RE: Alphas and Betas and D/s relationships

RE: Alphas and Betas and D/s relationships (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion

Message

juliaoceania -> RE: Alphas and Betas and D/s relationships (7/17/2010 12:24:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jujubeeMB I really like this thread. I'm totally an alpha personality - I tend to be the leader and the most intense debater and the decision-maker in my relationships - but what I've been seeking my whole life is someone tougher, smarter, stronger and righter than me, if that makes sense. I think I said it in another post, but I want to rule the kingdom while a bigger, stronger ruler rules me. I may be verging on dorky now... Oh, and bringing up Darcy is not fair - I'm pretty sure that book ruined my ability to ever date any man on earth [:D] I get everything you just wrote, juju, especially the part about Darcy.... a man like that would make me a puddle of submissive goo

porcelaine -> RE: Alphas and Betas and D/s relationships (7/17/2010 1:24:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania One of the most rewarding things I do is give advice on how to navigate grad school to young women who ask me. I feel it is important to reach behind and hold the door open for others, and I think that spirit is noticed by those who are in the position to advance me, although that is not the motivation for why I do it..I genuinely think there is enough credit, praise, and applause for everyone..... I am heavily committed to noblesse oblige and that mindset was instilled in me at a young age. Giving back isn't an option, but something I believe is necessary for me at least. I recognize talent and will aid an individual that's hungry and willing to work. However, I will never overlook the contributions of my own. Her betterment and personal evolution is something I'm willing to invest in bringing to fruition. quote: ORIGINAL: jujubeeMB I really like this thread. I'm totally an alpha personality - I tend to be the leader and the most intense debater and the decision-maker in my relationships - but what I've been seeking my whole life is someone tougher, smarter, stronger and righter than me, if that makes sense. I think I said it in another post, but I want to rule the kingdom while a bigger, stronger ruler rules me. I may be verging on dorky now... Nicely articulated. We're looking for a few good men. The few. The proud. The dominant. [:D] ~porcelaine

DarlingSavage -> RE: Alphas and Betas and D/s relationships (7/17/2010 2:41:12 PM)
quote: We're looking for a few good men. The few. The proud. The dominant. Me too! Me too! Me too!

Elisabella -> RE: Alphas and Betas and D/s relationships (7/17/2010 4:10:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania This may not be the "alpha" exactly, but you are someone who is well aware of the power you have, so I would not exactly call you a "beta" either I don't think you can look at it as alpha=power, beta=blind follower. Those would be omegas. These aren't just hierarchal concepts but rather specific roles. Look at this guy - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Maurice_de_Talleyrand-P%C3%A9rigord Obviously a beta, in sharp contrast to the alpha Napoleon, but he chilled through a King, a revolution, an Emperor, another King, and he helped bring Napoleon down. There's only one alpha, and in theory he's only replaced via hostile takeover. Someone on this thread wondered what would happen if all the self-identified alphas were on a desert island together, which one would end up being the alpha. I think it's an excellent question. I don't really care who would be the strongest, who would end up becoming the alpha...I'm more interested in how many "alphas" would really want it bad enough to try.

porcelaine -> RE: Alphas and Betas and D/s relationships (7/17/2010 4:16:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Elisabella There's only one alpha, and in theory he's only replaced via hostile takeover. Someone on this thread wondered what would happen if all the self-identified alphas were on a desert island together, which one would end up being the alpha. I think it's an excellent question. The answer is simple. You exercise the rules of engagement if you're utilizing the battle theme. Those that want the role will use a show of strength to make that happen. Slaughter is a means to an end when you're playing to win. It's just like the Survivor theme suggests: Outwit, Outplay, Outlast. What differs is the reasons why an individual would throw themselves into the fray. In the example stated, it is possible some want the position for selfish purposes, they're benevolently oriented and believe they're the best person for the job (helping the group survive and get out of there), or it's a bit of both. In my opinion the influences behind their actions will usually determine how they go about achieving them. In the end it comes down to the importance assigned to being alpha, the ability to assess and defeat the opponents, while preventing alienation from the core. The operation is not successful if cohesion does not occur after the "real alpha" has been determined. They must see and accept her as the leader or a never-ending cycle of power struggles may threaten to erode the measures she seeks to employ in the long run. ~porcelaine

