The Ego in the Equation — The Psychology of Pursuing Taken Partners and Keeping Exes Close

There is a particular kind of interpersonal behavior that gets written off as romantic drama or dismissed as simply "messy" — the deliberate pursuit of someone who is already in a committed relationship, or the maintenance of emotionally fraught ties with an ex while a current partner exists. But these patterns are neither random nor simply impulsive. They are, almost universally, ego-driven — rooted not in genuine attraction or care for the target, but in the internal psychological architecture of the person doing the pursuing or holding on.

This post examines three interconnected patterns: women who pursue taken men, men who pursue taken women, and people who maintain ex-partner relationships in ways that violate the trust and boundaries of their current relationship. Each pattern has its own psychological flavor, but they share a common thread — the other person is largely beside the point. The real subject is the self.

Part I: Women Who Pursue Taken Men

The Myth of Competition, and What Drives It

Popular culture tends to romanticize or trivialize the woman who "goes after" a man in a relationship. She is cast as a temptress, a villain, or — in some retellings — a woman so irresistible she simply could not be helped. None of these framings are especially accurate, and all of them deflect from the more revealing psychological reality.

What research in attachment theory and self-concept clarity consistently shows is that this behavior is most commonly driven by insecurity — specifically, insecurity about one's own desirability and worth relative to other women. The pursuit of a taken man is rarely about the man himself. It is about what winning him would prove.

Social Comparison and the Intrasexual Dynamic

Evolutionary psychologists use the term intrasexual competition to describe rivalry among members of the same sex for access to mates. While this framework has limitations when applied too rigidly to modern human behavior, the underlying dynamic is observable: some women orient their romantic efforts not toward men they genuinely want, but toward men who are "claimed" by women they perceive as competition.

This is where a particularly telling pattern emerges. Women with low self-concept clarity and fragile self-esteem are more likely to pursue men whose partners are — by conventional or perceived standards — more attractive, more accomplished, or more socially visible than they are. The logic, rarely articulated consciously, runs something like: if I can take him from her, then I am better than her. It is not a compliment to the man. It is an assault on the other woman, with him as the instrument.

This is why the behavior so often coexists with what researchers identify as hostile sexism and low female-female solidarity — a general dislike or distrust of other women. Women who score higher on measures of intrasexual hostility are more willing to pursue attached men and more likely to rationalize it. The taken status of the man is not a deterrent; for some, it is the draw.

Moral Disengagement and the Absence of Relational Ethics

Psychologist Albert Bandura's work on moral disengagement describes the cognitive mechanisms people use to act in ways that conflict with their stated values without experiencing significant guilt. In the context of pursuing a taken partner, these mechanisms include: minimizing the harm to the existing relationship ("they were probably already unhappy"), dehumanizing the current partner ("she doesn't deserve him"), and euphemistic labeling ("I'm just being myself" or "chemistry is chemistry").

Women who persistently pursue taken men tend to rely heavily on these rationalizations. The capacity to genuinely reckon with the harm caused to another person — to hold in mind that the partner being displaced is a real human being with dignity and standing — is functionally suppressed. This is not a failure of intelligence. It is a failure of empathy, typically downstream of chronic insecurity that has calcified into entitlement.

Part II: Men Who Pursue Taken Women

A Different Calculus, A Shared Root

Men who pursue women in committed relationships tend to operate from a distinct but parallel set of motivations. Where the female-pursuit pattern described above is often organized around social comparison and the defeat of a rival, the male-pursuit pattern more commonly reflects opportunism layered over ego — what might be called the conquest orientation.

In research on mate poaching — the deliberate attempt to attract someone away from an existing relationship — men report higher rates of short-term poaching attempts than women, and are more likely to frame success in these attempts in terms of personal "score" rather than relational value. The woman being pursued is, in this frame, less a person to be known and more a metric to be achieved.

Social Status and the Body-Count Mentality

In certain social contexts, the number of sexual partners a man has accumulated functions as a proxy for social status and masculine identity. Within this framework, pursuing a taken woman carries a particular premium: she is, by definition, someone another man has already selected and committed to. Poaching her — or simply sleeping with her — becomes a form of dominance assertion, a signal to the self and to one's peer group that one is capable of "taking" what belongs to someone else.

This is not desire in any meaningful sense. It is trophy-hunting. The woman's individuality, her actual qualities as a person, is largely incidental to the appeal. What matters is her status as taken, and the ego boost that comes from overriding someone else's claim.

