desire to please, to succeed, to be resilient and loyal, that I reckon contibuted to me trying to make the situation work.
I'm a little embarrassed to admit this, but with hindsight i also think that once I was in love and heavily involved, it was a lot easier to keep me there and prolong it by throwing the submissive card at me and reminding me about my role and serving. I guess this blurred things a little for me at the time so that I couldnt see the wood for the trees. The result....a continous cycle of me fighting against the situation and then 'calming down' when the sub card was played.

Blimey. This is a bit confronting

Didn't mean to be confronting - but yes, what you're saying here is sort-of in the area that I've been wondering about - which is what prompted me to start this thread (though actually Minx I wasn't thinking of you when I started it - I was thinking of a few posters who tend to post frequently in very short messages such as the ones I gave as examples in my opening post).

It has been a real joy to watch you pick up the pieces and get stronger and happier, by the way

 

[minx1]

Didn't mean to be confronting - but yes, what you're saying here is sort-of in the area that I've been wondering about - which is what prompted me to start this thread (though actually Minx I wasn't thinking of you when I started it - I was thinking of a few posters who tend to post frequently in very short messages such as the ones I gave as examples in my opening post).

It has been a real joy to watch you pick up the pieces and get stronger and happier, by the way

oh no....I actually meant I'm confronting myself by answering those questions! lol I think its a great discussion to have.

Thankyou Cattypuss I really appreciate that. It's been a bit of a slog but I got there in the end

 

[Cattypuss]

I read it as the basis for a relationship. Like, "you are all I want. all I need."

Not excluding work and friends and etc. Just "I will never need another woman as long as I have you."

Well that's not how I read it. After all, the narrative is firmly rooted in THAT AFTERNOON. I read it as a description of the way you can "lose yourself" in a person for a short period.

That said, you raise an interesting point. I mean we all know elderly people who have had 50+, 60+ even, years of very very happy, fulfilling monogamy.

 

[BunnyHopper]

Cattypus thanks for asking these questions; I've been thinking a lot about this recently. Most people here will know that I was 'the other woman' in my relationship with my ex PYL.

I dont think its something I am even clear about in my own mind. I certainly didnt see acceptance of the situation as part and parcel of serving him, but perhaps part of me misguidedly felt as though I was lacking by not being able to accept it better and perhaps that feeling contributed to me 'trying' for so long. I didnt accept the situation because he was my Dom, I tried to tolerate it because I loved him and rather stupidly believed that we needed eachother.

Yup, the whole fucking love thing, that added to the mix blurs your hopes and dreams and standards and expectations.
Once I felt love the pain from being the secondary relationship was nothing less than hideous and something I never want to experience again.
Some people close to me think I stayed with him and in that situation for so long because I loved him so much and because I was totally committed to serving him. Well correct, I did love him and I was committed and loyal, but those were only part of the reason it lasted as long as it did. I had also invested an awful lot of time, money, emotion and had made huge life changes by moving across the world. I took the relationship and yes the dynamic seriously and I had a lot to lose (so I thought at the time), so I fought for its and my survival much longer than I should. It feels so stupid to write that now when with hindsight I was prolonging the agony and assisting in breaking myself rather than surviving.

I couldnt tolerate being the secondary relationship. I tried. I even wanted to succeed, but ultimately I couldnt do it. As someone who feels a lot, it's way too painful and it brings out the worst in me as a person.

It's not something I ever want to be again for any man, PYL or not. Once the blinkers came off I could see clearly what i wanted from a relationship.

I had emerged from the relationships demise almost broken, feeling worthless and not good enough. These days I think I'm worth a lot more. I think I deserve the best and if you think you deserve the best you have to have standards and expectations that deliver that.

Sorry this is all a bit disjointed. Its still disjointed in my head





Hell, i need to go think about this more. Before I started writing the above, I would have said no, being submissive doesnt make someone more prone to it but now I'm not so sure...in my case anyway!

What I mean by that is that Im not some doormat, but I do have some personality traits, some submissive some not; such as a desire to please, to succeed, to be resilient and loyal, that I reckon contibuted to me trying to make the situation work.
I'm a little embarrassed to admit this, but with hindsight i also think that once I was in love and heavily involved, it was a lot easier to keep me there and prolong it by throwing the submissive card at me and reminding me about my role and serving. I guess this blurred things a little for me at the time so that I couldnt see the wood for the trees. The result....a continous cycle of me fighting against the situation and then 'calming down' when the sub card was played.