allthatjaz -> RE: Alphas and Betas and D/s relationships (7/19/2010 1:15:29 AM)
A stallion may lead his herd away from danger but contrary to popular believe, he is only dominant over his herd if the alpha female gives him permission. The alpha female chooses a stallion by his running speed and his ability to work under her rule. She is the decision maker and tells him who he can breed with. She boots the unwanted from the herd and allows others in. She says who can drink from the watering hole. He's the employed bouncer/breeder but he works very much under her order. If you study horses in a natural environment you can see that the rest of the herd are only interested in pleasing her and not the stallion who is kept more or less an outsider, patrolling and watching out for danger. He will fight to the death with another stallion but it is paramount for the herds survival that alpha female (the leader) remains healthy and strong so that she can continue to lead her herd.

PeonForHer -> RE: Alphas and Betas and D/s relationships (7/19/2010 3:59:20 AM)
Good points re horses, Maria - but let's face it, horses are a bit thick, aren't they?

CaringandReal -> RE: Alphas and Betas and D/s relationships (7/19/2010 5:07:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania quote: What fascinates me is wondering what would happen if the various submissives who identify as alpha were put in a group together, perhaps not a harem as many would be opposed to that, but perhaps some other social organization in which they had to work cohesively with each other and determine their own structure or pecking order. Who would come out on top, as the alpha of the alphas? I believe I know who I'd put my money on, but as a lover of peace and harmony (not to mention a coward), I am so not going to name a name! ;) Question: do dommes or dominant men try to form a structure of "dominance"? I found it curious you would make this remark about submissives, why would we have trouble working more or less cohesively than any other sort of group? Nothing mysterious about it. :) And it has nothing to do with what dominants do or do not do. I made the remark because several submissive women said, earlier in this thread, that if placed in a group situation, they take charge. So it was natural to wonder if all of these people who say this were placed together within a natural context (like working together) and all tried to do what they claim they usually do (take charge of the group), which of them would actually end up in charge of the group? The outcome, I think, would tell an observer, a lot more about these individuals than their self-descriptions. Come on, laugh at this. :D It's a funny idea to think of all our sub-in-releationship, dom-everywhere-else women working out a pecking order. I was laughing at my own response because, while a little exaggerated for humor, it's exactly how I respond in real life. I go to the bottom of the heap and make myself scarce. I don't enjoy confrontation, and these days it is actually rather bad for my health! ;)

allthatjaz -> RE: Alphas and Betas and D/s relationships (7/19/2010 8:28:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer Good points re horses, Maria - but let's face it, horses are a bit thick, aren't they? NOOoooooooo horses are extremely clever. A horse can work out in less than a minute if you can ride or not [;)]

PeonForHer -> RE: Alphas and Betas and D/s relationships (7/19/2010 9:36:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: allthatjaz NOOoooooooo horses are extremely clever. A horse can work out in less than a minute if you can ride or not [;)] Horses are cretins, Maria. They end up being ridden by humans because it's God's way of punishing them for being so stupid.

porcelaine -> RE: Alphas and Betas and D/s relationships (7/19/2010 9:57:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CaringandReal Nothing mysterious about it. :) And it has nothing to do with what dominants do or do not do. I made the remark because several submissive women said, earlier in this thread, that if placed in a group situation, they take charge. So it was natural to wonder if all of these people who say this were placed together within a natural context (like working together) and all tried to do what they claim they usually do (take charge of the group), which of them would actually end up in charge of the group? The outcome, I think, would tell an observer, a lot more about these individuals than their self-descriptions. I didn't find your question bothersome. I actually laughed but my humor is a wee bit off color. I think the pecking order would happen. Otherwise they'll spend all day arguing and nothing gets done. Women aren't big on friction and our ability to negotiate is a plus. I would expect delegation and I've been involved in too many situations where people secure a role simply because they're the only one that volunteered. Having a propensity to be dominant doesn't make her a natural born leader in my opinion. In fact, I'd go as far to suggest that most of the women in the situation described probably wouldn't desire it. ~porcelaine

