RE: How do YOU define the term alpha male?

RE: How do YOU define the term alpha male? (Full Version)

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

Message

laurell3 -> RE: How do YOU define the term alpha male? (7/19/2010 6:08:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer Pfft. I fundamentally don't care. As previously mentioned, the provenance, the present-day use - everything, in fact, about that categorising of people into 'alphas' and 'betas' - is drivel, as far as I'm concerned. I don't feel insulted if I'm called a beta, I don't feel complimented if I'm called an alpha. I don't feel anything at all other than that my time and brain-space is being wasted on pointless concepts. Yep exactly. I don't define them. I don't judge other people's dynamics and call their men pussified either. I do look for people that have honesty, integrity, compassion, intelligence and strength of character to interact with, both men and women. Whether they are alpha, beta or something else is really irrelevant to me.

VaguelyCurious -> RE: How do YOU define the term alpha male? (7/19/2010 6:13:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer Pfft. I fundamentally don't care. Fair enough-you seemed not to know why people were pissed off, is all.

lally2 -> RE: How do YOU define the term alpha male? (7/19/2010 6:23:24 AM)
since youre asking about alpha men as opposed to alpha women or alpha any gender. there seems to be a few different definitions of alpha male - and id agree, i dont think it applies to every alpha type out there. but my favourite type of alpha is the one who just steadily cuts a path through his day without causing unneccesary waves or dramas. he's focused and effective and tends to be a people person - people fascinate him and he gets the best out of people because he knows how to get the best out of them. no argy bargy, just confidently effective.

DesFIP -> RE: How do YOU define the term alpha male? (7/19/2010 6:30:31 AM)
Actually in horses, the lead mare determines where the herd goes, the lead stallion is in charge of protecting the herd. Both are the head of the herd dependent on what is happening. I don't know how to define alpha male in general. In this house, it means everyone listens to him except the fish.

MrRodgers -> RE: How do YOU define the term alpha male? (7/19/2010 7:32:24 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania quote: I wont ever apologize for my opinion or views, nor should you or anyone for that matter. In fact I have not even stated how "I" defined an alpha male. I have a question... if someone came on here and started a thread about female superiority, stating that all men were inferior to women innately, saying "this was just my opinion"... what would you think of that poster? Would you find that view insulting? Would it rub you the wrong way? I try to think of how my words will impact others (although I am not always successful) and I try not to offend people who aren't offending me. It is one thing to say "In my relationship this is what goes on" and saying "In my opinion people who live differently than me are wrong"... Maybe you might understand how offensive it is if someone told you "I think people who do Daddy/daughter relationships are sick fucks, that is just my opinion"... perhaps maybe you might have some understanding that although you have opinions and feelings, pronouncing around a message board wins no friends and influences even fewer people This what I see: In human societies alpha male can mean very different things. This is a tough room. It goes right on the defensive which means then...the offensive.

LaTigresse -> RE: How do YOU define the term alpha male? (7/19/2010 7:48:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WinsomeDefiance I define Alpha, as the one who earned their leadership role. Usually by being the most capable of not only acquiring but also maintaining that position. This is how I define it.

DaddysInkedSlut -> RE: How do YOU define the term alpha male? (7/19/2010 8:53:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer I did see that thread. The thing is, DIS has never treated me as a 'pussified man' - quite the opposite, in fact - despite being fully aware that I'm a sub. On that thread I felt that the OP was groping towards working out something that I couldn't grasp, which was why I didn't post on it. That is the thing Peon, I think that some people are ASSUMING that to me a pussified man is a submissive man which isn't the case at all. Infact I stated clearly how I defined a "pussified man". Ashame people only read into something what they what and not what is actually there.

PeonForHer -> RE: How do YOU define the term alpha male? (7/19/2010 9:05:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: VaguelyCurious quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer Pfft. I fundamentally don't care. Fair enough-you seemed not to know why people were pissed off, is all. People are inevitably going to be pissed off as soon as we start talking in those categories. The central point of them - the reason why they have currency - is to make a few people feel good about themselves at the expense of others feeling pissed off about themselves.

porcelaine -> RE: How do YOU define the term alpha male? (7/19/2010 9:44:26 AM)
This is always a hot button subject. I think whenever you discuss something that provides a mirror that doesn't reflect back the things people wish to hear they will reject, ridicule, or accept what they're seeing without complaint. And for some the notion of pecking orders or persons being more adept than themselves is hard to stomach. In my opinion the idea of 'alpha' reflects society's unwillingness to recognize that there is always someone better equipped that's able to capitalize on his talent to secure the outcome he desires. This ability doesn't shortchange your gifts or intelligence in any way. Alpha very much like dominant are self applied descriptors. Where I take notice is the propensity of reinforcement. If the individual needs to continually assert I'm dominant, alpha, gentleman, or what have you, I often wonder who he's really trying to convince. ~porcelaine