Blimey. This is a bit confronting

Thank you for this. It was a bit like someone else had just thrown up everything I have been trying to chew and digest! It is indeed difficult to see the forest from the trees, and because of that, reading someone else's similar thoughts actually helps to see things more clearly.

And sorry for comparing your lovely post to trees and vomit It was pure gold to me.

 

[minx1]

Thank you for this. It was a bit like someone else had just thrown up everything I have been trying to chew and digest! It is indeed difficult to see the forest from the trees, and because of that, reading someone else's similar thoughts actually helps to see things more clearly.

And sorry for comparing your lovely post to trees and vomit It was pure gold to me.

That made me laugh! A pleasure Bunny, Im sure there will be others who do compare it to trees and vomit!

I'm just glad it made sense to someone. Its still doesnt to me

 

[eastern sun]

Well that's not how I read it. After all, the narrative is firmly rooted in THAT AFTERNOON. I read it as a description of the way you can "lose yourself" in a person for a short period.

Yes, I can see the basis of your reading in the passage. But there are two voices in that post. The author of the quoted passage and sweetmystery. I was reading sweetmystery's message.

Maybe I"m too cynical, but I think being the "one" person who can satisfy your spouse is a lot to expect in a long relationship. I don't think it's necessary to have outside lovers, and many, many people do make that sacrifice for the sake of their marriage. But I think it's a bit naive to think that people will never even have thoughts of and desires for other people during a long marriage.

It's one of the main reasons why there are so many divorces. Believe me, after living with someone for a long time, it is really easy to imagine there's something "better" out there.

 

[BunnyHopper]

I feel that I myself would need some sort of checklist of things NOT to do in the next relationship (one of them being "don't be the other woman"). The reason I find this thread fascinating is that I can feel it that, even though not a traditional doormat, I'm in the end of the day very flexible and understanding and the need to take care of another person often surpasses my need to take care of myself. In fact, I don't have a need to take care of myself, although I'm trying to learn that. But that's another issue all together. In any case, yes, throw in that equation love and devotion, and you'll "gladly" suffer through a situation which in hindsight looks absolutely ridiculous. And I think the suffering during that situation only makes it more important. Martyrdom can be so bittersweet. As well as unrequited love! (Oh dear, how messed up am I...)

So definitely I do find some kind of correlation, even though the mix is obviously so complex that the clarity is more like bits and pieces here and there and not a fully clear picture. That is why the list would make it easier for myself.

By the way, I tend to think that the Dom should notice the damage that the situation is causing to the sub and take action, even if it means the end of the relationship. But it's difficult to judge a person (the Dom) who you love so dearly.

EDIT: I would also add to my list "beware of men who say that I'm their sun and their moon and their stars and they need nobody else in the world and want to whisk me away somewhere where it would only be the two of us". I've dated a few narcissists. They'll put you on a pedestal at first and they actually do see you as such a person; someone who is the perfect girlfriend. Then after a while, you're not so perfect anymore. In fact there is a lot of things wrong with you and slowly, but surely, he will make sure that you know just how imperfect you are.

 

[the captians wench]

Hell, i need to go think about this more. Before I started writing the above, I would have said no, being submissive doesnt make someone more prone to it but now I'm not so sure...in my case anyway!

What I mean by that is that Im not some doormat, but I do have some personality traits, some submissive some not; such as a desire to please, to succeed, to be resilient and loyal, that I reckon contibuted to me trying to make the situation work.
I'm a little embarrassed to admit this, but with hindsight i also think that once I was in love and heavily involved, it was a lot easier to keep me there and prolong it by throwing the submissive card at me and reminding me about my role and serving. I guess this blurred things a little for me at the time so that I couldnt see the wood for the trees. The result....a continous cycle of me fighting against the situation and then 'calming down' when the sub card was played.

Blimey. This is a bit confronting

This. This is why I stayed in a distructive relationship for any length of time.

I'm a people pleaser. I want to make every one happy. And those closer to me, I want to be especially proud of me. I seek praise and acceptance, and the slightest hint of disapointment distroys my world.

The funny part is, I don't think I ever really loved the man I'm thinking of. It was the feeling of being apart of something that I wanted. I "was his" and every time he was proud of something I did, I beamed. It was like a drug, and the funny part about that is he once told me that's how to get a sub interested. Find her drug, promise it to her, then make her work to earn it. I wasn't interested in other women, and i wasn't interested in sharing my home or my partner with any one other than his first commitment. But I did it, I saught other women out for him because that was "my place".

