New Dom's vs Experienced

SemperDominus​(dom male) • Jul 26, 2022

I would actually disagree.

Self-important behavior (mentioned above) is not necessarily the same thing as Alpha Male behavior.

As for Alpha Male behavior...

I have seen many instances where it is clearly evident to others; and to where Alphas recognize each other as being a fellow Alpha.

I have also seen where someone is trying to act almost like a peacock, trying so very hard to act Alpha (like acting a role) in front of others; only to have his submissive (female) partner notice an authentic Alpha (or multiple) nearby, and the peacock "alpha" suddenly cowers and looks like a puppy dog, scared that the Alpha will take her from him. (It's a longer story, but that was the effective situation).

I have also seen many situations where two Alphas might cross paths (and not in competition), they/we merely acknowledge each other with a certain knowing understanding, of recognizing a fellow Alpha -- which does not occur the same way (and is very different) with someone who lacks that natural Alpha element.

I have noticed it.
Others have noticed it.

Around the kink scene, we often are welcoming of those who strive to explore a role. However, some people naturally fit into a certain role. For example: some men are naturally Dominant (as in it comes naturally); and some women are naturally Submissive (as in it comes naturally). Some people find they have to work harder and strive to develop that role more, and some are able to play a Switch role of either Dom or Sub. However, you'll find that some people are so naturally either Dom or Sub that they can't even fathom the idea of the other role.

As to that, I know some naturally Dominant men (including myself) who are naturally this way, and fundamentally cannot even consider the possibility of being submissive. Similarly, some naturally submissive women are naturally that way, and deeply can't consider a dominant role.

Some people are naturally Dominant or Submissive. Some people must develop that role more, and develop that side of their persona. Either is fine, but they are inherently different.

I find that those who dispute the natural concept of an Alpha, are typically those who don't have that natural element within themselves, or perhaps don't understand or recognize it. (Not intended to personally attack anyone here, but merely an observation I've noticed).

In society, there are some who are natural leaders and naturally have a certain energy and persona about them, and some who naturally have a top dog or pack leader element. Looking at human behavior and throughout various animals, the concept of an Alpha has existed effectively since the beginning of time.

Research and science have identified it, and many times can be obvious within society.

The way certain men walk into a room with a certain energy without even saying anything, can be felt and noticed.

If you put several people in a group, there are often some people who naturally are selected, or select themselves, for a leadership role within that group.

Without getting into an academic discussion, elements of this are often addressed within several academic fields of study/research, and isn't really debatable -- you can debate 'why' or 'how' as to those roles, but you can't really argue that the role doesn't exist, as clearly obvious in many contexts.

There are a variety of details that can be observed to identify the Alpha behavior in society, and some cases are more obvious than others.

However, I believe a blindly egalitarian idea that there are no natural alphas and everyone is somehow able to get along without striving for leadership roles or advantage within groups; is naive and ignores many elements of human nature.

Even when organization or societal structures are put in place to "equalize" an entire group (as to have no Alpha re, etc), there are always some who naturally rise to the top, and who strive to achieve an advantage or higher position. That inherent part of human behavior, of some unsatisfied with a restricted equality, and some naturally having a competitive nature or naturally standing-out from their peers, and stepping into a leadership capacity within the group, is a natural result. There are effectively no pure examples of that ever not occurring.(Meaning, even if you try to eliminate the Alpha, to normalize a group as the same; the Alphas among the group will surface, regardless).

The National Geographic video I posted above (while limited in scope, etc), does present a few examples and elements of that, which might at least help to elaborate, even if not entirely comprehensive, etc.

I fundamentally disagree that the concept of an Alpha does not naturally exist.

I agree that Alpha and Dominant are not precisely synonymous; but for most scenarios, the overlap tends to refer to the same intended focus of an example.

As for the idea of perceived self-importance, that is not accurately referring to the same thing. That is a matter of ego or attitude -- and that doesn't necessarily refer to an Alpha or Dominant, it refers to behavior on the periphery.

It presumably could involve the same people, but it doesn't really address the same thing. That self-importance itself, is not exactly the same thing as Alpha behavior.