PeonForHer -> RE: How do YOU define the term alpha male? (7/19/2010 10:10:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: porcelaine This is always a hot button subject. I think whenever you discuss something that provides a mirror that doesn't reflect back the things people wish to hear they will reject, ridicule, or accept what they're seeing without complaint. And for some the notion of pecking orders or persons being more adept than themselves is hard to stomach. In my opinion the idea of 'alpha' reflects society's unwillingness to recognize that there is always someone better equipped that's able to capitalize on his talent to secure the outcome he desires. This ability doesn't shortchange your gifts or intelligence in any way. Alpha very much like dominant are self applied descriptors. Where I take notice is the propensity of reinforcement. If the individual needs to continually assert I'm dominant, alpha, gentleman, or what have you, I often wonder who he's really trying to convince. ~porcelaine My take on this is somewhat the opposite, porcelaine. The idea of alpha/beta gained currency because it helped the wealthy and powerful feel that what they've got is right, deserved and - most of all - 'natural'. At one time, way back in the days of yore, the system of feudal nobility did that for them. There were a few 'persons of quality', while the majority were 'commoners'. The really screwy thing about this latest example of that same phenomenon is the process that's involved. A few men in white coats who should get out more project what they want to see onto the non-human world, using the human world as their (only possible) point of reference. Then, later, that begins to be treated not as a projection, but a 'fact' about how animals live. But, still later - this fact is in turn reflected back on to humans. Humans have their own nature. It's not gibbons', chimps', wolves or hyenas' nature. In my opinion - yup, this is one of those categories that richly deserves ridicule and rejection. As, indeed, do most of the idiots I've met who've imagined themselves to be 'alphas'.

porcelaine -> RE: How do YOU define the term alpha male? (7/19/2010 10:27:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer My take on this is somewhat the opposite, porcelaine. The idea of alpha/beta gained currency because it helped the wealthy and powerful feel that what they've got is right, deserved and - most of all - 'natural'. At one time, way back in the days of yore, the system of feudal nobility did that for them. There were a few 'persons of quality', while the majority were 'commoners'. The terms are merely buzzwords for what they were conditioned to believe all their lives. That mindset still exists. My description of the alpha was not in line with the things most posted. However, the men I'm describing were those with significant positions and means. They're not your average Joe and they don't act like it either nor do they feel they have one iota in common with him and for the most part they don't. Where you and I differ in our assessment is the belief they needed an excuse to justify their entitlement and everything that sprang from it. You're talking apples and oranges. There's no quantifiable way to ignore that. quote: In my opinion - yup, this is one of those categories that richly deserves ridicule and rejection. As, indeed, do most of the idiots I've met who've imagined themselves to be 'alphas'. And that's the point I'm making. Those that scale the ladder by right or through method don't use the term at all. It is often taken on by persons that will never reach that point and in many respects lacks the desire and fortitude to make a concerted attempt at doing so. So he becomes an alpha in other ways instead. From what I've surmised from its frequent appearance on sites of this nature the dominant role has become a viable option. I will readily admit that I have encountered one person that exemplified the traits I described and another that possessed the potential but lacked valuable opportunities for expression. As previously mentioned neither individual describes his character or person in that manner. They're merely men that lead and that word isn't something the first ever utters but clearly implies through his countenance. ~porcelaine

PeonForHer -> RE: How do YOU define the term alpha male? (7/19/2010 10:56:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: porcelaine Where you and I differ in our assessment is the belief they needed an excuse to justify their entitlement and everything that sprang from it. You're talking apples and oranges. There's no quantifiable way to ignore that. If they don't need such an excuse to justify their entitlement, then they should stop making the embarrassing tactical mistake of supporting every idea that comes along, whatever its provenance - biology, natural history, anthropology, history, economics, psychology, - that, by astonishing coincidence, supports and justifies their established position in society whilst simultaneously lending credence to the idea that people at the bottom are justly at the bottom. There's another 'lesson from nature' that's been going around for some years, now. This is that in many species the 'alpha' male is the only one that gets to mate with the females - which, collectively, become what naturalists call this alpha male's 'harem'. Why doesn't that idea have as much currency as that of the alpha/beta dichotomy? Could it be that it highlights the fact that there's only one alpha - that we can't use the term in the plural? Could it be that no-one, not even the rich and powerful in human society, would put up with a situation where only one male gets to have sex with all the females? Nope - bin that idea as 'natural for humans'. For once, this is an idea that benefits too few of those at the top.