It took love, acceptance, and praise from some one else, some one outside, for me to see that I didn't have to accept that. That doing things I didn't agree to in the first place aren't just part of being a sub and I didn't have to just accept that.

It still surprizes me that I had to be told this by some one outside. And this whole conversation has come up at a time when I've really been thinking about how I interact with men anyway. I'm seeing things I don't like, but don't know how to change, or part of me doesn't want to.

 

[welkin]

I feel that I myself would need some sort of checklist of things NOT to do in the next relationship (one of them being "don't be the other woman").

[snip]

By the way, I tend to think that the Dom should notice the damage that the situation is causing to the sub and take action, even if it means the end of the relationship. But it's difficult to judge a person (the Dom) who you love so dearly.

Oh yes... I have a list like that... and indeed there's something about "don't be the other woman on it". But how did I get into the situation I'm in now...? It started out as a NSA -- I would've never initiated anything as a real relationship with someone who is married. And now that I know I am not the kind of person who can go through a NSA unscathed, and that it hurts, I keep telling myself that this is the first and last time I'll ever let myself be in this position... though now it feels like it's too late to extricate myself from it...

And I indeed find myself wishing that the Dom would break it off... to have a "sudden death" so to speak. It seems like I'm in a limbo....I am not strong enough to just walk away (and here I suppose there is a bit of the submissive trait playing; I'd hate to disappoint him by ending this)... but I am also not so weak that the relationship becomes destructive and that I'd have to end it -- it hurts, but it does not encroach into my life in other areas.

I am not sure if I'm fooling myself, when I try to focus on the positive aspects of this relationship. It has helped me grow a lot, understand myself a lot better, esp. sexually, and it makes me strive to be a better person.

Sigh. I'm not sure what I want to say either... this is the first time I talk about my pseudo-relationship, and I guess I just wanted to talk it out... Sorry for being so self-focused. Though, thanks again to all who has posted, there are invaluable truths that I will keep in mind for the future. The future... I have no idea what my current situation will play out. =\

 

[Cattypuss]

But I think it's a bit naive to think that people will never even have thoughts of and desires for other people during a long marriage.

Oh hell yes.

 

[Netzach]

I think in the course of human relationships a lot of shit happens, and most of the people on these boards are submissive women, so the math is what it is. For me, the control I have over certain provinces and compartments makes "other woman" status completely fine. I'm pretty unapologetically continental about relationships, which makes me kind of a pariah around here, so that's all I'm saying. Other people's dysfunction is just that - other people's. Mine is mine.

 

[Cattypuss]

For me, the control I have over certain provinces and compartments makes "other woman" status completely fine. I'm pretty unapologetically continental about relationships, which makes me kind of a pariah around here, so that's all I'm saying. Other people's dysfunction is just that - other people's. Mine is mine.

Quite. And I made it clear in my opening post that I recognise that there are a lot of relationship combos out there (and on this forum) - and mentioned that I am specifically thinking of the situation where the sub is the man's secondary significant other but he is her only significant other.

I have never seen any evidence of you being a pariah around here.

 

[jenniferbaby]

I was the other woman for a period of time, but it wasn't a D/s arrangement and it had nothing to do with my submissiveness. Rather, it had to do with my willingness to engage in alternative relationships. I think this willingness and my submissive mindset might originate from the same place, namely an interest in sexuality that isn't mainstream, but submissiveness wasn't the cause of my decision to be involved with a married man and it didn't play much of a role in the relationship.

There are certain traits that might make submissives more likely to be involved in this kind of relationship, such as a need to please, an openness to alternative relationships, possibly an ability to compartmentalize and take what they need from a relationship while leaving the rest. These characteristics don't apply to every submissive and they don't manifest themselves in the same way in every submissive. While many submissives would be willing to be the third partner, there are just as many others who would not.

 

[satindesire]

Maybe I"m too cynical, but I think being the "one" person who can satisfy your spouse is a lot to expect in a long relationship. I don't think it's necessary to have outside lovers, and many, many people do make that sacrifice for the sake of their marriage. But I think it's a bit naive to think that people will never even have thoughts of and desires for other people during a long marriage.

It's one of the main reasons why there are so many divorces. Believe me, after living with someone for a long time, it is really easy to imagine there's something "better" out there.

Well, I hate to sound nitpicky, but that's not really true. Generally speaking...The top three reasons for divorce is a lack of sex (not with other people, within the marriage), disagreements about money, and disagreements about kids.