Note: the subject of an Alpha sub (typically female) is an entirely separate topic, and not the same at all as the traditional "Alpha Male" concept; and I will address that separately.

It is worth mentioning, as another mentioned above, that as an Alpha or Dominant, that role involves incredibly vast responsibilities, and expectations upon him, in any relevant scenario, and that shouldn't be ignored, as it does dictate certain things within society, relationships, a kink dynamic, or whatever else applicable.

Perhaps a separate discussion thread might be worthwhile to further discuss the topics involves, rather than to derail the original thread. Out of courtesy to the OP, it might be more appropriate.

SemperDominus​(dom male) • Jul 27, 2022

Re: Alpha Sub

While there is more to it, the concept of an Alpha sub (female) is more aligned with an "Alpha in public, submissive at home" scenario, than otherwise (as commonly used around the scene).

While you might define it differently, the term and concept developed after traditional roles in society were shifting, and feminism encouraged for women to be strong, assertive women, in professional capacities, striving to achieve, rather than to accept traditional female job roles within society. Promoting the "Boss Babe" term and other elements of likewise pushing women to achieve higher and more prominent roles -- which typically require more assertive behavior and personality (e.g. Alpha style behavior, to achieve more, etc).

That assertive, strong, Alpha-style female behavior is often seen as necessary to succeed in the workplace, and so many women will develop that assertive, take-charge, professional personality, as a necessary part of being an "independent woman" within society.

Those women behave more Alpha-like in society, see it almost like a survival mechanism, and they perceive that behavior as necessary within their organization or industry; and is often promoted as an ideology to encourage successful women.

However, traditional roles in society (pre-feminism) have been where men are in a dominant role within family, relationships, and society; and with women being in submissive roles in family, relationships, and society.

In their private (non-professional) life, many women prefer to have that traditional submissive role; even though they might be Alpha in professional capacities.

It means that she could (effectively) act like a strong feminist, independent woman; yet also be deeply submissive at home, and submissive to whomever she views as her Dominant partner.

That was the origin of the Alpha Sub concept, as often used nowadays, in typical use and understanding.

I know of some who notably describe themselves this way.

Likewise, I know of a prominent (well known) professional woman, who is very, very much a proponent of assertive women and that Alpha behavior; but while at home with her husband, she is (secretly) extremely submissive, because that is naturally what fits with her preference and nature. (I know that because I know that family on a personal level, and it was explained to me, and explained how she keeps it a secret, to not impact her professional image).

That is the basis of the typical "Alpha sub" descriptive.

However, yes, I understand that some people will define it differently, in relation to the dynamic itself and other such aspects. That is more of an entirely separate definition, rather than defining it as the same. It might be a valid explanation, but it's addressing a very different thing, in many ways.

As a side-note, I have also found some dominant women, who simply don't want to appear in a potentially negative light, or to limit their options with men, so they call themselves an "Alpha sub" in some cases (usually, they are strong feminists who don't want to be considered as feminists, but they also don't usually adhere to a traditional submissive role either). That is perhaps uncommon, but it exists, and I figured was worth mentioning.

I've also seen other scenarios, where an "Alpha Sub" was like the chief submissive, in a group of multiple submissive females, in a dynamic with one dominant male (like harem, poly, or kink house scenario, where the group might be FFFFM, etc.). Obviously, it is also less common, but worth mentioning.

My response here is simply to explain the origin (and common idea) of the "Alpha Sub" concept.

I'm not disputing that some have different definitions, and may see it differently for themselves, and I don't dispute their personal view (and I've heard some explanations that make sense, etc).

I'm simply addressing the way it is *typically* used and promoted, and as explained by "Alpha sub" females themselves ***most often *** and as developed from the original root concept within modern society, it is ***usually*** similar to the "professional vs. home" example I mentioned here.

Each person might define it differently.

However, that (professional vs. home) is what I find most common as the understood and explained definition, offered by most "Alpha sub" types themselves.

I mention that simply to offer insight and clarification.

Zelia • Jul 27, 2022

If I use the term in the LS, this is how I use it. I don’t really dispute it’s a ‘thing’ I just don’t use it or pay it too much attention because it’s used too often and the definition is used differently by different people. All of that said, I don’t have strong feelings about it either way! Where people use words to mean different things I just look at the person, asses who and what they are to me and literally don’t worry about the rest.