The Shared Root: It Is Almost Never Really About the Other Person

"Mate poaching is not a compliment to the person being pursued. It is a transaction in which that person is the currency, not the beneficiary."

This is the critical through-line connecting both patterns. Whether driven by competitive insecurity or conquest-oriented status-seeking, the person doing the pursuing has centered their own psychological needs so completely that the pursued individual barely registers as a full subject. They are a vehicle — for proving worth, defeating rivals, accumulating status, or quieting internal noise about one's own adequacy.

This is not incidental to the harm caused by these behaviors. It is the harm. It is the reason that people targeted by these pursuits often describe feeling used, objectified, or reduced — because functionally, they were.

Part III: People Who Keep Exes Around

The Backup and the Validation Loop

The maintenance of close ties with an ex-partner — in contexts where a current committed relationship exists and where that maintenance has not been agreed upon — is one of the more widely rationalized but less examined relational patterns. It tends to get dressed up in the language of maturity ("we're adults, we can be friends") or social virtue ("it means I'm a good person if my exes still like me"), but the underlying psychology frequently tells a different story.

Research on post-relationship maintenance finds that continued close contact with an ex is most strongly predicted by: anxious attachment style, low relationship satisfaction with the current partner, lingering unrequited feelings, and — importantly — the use of the ex as a secondary source of emotional validation. The ex, in these cases, functions as a backup: a source of reassurance that one is desirable, worthwhile, and capable of being loved, held in reserve in case the current relationship fails or fails to satisfy.

The "Good Person" Heuristic

A specific rationalization worth naming is the idea that being friends with one's exes is evidence of good character — that it signals emotional maturity, lack of bitterness, and relational health. This heuristic circulates widely enough that it has become a kind of social shorthand. And like most heuristics, it contains a grain of truth wrapped around a significant flaw.

The truth: people who can maintain genuinely benign, boundaried, mutually respectful contact with former partners, particularly where there is shared history that warrants it, are probably not pathologically bitter or avoidant. The flaw: not all ex-maintenance is this. When the contact is frequent, emotionally intimate, secretive from a current partner, or structured in ways that preserve the possibility of future reconciliation, the "good person" framing is a fig leaf — a socially acceptable narrative pasted over what is actually insecurity management.

The need to be liked, wanted, and validated by someone who once chose you is understandable. Acting on it in ways that compromise a current relationship is a choice, not an inevitability — and dressing that choice in virtue-signaling language does not make it virtuous.

Important Caveats: When Ex-Contact Is Appropriate

A rigorous analysis requires distinguishing between harmful patterns and legitimate relationship structures. There are circumstances in which ongoing contact with an ex is not only reasonable but necessary or even healthy:

Co-parenting with a shared child requires, at minimum, functional communication and often much more. A former partner with whom one shares children occupies a category entirely apart from the patterns described here. The relationship did not end — it transformed. Managing it with maturity is an ongoing responsibility, not a warning sign.

When a relationship ended due to incompatibility of sexual orientation or identity — a gay person who was once in a heterosexual relationship, for instance — there may be genuine friendship rooted in mutual respect, with no lingering romantic or competitive charge. The absence of physical attraction is not a wound either party is managing; it is simply the honest reality that brought the relationship to its natural close.

Similarly, when former partners never became physically intimate, the psychological stakes of ongoing contact are different. The specific insecurities and validation loops described above are less likely to be activated when there is no physical history to revisit, mourn, or instrumentalize.

And in all cases, explicit, ongoing consent from a current partner changes the calculus entirely. A relationship structure in which both parties have openly agreed to what ex-contact looks like — and have regularly revisited that agreement as needs evolve — is not the same as unilateral boundary-crossing. The distinguishing factor is transparency: does the current partner know, and have they genuinely agreed?

Part IV: The Safety Dimension — Exes and Lethal Violence

When Insecurity Becomes Danger

Any intellectually honest treatment of ex-partner dynamics must acknowledge what the true crime data — and more rigorously, the domestic violence and homicide research — makes clear: ex-partner contact is statistically one of the most dangerous relational contexts that exists.

Studies on intimate partner homicide consistently find that the period following a separation or breakup is the highest-risk window. A significant proportion of homicides classified as domestic violence involve ex-partners, not current ones. The driving psychology is not love, as it is sometimes described in popular media. It is possessiveness — the same insecurity and ego-based sense of ownership that drives the patterns described throughout this article, taken to its most catastrophic extreme.