***************************

I think that submissive traits that were talked about above do have something to do with clinging onto failing relationships, and being "okay-ish" with being the secondary relationship, but I don't know if I'm okay with that definition totally as a way of describing the WHY of it. I mean, I'm submissive to the core, and loyal as anything, but I expect as much loyalty as I get. Once my partner jumps ship, I'm pretty much emotionally gone.

The actual leaving part may take a little bit longer, but once I've given up on happiness, it doesn't take me long to ship out.

SHIT I AM MARRIED TO A SAILOR!?

Wtf man.

 

[eastern sun]

Well, I hate to sound nitpicky, but that's not really true. Generally speaking...The top three reasons for divorce is a lack of sex (not with other people, within the marriage), disagreements about money, and disagreements about kids.

Don't you think that divorces due to lack of sex, disagreements about money and disagreements about kids include a decision that there was something "better" to be had?

 

[SweetMystery]

Yes, I can see the basis of your reading in the passage. But there are two voices in that post. The author of the quoted passage and sweetmystery. I was reading sweetmystery's message.

Maybe I"m too cynical, but I think being the "one" person who can satisfy your spouse is a lot to expect in a long relationship. I don't think it's necessary to have outside lovers, and many, many people do make that sacrifice for the sake of their marriage. But I think it's a bit naive to think that people will never even have thoughts of and desires for other people during a long marriage.

It's one of the main reasons why there are so many divorces. Believe me, after living with someone for a long time, it is really easy to imagine there's something "better" out there.

I see your point, eastern sun. As I said in the original post, while I'm not saying another woman couldn't do that for him, in that moment of passion and connection, I want it to be me. We have much fun sharing our fantasies with each other and discussing alternatives to physical monogamy, but the "connection" (for lack of a better term) is between the two of us.

 

[satindesire]

Don't you think that divorces due to lack of sex, disagreements about money and disagreements about kids include a decision that there was something "better" to be had?

Well, and please understand that this is coming from a woman who has issues with the lack of sex in her relationship...

I don't think they're always leaving necessarily for "something(one) better", I think they're leaving from the lack of sex because they know staying isn't doing them any favors.

Whether or not they're out there actively looking for another partner, had a person in mind already, or want to date/find another relationship after, they HAVE to leave to preserve their own sanity and sense of self.

My last partner before my marriage to Mister Man didn't sleep with me often enough either. I didn't leave him just to get more sex with another person, I left because he was completely unwilling to work with me and it was affecting my self-esteem to the point where I was becoming suicidal.

That's just one example. YMMV.

 

[Cattypuss]

I don't think they're always leaving necessarily for "something(one) better", I think they're leaving from the lack of sex because they know staying isn't doing them any favors..

Yeah but to be fair, in that situation, the person leaving for lack of sex is doing so on the assumption that "out there" somewhere is someone who would give them more sex (i.e." something/someone better"), even if they are not actively looking for that person at the time when they leave.

If nobody ever had sex, nobody would leave a marriage because of lack of sex.

 

[JMohegan]

By the way, I tend to think that the Dom should notice the damage that the situation is causing to the sub and take action, even if it means the end of the relationship. But it's difficult to judge a person (the Dom) who you love so dearly.

Are you talking about a D who is fuckin' around behind the back of his wife or significant other? If so, please consider: he's already lying to and betraying someone he claims to care about, and either disregarding, or in denial of, the effect of his extracurricular behavior on the one to whom he is primarily committed. It is neither rational nor realistic to expect him to treat the "other" woman any better.

In addition, keep in mind that the "other," as a freely consenting partner, bears primary responsibility for her participation and role in the arrangement - as well as her happiness therein.

If you are talking about a D who is in an openly poly relationship, acknowledged & agreed to by all involved (including other, the D, and his primary), then obviously only the second of those points applies.

 

[BunnyHopper]

Are you talking about a D who is fuckin' around behind the back of his wife or significant other? If so, please consider: he's already lying to and betraying someone he claims to care about, and either disregarding, or in denial of, the effect of his extracurricular behavior on the one to whom he is primarily committed. It is neither rational nor realistic to expect him to treat the "other" woman any better.

Point taken.

In addition, keep in mind that the "other," as a freely consenting partner, bears primary responsibility for her participation and role in the arrangement - as well as her happiness therein.

Whilst I agree that everyone are always primarily responsible for themselves, I still would expect the Dom to have the strength of character to make the difficult decisions if the sub is not able to, yet is still clearly suffering. But that's just me, and my expectations might be too high and unrealistic.