laurell3 -> RE: How do YOU define the term alpha male? (7/19/2010 11:12:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddysInkedSlut quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer I did see that thread. The thing is, DIS has never treated me as a 'pussified man' - quite the opposite, in fact - despite being fully aware that I'm a sub. On that thread I felt that the OP was groping towards working out something that I couldn't grasp, which was why I didn't post on it. That is the thing Peon, I think that some people are ASSUMING that to me a pussified man is a submissive man which isn't the case at all. Infact I stated clearly how I defined a "pussified man". Ashame people only read into something what they what and not what is actually there. I think you know why people are upset. You make this declaration of "pussified" based on what you percieve others relationship interactions to be. Honestly, you cannot begin to have a clue what they are from the internet and besides that, it's really not your business to judge anyone else's relationships. Had you had the foresight to word your thread a bit differently, I'm sure you would get different responses. I'd be the first one to say that the posts about how someone's guy can't get it up by certain posters are beyond ridiculous imo and I can definitely see where some of your point has merit. However, that's not what you did, you came out and said, men that do these things in relationships are pussies AND based it on responses here of other posters. It's so much easier to say everyone else is wrong than to own up to a poorly written and offensive thread though isn't it?

porcelaine -> RE: How do YOU define the term alpha male? (7/19/2010 11:19:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer If they don't need such an excuse to justify their entitlement, then they should stop making the embarrassing tactical mistake of supporting every idea that comes along, whatever its provenance - biology, natural history, anthropology, history, economics, psychology, - that, by astonishing coincidence, supports and justifies their established position in society whilst simultaneously lending credence to the idea that people at the bottom are justly at the bottom. Peon, It was never for them, it's for the underlings. The writing promote a message that allows the masses to understand and embrace the natural order of things. And for those that question why, they have a lot of literature to pour through that fails to answer the question or provide the formula (of success) they're really seeking. But the latter would never be revealed. It's nothing more than propaganda. quote: There's another 'lesson from nature' that's been going around for some years, now. This is that in many species the 'alpha' male is the only one that gets to mate with the females - which, collectively, become what naturalists call this alpha male's 'harem'. Why doesn't that idea have as much currency as that of the alpha/beta dichotomy? Could it be that it highlights the fact that there's only one alpha - that we can't use the term in the plural? Could it be that no-one, not even the rich and powerful in human society, would put up with a situation where only one male gets to have sex with all the females? That concept is funny. Money attracts women, not the idea of his 'alpha' manhood. Rich and powerful men have heaps of women at their disposal. Even if he didn't stand as the alpha you're alluding to, the premise is still incorrect. He isn't hurting in the ladies department one iota. Men that stress the need to define themselves along those lines usually aren't carrying Amex Black. He needs another gimmick. ~porcelaine

PeonForHer -> RE: How do YOU define the term alpha male? (7/19/2010 11:49:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: porcelaine It was never for them, it's for the underlings. The writing promote a message that allows the masses to understand and embrace the natural order of things. And for those that question why, they have a lot of literature to pour through that fails to answer the question or provide the formula (of success) they're really seeking. But the latter would never be revealed. It's nothing more than propaganda. Did you mean 'natural order of things' to go into parentheses? I would have expressed it that way. [;)] I don't think I'd quite describe the literature as aimed at (and eagerly snapped up, by) 'underlings' so much as people who are some rungs up from that. These are people I'd characterise as those who've sort of 'made-it' doing things that, deep down, they don't feel to be particularly noble or impressive. I guess I'm thinking of those who get paid shedloads for doing something that, well, is no doubt needed in society, but just isn't all that admirable. The Robert Maxwells and Rupert Murdochs of this world spring to mind, as do those thrusting people in the business world who, for instance, have 'brilliant, innovative and world-shattering ideas' on new ways of selling soap powder or hamburgers. No, I'd agree with you and others that the Einsteins or the Marie Curies of this world - the true movers and shakers - would burst out laughing at being called 'alphas'. But I also think they'd laugh at the notion of alphas and betas itself. They would put themselves above such ideas. As, indeed, do I. [;)] quote: Money attracts women, not the idea of his 'alpha' manhood. Any time I've seen even a half-serious attempt at correlating alpha/beta in the non-human world with the way humans operate by one of the quacks who's purveyed it, it's always assumed wealth to be a key part of the formula. The alpha wolf gets the first and biggest share of the kill; the alpha human gets the biggest share of whatever money is around. Likewise, if being an 'alpha' had as little to do with boffing lots of women as you say, I doubt that it would have developed the clout as an idea that it has today.