Andalusite -> RE: Alphas and Betas and D/s relationships (7/22/2010 7:54:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: leadership527 quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania I know I am not a domme, I have no desire to top anyone, for example... it is just that I don't think I am submissive until someone I feel is my idea of what a man should be comes along... then dominance and submission is an assertion of relative ranking. So if you are stranded on a desert island all by yourself, you can't be either dominant or submissive. It's going to take a specific other individual to compare against. When I say that Carol is "generally submissive", all that that means is that for most random strangers she meets, she will assume a submissive posture. But in a vacuum, she's still "neither" and you never know when one of those rare individuals will come along that'll make her take on a dominant mindset. I am neither dominant nor submissive toward most people. If they are in a position of authority over me, or significantly older, I'll probably be deferential. Otherwise, they're neutral, and I just don't think of them as dominant or submissive, whether socially or in D/s terms. I don't generally think of myself as having a ranking with respect to another person, unless it is immediately relevant and imposed from the outside (ie. management or police officer) or I'm considering a D/s relationship with them. If someone is already leading, I'll probably go along with it, but if something needs to get done and nobody is taking charge, I'll fill the power vacuum and start organizing people. For example, at a workshop last week, we were supposed to divide into teams. I didn't like the available options, so I went around and recruited people based on interests rather than geography.

realwhiteknight -> RE: Alphas and Betas and D/s relationships (7/22/2010 8:10:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania ...I think I am more of an alpha sort of female than a beta sort of female, but I just want an alpha male to follow. I don't feel particularly submissive anymore. I kinda like being in charge in my working life. I love it when I have people follow me, but I don't want a man I am involved with to follow me, I want him to be in control. I know I am not a domme, I have no desire to top anyone, for example... it is just that I don't think I am submissive until someone I feel is my idea of what a man should be comes along... 2 things: First, I honestly don't think this pertains this much to bdsm, it's just the way that all women are (from my experience). We all want the 'alpha male' (as much as I hate to objectify people or divide them into alpha/beta/etc., so I'm using this term to simply reflect a guy who is considered desirable by almost all women). We want the guy who's desirable. I mean, who wouldn't want a guy with all these great qualities: tall, strong, charming, intelligent, take-charge and assertive, handsome, generous, ambitious, etc.? Secondly, I definitely think it's interesting you make the note that you'd consider yourself more alpha than beta-this puts you into an interesting position. The more 'alpha' you are as a woman, the more you'd expect from the man in order to be attracted. Therefore being alpha, you could only ever settle for another alpha. Women can't settle for a partner in the same way that men do- we can be more demanding in that way, it's part of human nature. I'm sure there are happy outliers...somewhere.. EDIT: omgomgomg Did someone say Mr. Darcy??!!! has spontaneous orgasm upon hearing his name mentioned

juliaoceania -> RE: Alphas and Betas and D/s relationships (7/22/2010 8:37:07 AM)
quote: And it has nothing to do with what dominants do or do not do. I made the remark because several submissive women said, earlier in this thread, that if placed in a group situation, they take charge. I do not know about others, but I did not say that I take charge, what I said was that if no one else was willing to do it or skilled enough to do it, I often naturally do. This has been a slow process in my life because I was put in leadership positions often and then it became easier and easier to assume that role. I will not "fight" to be on "top" because my ego doesn't care about stuff like that. quote: The outcome, I think, would tell an observer, a lot more about these individuals than their self-descriptions. It would depend on what we were all doing together. Leadership is often situational. If we were all doing something that I had expertise in I would vocalize a plan. If it were something that someone else had expertise in, I would defer to them.