Too simplistic? Probably!

SemperDominus​(dom male) • Jul 27, 2022

If that is how you use the term, then I have no issue with that, and it is actually more in line with what I would prefer, and I actually seem to agree with you in that case, now that you clarified...

(I was initially saying that the other idea was more often used, in popular use, but I don't necessarily agree with the way many apply the term... However, it seems we actually agree).

dollMaker​(dom male) • Jul 27, 2022

It was and is relevant, of course I expected people to disagree, many don’t even accept the idea of toxic masculinity, its an offense to them, so unless they do, its no surprise the idea that alpha male is very much linked will be lost on them. Not surprised either that my mentioning this has been pushed back on, with the whole, this is unwelcome thread drift being put forward. In my view no separate thread is required as its very relevant to the whole mythology of the alpha.

Literate Lycan​(dom male) • Jul 27, 2022

[quote="dollMaker"]

dollMaker, As indicated above, Toxic is Toxic - it can and should be attached to several traits - masculinity, femininity, and a host of other areas where the actions apply a negative. There is nothing wrong with masculinity or femininity but when taken to the negative, they can become toxic. I would support that the most toxic of the masculine perpetrators exude an alpha appearance - overbearing perhaps and more - but where I disagree is when you state alpha male equates to toxic male. It does not. The pushback from myself is that you lump all into one category - bad.

I don’t believe I understand what you mean by mythology of the alpha. It’s a term coined to represent someone or something at the top.

Literate Lycan​(dom male) • Jul 28, 2022

Alais, I enjoy reading your responses. In the martial arts and other areas, Master does equate to skill and commitment, so I respect your perspective. And I know of a few Masters in the LS who put a great deal of effort and commitment into their work within their relationships. I would position that to many in the LS, Master is the flip side to slave and does not equate to the same level of skill or commitment so much as desiring to own a slave and enjoying the title. The difference between Dominant and Master in many relationships is simply the Master declares they own their slave (essentially property of sorts) and prefer that vision of themselves while a Dominant prefers a different type of dynamic with their submissive and it suits their personal ego to view themselves as such. Neither is right nor wrong, it’s dependent upon the personal choice. But good Dominants quite often put great time and effort into understanding and crafting their understanding and skills. Would you call them Master for displaying skill and commitment as a Dominant? (Obviously a number of both Dominants and Masters put zero effort into their skills or commitment, hence we hear of wanna be types or fakes). Dominants I know seek out those they respect and engage in conversations to further their understanding not only in their own dynamic and how to improve it but also in how others view them.

On topic, Alpha is just an indicator. Just like titles such as Master, Dominant, slave or submissive are just indicators so others know somewhat where we consider ourselves in the scheme of the community. Our actions will prove or disprove what we are.

Have an excellent day!

Zelia • Jul 28, 2022

I totally understand Your perspective LC and appreciate it. I would always caveat my declaration that ‘my Master’ is ‘my Master’ because He is the Master of ‘me’. I’m not sure if that makes sense? I am only able to surrender to Him as a slave because of His skill with me and commitment to ‘me’.

Is He a LS Master? I would define that differently and concur with You that when we truly talk of a ‘Master of anything’ the training and experience is a process, likening it to Martial Arts training is an excellent example.

So while He is the Master of me, we have a TPE relationship and truly has mastered me, neither of us would say He was a Master by absolute LS definition.

So complex lmao but I do appreciate the training associated with being a ‘Master.’

We agree!

nashboroguy​(sadist male) • Jul 28, 2022

Masters and slaves all have to start someplace. With both groups, usually they have spent hours and hours online reading and looking at BDSM techniques. While this is a great start to know what to do, it is by no means the real starting point. Baby steps. Try the simple things first and become an expert. then move to more advanced things. Masters need to make sure the slave knows your experience level (and be honest). Use safe words. Listen to the slave. Learn to push limits, but also respect the limits. Remember that it is about respect and honesty to build a relationship or bond. Work together to grow together.