The person who cannot accept that a former partner has moved on, who experiences a new relationship as a personal affront, who continues to make contact despite being told not to — this is not a romantic figure. This is someone whose self-concept is so enmeshed with another person's continued validation that their absence registers as annihilation. That psychological profile, unaddressed and escalating, is genuinely lethal.

The Throughline: What We Are Really Talking About

Whether we are describing the woman pursuing a taken man to defeat his partner, the man pursuing a taken woman to add her to his count, or the person keeping an ex in the wings to manage their own anxiety — we are always, at root, describing the same failure: the failure to locate one's sense of self and worth within oneself rather than in the reactions and choices of others.

This is not a moral condemnation in the sense of declaring these people irredeemable. Most people who exhibit these patterns are not consciously malicious. Many are genuinely unaware of the mechanisms driving their behavior. The psychological literature on insecure attachment, underdeveloped self-concept, and ego-protective relational strategies is not a catalogue of villains — it is a map of human vulnerabilities that, when left unexamined, produce harm.

But naming them clearly, without softening the analysis in deference to social comfort, is the beginning of accountability. The ego in the equation is the problem. And the work — the real work — is learning to take it out.

References

Bandura, A. (1996). Mechanisms of moral disengagement in the exercise of moral agency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 364–374.

Bandura, A. (1999). Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3, 193–209. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0303_3

Bandura, A. (2002). Selective moral disengagement in the exercise of moral agency. Journal of Moral Education, 31(2), 101–119.

Bandura, A. (2016). Moral disengagement: How people do harm and live with themselves. Worth Publishers.

Fisher, M. L. (2013). Women's intrasexual competition for mates. In M. L. Fisher, J. R. Garcia, & R. Sokol Chang (Eds.), Evolution's empress: Darwinian perspectives on the nature of women (pp. 19–42). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199892747.003.0001

Wang, X., Chen, H., Chen, Z., & Yang, Y. (2021). Women's intrasexual competition results in beautification. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 12(7), 1232–1241. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550620933403

Schmitt, D. P., & Buss, D. M. (2001). Human mate poaching: Tactics and temptations for infiltrating existing mateships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(6), 894–917. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.80.6.894

Schmitt, D. P., & the International Sexuality Description Project. (2004). Patterns and universals of mate poaching across 53 nations: The effects of sex, culture, and personality on romantically attracting another person's partner. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(4), 560–584.

Kardum, I., Hudek-Knezevic, J., Schmitt, D. P., & Grundler, P. (2015). Personality and mate poaching experiences. Personality and Individual Differences, 75, 7–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2014.10.048

Spielmann, S. S., Joel, S., MacDonald, G., & Kogan, A. (2013). Ex appeal: Current relationship quality and emotional attachment to ex-partners. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 4, 175–180. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550612448198

Sbarra, D. A., & Emery, R. E. (2005). Coparenting conflict, nonacceptance, and depression among divorced adults: Results from a 12-year follow-up study of child custody mediation using multiple imputation. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 75(1), 63–75.

Spielmann, S. S., & MacDonald, G. (2015). The ex-factor: Attachment anxiety and social comparisons across romantic relationships. Journal of Relationships Research, 6, e3. https://doi.org/10.1017/jrr.2015.1

Sbarra, D. A., & Hazan, C. (2008). Coregulation, dysregulation, self-regulation: An integrative analysis and empirical agenda for understanding adult attachment, separation, loss, and recovery. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12(2), 141–167.

Campbell, J. C., Webster, D., Koziol-McLain, J., Block, C., Campbell, D., Curry, M. A., Gary, F., Glass, N., McFarlane, J., Sachs, C., Sharps, P., Ulrich, Y., Wilt, S. A., Manganello, J., Xu, X., Schollenberger, J., Frye, V., & Laughon, K. (2003). Risk factors for femicide in abusive relationships: Results from a multisite case control study. American Journal of Public Health, 93(7), 1089–1097.

Léveillée, S., Marleau, J. D., & Dubé, M. (2022). Intimate partner violence and intimate partner homicide: Development of a typology based on psychosocial characteristics. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 13, 937316. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2022.937316

Knoll, J. L., & Hazelwood, J. D. (2009). Male perpetrators of intimate partner homicide: A review and proposed typology. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 37(3), 300–312.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2024). Intimate partner homicide among women — United States, 2018–2021. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, 73(34). https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/73/wr/mm7334a4.htm

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ashley Sophia is a model, actress, entrepreneur, and engineer. She applies systems thinking from her engineering background to understanding human behavior and building community pathways to independence — translating analytical expertise into accessible resources for the public.