Just a like a career, relationships are intrinsically built on a foundation of competition. Take for instance marriage; you marry a person whom you believe is best for you. Casting feelings aside for anybody else who might not fit your description of compatibility is easy at this point. However, just like decay or decomposition, the fa�ade of perfection deteriorates at one point�taking into consideration that not everyone is born to maintain a marriage. That is when the Number Two Spot rises out�when the feelings so set aside rises over the ruins of a marriage.
However, in this push and pull of efforts, Number Two has resigned completely to the fact that s/he could never be better that Number One. It is submitting oneself to the role of second best, or �a poor man�s Wendy�, as Jennifer Lopez observed of herself in The Wedding Planner. In this state of affairs, it is acceding to a predominant idea that s/he has turned out to be a passing amusement.
In retrospect, when Number Two does become Number One, that is, s/he has managed to crack the boundary in that hierarchy, it simply means that Number Two has risen to the top spot and pushed the current Number One off the chart. In the end, it is still a matter of competition.
Is there a bad guy?
In every competition, there are always three (sometimes more) sides. In the case of a relationship, there is always the chooser, and there is Option A and Option B (A being the first choice and B the second). In the long view, the Chooser could be the bad guy: he picks Option A, realizes his mistakes, and goes for Option B. Often, Option A stays on while Option B hangs away from public view. The Chooser goes on to draw the opportunities from both ends. So is it selfish? Perhaps�drawing out from the fact that s/he is taking from both A and B.
In another point, and if in fact the springboard for such argument is what a person could give�hence eliminating any form of selfishness�it would then be fair to consider the sense of accomplishment or value that the Chooser provides for Option B. There is then relationship that is no longer selfish, but a give-and-take symbiosis that is based on the foundation of Option B being able to give more than Option A, and the Chooser gaining this by giving Option B a sense of security, or a feeling of value that is somewhat needed in a situation that is plainly unstable.
Option A could be as culpable as the other two for any reason�neglect, perhaps�and would then deserve exactly the consequence of such. If the failure to return value for value is the issue, then the only predictable effect is for the Chooser to look at other options.
It could be a never-ending story of two opposing sides. However, it only ends in firm decision-making, or at least an assertion of sorts. Even then it doesn�t close, for if there is such an entangled web of competition in the world, each person Chooser, Option A, Option B, Option B-turned-Option A, or Option-turned-Chooser, would always be fighting and finding for a place in the world.
Attached Tale:
I was flying to Legazpi last Friday, and the captain shared this argument:
A wife should never ask her husband if he is having an affair, because it is impossible for the husband to admit such. So, if the wife is absolutely certain that an affair exists, she should instead plead (in verbatim, �magmakaawa�) with the other woman (�kabit�) to end the relationship. However, this is not an assurance that the husband will agree to end their affair, nor is it an assurance that upon ending the affair, he will go back to his wife.
Weird?
The reason for such is that that in this case, Option B has more to give and is able to give more than Option A.
Captain goes on to argue:
If the wife wants to be Option B, so as to attain the love Option B receives, then Option B takes her place as Option A. Option A-turned-Option B then has to maintain the same amount of giving-back that the husband so requires�and adjust to the consequence of the husband having to go home to Option B-turned-Option A. For indeed, no Option B would arise in the presence of an effective First Option.
For both Options, is there really a choice? Be the one more loved, or be the one who is, in the eyes of everyone else, official? In every relationship, and in considering every possible human variable, all of which neither pure nor completely willing, no person could take both worlds, as both are the best in their own realms.
Is Option A then�bearer of all official documents�really, the first and only choice? Or has society deemed it so? Option B only remains the second fiddle in a relationship if s/he chooses to be�a question of who would you rather be, more loved, or more recognized? It might very well be in the eyes of the Chooser, who for all concerned parties puts love, or official document, as the top criterion for determining which is Option A or Option B. Being first or second or last in any relationship is relegated by the chooser and option: will he choose what society chooses as the first, or will he use his own judgment to determine what truly matters? For in life, like any competition, it is always in the eye of the judge, or beholder, what beauty truly means.