LadyHibiscus -> RE: How do YOU define the term alpha male? (7/19/2010 11:54:55 AM)
Not everyone can be an alpha. That is part of the very DEFINITION of it, in the animal world. Yet how many would describe themselves that way? Of course, the typical American corporate structure is 99% chiefs (ie titles) 1% indians.

sexyred1 -> RE: How do YOU define the term alpha male? (7/19/2010 12:03:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: juliaoceania quote: An alpha male to me is a man who can do the physical, mental and emotional and doesn't run away from being all that a human being can be. He has honor and honesty and isn't afraid to be vulnerable, sweet, helpful, loving and weak at times. An alpha man comes in the form of a dominant or a submissive. An alpha is one fucking amazing human being. This Yes, this sounds great...IF you need to label what should be just a normal, admirable collection of human traits. This Alpha, Beta, whatever labeling crap is just that, crap to me. I have known many wonderful men in my life and I don't in a million years believe that it ever occured to any of them to identify themselves, as, I am AlphaMan, hear me roar. On the other hand, the crappy men I have met in my life, who were arrogant and negative, disrespectful and insecure, they needed to stress that they were "alpha men", much to the amusement of me and everyone else they encountered.

porcelaine -> RE: How do YOU define the term alpha male? (7/19/2010 12:07:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer I don't think I'd quite describe the literature as aimed at (and eagerly snapped up, by) 'underlings' so much as people who are some rungs up from that. These are people I'd characterise as those who've sort of 'made-it' doing things that, deep down, they don't feel to be particularly noble or impressive. I guess I'm thinking of those who get paid shedloads for doing something that, well, is no doubt needed in society, but just isn't all that admirable. The Robert Maxwells and Rupert Murdochs of this world spring to mind, as do those thrusting people in the business world who, for instance, have 'brilliant, innovative and world-shattering ideas' on new ways of selling soap powder or hamburgers. Peon, The desire for status is what compels people to believe it is necessary to have a prestigious job. Often the latter is darned hard to get in the first place and moving up the ranks is more challenging. I instructed my daughter to exploit her natural talents and to be keenly aware that her real contribution to any organization would never be fiscally provided. I saw a lot of starry-eyed types in investment banking that quickly lost their glow after time. quote: No, I'd agree with you and others that the Einsteins or the Marie Curies of this world - the true movers and shakers - would burst out laughing at being called 'alphas'. But I also think they'd laugh at the notion of alphas and betas itself. They would put themselves above such ideas. I don't understand the need to express what can be implied and understood by observation. [:D] quote: Likewise, if being an 'alpha' had as little to do with boffing lots of women as you say, I doubt that it would have developed the clout as an idea that it has today. I see that as advertising. Products are promoted as a way of bolstering a man's esteem and appeal to others. Look at the Old Spice commercials. They're funny but I'm willing to bet the company is selling more product as well. But keep in mind I coming from a different perspective on this. And the men I get involved with don't talk like this either. They're the sort to allow their substance to speak for itself rather than repeatedly remind me who they are within. I think the exploits with women is just the icing on the cake, but not the root cause behind his behavior. That generally boils down to control. ~porcelaine

LaTigresse -> RE: How do YOU define the term alpha male? (7/19/2010 12:21:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyHibiscus Not everyone can be an alpha. That is part of the very DEFINITION of it, in the animal world. Yet how many would describe themselves that way? Of course, the typical American corporate structure is 99% chiefs (ie titles) 1% indians. Unfortunately not many of those chiefs are worthy of their position. Alpha in title only.

EbonyWood -> RE: How do YOU define the term alpha male? (7/19/2010 12:22:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LadyHibiscus Not everyone can be an alpha. That is part of the very DEFINITION of it, in the animal world. Yet how many would describe themselves that way? Of course, the typical American corporate structure is 99% chiefs (ie titles) 1% indians. Whereas the typical call center is 99% Indian and no chiefs. Good point about nature, LadyH. The typical occurrence in nature is 1 or 2 Alpha males per population group, a few betas and mostly female. And it's effectiveness is guaranteed by the production of high numbers of spermatazoa by one individual but only (usually) one ovum per cycle for females. Sorry to get biological, but it actually constructs the sociological behavior being discussed. The idea of Alpha maledom isn't actually as much to do with the female, as it is to be being superior (and carrying better genetic information) than other males. The beta male not being permitted to mate. The real measure of what, or who, is regarded as an Alpha male might best be answered by other males and any inferiority they may have or experience. The Alpha male isn't necessarily the one who impresses the female most, but the one who betters his rivals and is the ONLY one the female deems worthy of her ovum/pussy/love/life/submission. EW Reporting from the jungle.

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

4.882813E-02