juliaoceania -> RE: Alphas and Betas and D/s relationships (7/22/2010 8:39:05 AM)
quote: he more 'alpha' you are as a woman, the more you'd expect from the man in order to be attracted. Therefore being alpha, you could only ever settle for another alpha I think that these was my thoughts behind this thread

kdsub -> RE: Alphas and Betas and D/s relationships (7/22/2010 8:59:59 AM)
Damn I hate classifications… alpha… beta…bull crap. Neither are we pack animals or have a herd mentality. We are the “I” the individual. Deep down what we think of is what do “I” want or need. “I” am not a beta if “I” want another person to act a certain way. “I” am pleasing myself being very selective in what “I” want. That is not being submissive. If two or more people find the complimentary “I” they have a chance of making a life together but if either one is not satisfying the “I” the relationship will end and it makes no difference who thinks they are dominant or submissive they are both in control of their “I” We are so individually alone with our exclusive human ability to ponder the universe and our place in it. Butch

juliaoceania -> RE: Alphas and Betas and D/s relationships (7/22/2010 9:06:21 AM)
quote: Neither are we pack animals or have a herd mentality. We are the “I” the individual. Deep down what we think of is what do “I” want or need. At the basic level, most animals that live in social groups look out for their own survival first... We live in collectives, we are not rugged individualists living on the frontier all by ourselves. People who go off on their own are often thought to be mentally ill. Banishment means death, and this is why shunning and solitary confinement are very effective deterrents to even harden criminals. quote: If two or more people find the complimentary “I” they have a chance of making a life together but if either one is not satisfying the “I” the relationship will end and it makes no difference who thinks they are dominant or submissive they are both in control of their “I” We are so individually alone with our exclusive human ability to ponder the universe and our place in it. This has nothing to do with this thread. It isn't about whether or not people who have certain sorts of personality traits can break off with each other... it is about attraction to each other in the first place.

porcelaine -> RE: Alphas and Betas and D/s relationships (7/22/2010 9:16:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: realwhiteknight Secondly, I definitely think it's interesting you make the note that you'd consider yourself more alpha than beta-this puts you into an interesting position. The more 'alpha' you are as a woman, the more you'd expect from the man in order to be attracted. Therefore being alpha, you could only ever settle for another alpha. Women can't settle for a partner in the same way that men do- we can be more demanding in that way, it's part of human nature. I'm sure there are happy outliers...somewhere.. "Therefore being alpha, you [would] only [accept] another alpha [as a companion]" This describes me to a tee! ~porcelaine

kdsub -> RE: Alphas and Betas and D/s relationships (7/22/2010 9:25:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania We live in collectives, we are not rugged individualists living on the frontier all by ourselves. I am...not mentally ill.... I think you need to go deeper. When you think to yourself you think as an individual not a collective. quote: This has nothing to do with this thread. It isn't about whether or not people who have certain sorts of personality traits can break off with each other... it is about attraction to each other in the first place. You have read my post wrong... I am saying exactly the same as you.. We know what we want...we look for what we want...not what someone else wants. If we find someone that fulfills our needs we can have a relationship. But no matter how submissive you think yourself YOU choose who to have a relationship with... not someone else. This means you are an equal part of any relationship and there is no alpha and beta in reality. Butch

realwhiteknight -> RE: Alphas and Betas and D/s relationships (7/22/2010 9:38:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub Damn I hate classifications… alpha… beta…bull crap. Neither are we pack animals or have a herd mentality. We are the “I” the individual. Deep down what we think of is what do “I” want or need. We are so individually alone with our exclusive human ability to ponder the universe and our place in it. I agree, the human mind is so much more complex than other animals, that although we have basic 'animal' instincts, we have other needs too. Often they conflict with our basic instincts. Therefore, I'd argue the words 'alpha' and 'beta' are oversimplifications and meaningless when applied to humans. Furthermore, are overused by those who take evolutionary psychology too far and those who slavishly follow the field..I see alot of this on the internet and those who do, I notice, tend to cherry pick certain principles and tenets to further their beliefs or agenda (ex., women are inherently followers of men, hence, are not subject to equitable treatment or fair protection under the law, etc.). I get really annoyed with the terms' overuse but find them useful in some contexts.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875