Being the "other" girl

<p>I want some perspective on this stereotype.</p>

<p>Why is it that the "other" girl is always labelled as a wh<em>re or sl</em>t?
Admittedly, there are girls who go out of their way to break apart relationships. Yet sometimes the "other" girl can be a victim too. The ones who didn't know the truth of the situation because the guy kept quiet for one reason or another. So why do people always jump to 'conclusions' about the "other" girl and their moral character?</p>

<p>It's easier to look at the "intruder" for blame rather than said unfaithful partner (especially if it happens to be a male..for whatever reason). I always wondered this myself.</p>

<p>Because by defiition, the other girl is willing to get in the middle of an unresolved relationship.</p>

<p>I think it's just a stereotype, especially among younger people, and no one likes to be portrayed as a stereotype. More experienced souls know that there's usually two sides to every story. There have been some "other women" in the press who clearly had no knowledge of the guy's relationship status, the young woman who was dating Scott Peterson comes to mind. They were clearly upset when the truth surfaced and people were quite sympathetic. I tend to always lose respect for the guy first and reserve opinion on the girl...after all, it's the guy who is deceiving both women!</p>

<p>^^^ Agree with sk8rmom. When the other woman doesn't know because the guy is lying to both partners, it's obvious because she immediately dumps him when she finds out. If she doesn't, she's complicit in the cheating, and people rarely have any sympathy for that.</p>

<p>I have really been enjoying the treatment of this issue in Parenthood. It has a plot arc involving two cousins, a popular "good" girl (but not really all good) and a "bad" girl (but not really bad at all), and their serial-but-not-far-enough-apart involvement with the same boy. All three characters are presented sympathetically, although it's clear that all of them make mistakes, sometimes grave, really hurtful ones.</p>

<p>I agree with frazzled1, but would add that if she doesn't dump him when she finds out, she is just stupid.</p>

<p>^^ I agree but why is the focus on the other girl not on the guy? Boys are boys?</p>

<p>"I want some perspective on this stereotype."</p>

<p>My perspective is that I do not understand importance of others labeling sombody. Why this sombody cares. As long as there is not illegal activity of any sort, we are basically free to live our lives the way we want. If I was paying any attention to anybody, I would be very miserable at the end of my life. And yes, that is how people do make themselves miserable, paying attention to all this hoopla, and then they blame somebody else for their misery. We all have our own heads, it is a good idea to use them for own good. If people stick noses where they do not belong, they definitely do not enjoy their own empty life.</p>

<p>And there is always skepticism over what the "other one" knows.
Sometimes a person chooses to "put on blinders" so they can not see what is going on.
Like a child that puts his hand in front of his own eyes and says "you can't see me". OK for a child's logic, but not an adult.
Every time someone knows of someone like that, it makes it harder to believe someone else who says - "I didn't know". If the "other girl" has or should have some reason to be skeptical of her situation, but blindly chooses not to investigate, then she has chosen not to know- and that is generally frowned upon.</p>

<p>If the other girl knows the guy she's seeing already is in a relationship, both the guy and the other girl are sluts.</p>

<p>I don't think a relationship is the same as marriage. Until a guy--or gal--is engaged, I don't see anything wrong with getting involved with him. I agree that nobody should lead someone to think (s)he is exclusive when (s)he isn't, but I don't think it's immoral to make a "play" for someone who is in a "relationship" unless there's an independent relationship between the person currently involved with BF and the person making the play. In other words, I think it's wrong to make a play for for your sorority sister's boyfriend, but I don't think it's wrong to make a play for the cute guy in orchestra even if you know he has a girlfriend you don't know. </p>

<p>I think this generation does friendship between men and women better than ours did. But I think the "serial monogamy" model of relationships leaves a lot to be desired. In the old days, it was considered good manners for a young woman to go out on one date with anyone who asked her who wasn't absolutely repulsive. If you didn't like him, you said no to the second date. Now, it seems that agreeing to a date is tantamount to saying "I am fairly sure I want to be in an exclusive relationship with you," which is just plain nuts.</p>

<p>JHS, Parenthood is the first thing that came to mind when I read this. I think the writers have handled the character development, as well as this particular storyline, well. These situations are rarely black and white. To label the participants, with either a virtuous title or that of a slut is something 15 year olds might do but mature adults should know better.</p>

<p>"I don't think it's wrong to make a play for the cute guy in orchestra even if you know he has a girlfriend you don't know."</p>

<p>Once a cheater always a cheater (that applies to both the other woman and the guy, if he goes for it, in this situation). Someone who doesn't respect a monogamous relationship, regardless of whether or not they think it should be monogamous, will not respect marriage. People don't change that much just because they have a ring on their finger.</p>

<p>And although I generally don't like that word, I 100% agree with NSM. It is what it is and the label is well-deserved for someone who is cheating.</p>

<p>No one can steal a partner who doesn't want to be stolen. Regardless of what the "other girl" does or doesn't do. The "other girl" has made no promises and broken none. It's the partner who has. If he had any backbone or concern for his partner, he'd break up if he couldn't be faithful. (Married or unmarried, if the agreement between them was to be monogamous.)</p>

<p>I don't think the woman is necessarily a slut if she stays with the guy. I do think she's stupid. As the saying goes, if he'll cheat with you, he'll cheat *on *you.</p>

<p>As the saying goes, if he'll cheat with you, he'll cheat on you.</p>

<p>If a sexual/emotional partner already has another sexual/emotional partner- which he/she either did not disclose prior to your own sexual / emotional relationship or when you did not realize until you became involved- so basically- you were deceived and lied to- prior to the relationship.</p>

<p>If you do not immediately cease the emotional/sexual involvement with someone who has shown that they have no compunction about being manipulative and selfish, regarding their relationships- then not only have you already harmed yourself by not paying attention to your intuition about people, but you are negatively influencing your own perception of who you are- by willingly letting someone abuse you.</p>

<p>No matter how " you twist it", they are treating you badly.</p>

<p>But if- prior to the relationship * you knew* about their other relationship and chose to ignore it or believe their rationalizations about their behavior- then you are putting yourself even farther on the path of self deception and self loathing- plus- whomever who are involved with , unless they are completely amoral, thinks less of you, for continuing the relationship.</p>

<p>Very true. It applies to both girls not just the other girl. The guy should be left with no girls. No?</p>

<p>"I don't think it's wrong to make a play for the cute guy in orchestra even if you know he has a girlfriend you don't know."</p>

<p>Being nice to him and trying to get him to break up with his girlfriend and start dating you is fine in my book as long as "being nice" means flirting, not dating him or having sex with him.</p>

<p>There's a lot of psychobabble and bright line tests in this thread that mesh very poorly with my memory/conception of late-teen/early-20s sexuality, in which (a) complete honesty is often literally impossible to achieve, because the parties involved often don't know themselves well enough to be accurate, and (b) acting with self-respect all the time is often impossible to achieve because the parties involved hardly ever feel secure enough for that. I don't necessarily disagree with the rules people have proposed, just the idea that it's reasonable to expect our high school and college students to comply with them all the time, or to judge them for their failures in this regard.</p>

<p>But . . . if you want some idea why girls get labeled, there you have it.</p>

<p>just the idea that its reasonable to expect our high school and college students to comply with them all the time.</p>

<p>Right- we are all human- however- if you don't have a goal or a " code" to live by, how do you * evolve* or make decisions?</p>

<p>Or is your code going to be * if it feels good- at the time - do it- worry about later- later* </p>

<p>What some call " psychobabble", others call hard won voice of experience.