Dominating an Alpha Male/Female - Challenge or Goal?

[s'lara]

This board needs to define every term before conversations begin. It seems as though every other conversation becomes a fight over semantics.

*takes a quick look over the posts in this thread*

i don't see a fight over semantics. i see discussion and observation. Offering of viewpoints and responses to those viewpoints.

Last i checked, we don't share a single brain. So there is to be some differences in opinion correct? And as i see it, the contribution to the thread should be about the subject at hand and not about pet peeves. i believe the option to disregard the posts is still available.

lara

 

[dragonlace]

In my life i have always been an alpha in personality, very dominate in my life and with my friends but my heart is that of a submissive and it has taken a very strong Dom for me to totally submit. In the past, I have always kept something for myself without giving all to them for they were not strong enough to control me. Until i found the Dom for me, strong personality and will with compassion but not soft, and love enough to be patient with my stubborness and strong personality without breaking my spirit.

Personally i think a stronger personality would take a stronger Dom/me and would be a challenge for them at times.

 

[Johnny Mayberry]

just my two cents...

Dominating a powerful personality means so much more to me than the same scene with someone who is submissive in all aspects. Talking a strong will and bending it to mine is a rush that is worth more than all the effort.

 

[Pure]

Hi S'lara

[you said, about the two cases I distinguished:}

Precision wasn't the goal, just acquisition of information. However, you do make a point regarding the two types of "alpha" personalities. For purposes of my question, let it be clear that the alpha of which i speak is in the category of number 2. [one resistant in a scene].

Actually, the satisfaction i am curious about is whether the sense of accomplishment, after successfully dominating an alpha, is more satisfying than dominating the willing submissive. Does the challenge, the fight to get the alpha to want to submit feel better somehow? More Toppish? More powerful? Why is it domination par excellence? Does it take resistance to make you (addressing all and not just Pure - smile) reach that particular plateau?

Quint, said something similar,
Pure's second definition of an alpha is exactly on the mark for me; I would have no interest whatsoever in a male that crumbled upon contact. [Pure's first case]

I'm glad we are getting things straight, here.

I wouldn't say, however, that there are 'two types' of alphas, or that 'alpha' can be defined in two ways. I would say that 'alpha' is pretty well understood as implying a (male) dominance over (male) competitors in a given milieu. The dominant 'alpha' often has a harem, and the other males take what's left over, if anything. By extension there are perhaps 'alpha' females.'

In neither case is 'alpha' an absolute, like being 6 feet tall. If two groups are joined, one alpha is often suppressed. One 'alpha' is no longer so. It's a bit like being 'tallest' in one's circle-- it may not transfer to 'tallest' in some other circle.

I wanted to distinguish two *contexts* which an 'alpha' person might want to set up.

In context one, the 'alpha's' submission to the Master/Mistress is pre-arranged and pre-agreed. The context may be set up as one where this 'alpha' (elsewhere) grovels and licks the Mistresses boots. As part of the pre-agreement 'he' never plans to offer resistance, and even if the Mistress escalates, and says, 'Here, lick the floor," 'he' complies with complaint, and is grateful.

In context two, the 'alpha' (elsewhere) plans to keep acting a bit like s/he wishes. 'He' may resist or refuse to a degree. Obviously total refusal would negate the whole scene, unless the proposed sub could be overcome physically and restrained (like a pre-arranged rape). The agreement then is, in effect, to a sort of 'fight' or contest (like a tennis match) rather than a certain outcome. The 'sub' says, "You are to try to subordinate me by any means feasible, as long as I do not leave on a stretcher. I shall be myself, as far as I can prevail."

I don't know if this is a 'different' alpha, but s/he has made a different set up.

To the question:
"Does the challenge, the fight to get the alpha to want to submit feel better somehow? More Toppish? More powerful? Why is it domination par excellence?"

I'll leave Netzach and others to describe the feelings since that's their experience. I say, it's 'par excelence' or more in accord with the Master's or Mistress's exercize of power, since 'power' is overcoming. To exercize 'power' over another, to subordinate them is to impose ones will, to command that something happen, regardless of whether it's the 'subs' desires.

While there is necessarily an element of compliance, the 'par excellence' domination occurs at the edge of what's comfortable and beyond. To the 'sub' who'll lick boots, but never drink piss, they say, the task might become exactly that, the latter.

It's simply palling around with someone or 'hanging out' if they want to have fried chicken and you say, "let's go get it." You are not exercizing power over them, imposing anything. If they want chicken, and you say "I'm in the mood for roast beef, and that's what we're gonna have, and you will cook it." That is imposition.

As Netzach has pointed out, every lasting relationship has 'normal' moments, free-for-all discussions, etc. "Domination" is not in every minute, outside Story of O. But when its excercised, someone is being *molded* to the will of another, not merely, as in case/context one, saying "You want me to jump. Well, how high?"

Sorry about the longwinded-ness. Thanks for the responses, s'lara and Quint.

J.

 

[Netzach]

There was something Risia, Netzach and Quint recently said on the "Switching - Revisited" thread that made me think about this subject.

All of the ladies above stated that dominating an alpha personality was enjoyable ... somewhat decadent in nature.
That being the case, it seems as if this particular type of domination is the creme brulee of Topping. Pardon the food analogy, but i am craving something sweet. me? i am submissive and topping is outside of my realm of interest.

Now on to the questions.

1. Is topping an alpha person more of a challenge?

No, not in my experience. A lot of alpha personalities have spent so much time in control "on the outside" that by the time they are ready to give over control they are fully ready and eager to do it. A less alpha, more inherently submissive person usually needs more reassurances and more mapping out, submission is a little more fragile a thing, that's a generalization, but a fair one in my experience.

2. Do you find it more satisfactory to Top an alpha male/female than to Top a willing submissive?

Not always. It has its merits, it's pleasing for a certain reason. M, my partner is much more generally omega than G, or B, other bottoms I play with frequently, both switches. Everyone brings different stuff to the table.

3. Are your limits pushed when dominating an alpha male/female and, if so, do you find that your resulting satisfaction is akin to the feeling of completing a difficult task?

Limits, I dunno, and my brain and faculties are pushed, but M pushes those a lot too, and he's a pussycat. I would hope that every bottom would challenge me that way.

 

[AngelicAssassin]

Ahh the wolf pack theory. This i have been apprised of in the past. AA Sir, pray elaborate on the Alpha wolf and its position in the pack if You will.

lara

No need, i think Pure pretty much nailed this one thru the wall early in his last reply. The Alpha wolf ... smiling ... leads until killed or driven out of the pack. When that happens, he's no longer the Alpha male.

 

[Mr Blonde]

i think Pure pretty much nailed this one thru the wall early in his last reply.

I don't think he nailed anything. A review of the thread shows seven people gave a response. Five of them (including me) appear to give responses that are against Pure's attempted definition.

The majority opinion agreed that people who are usually controlling and powerful can make very willing and ready submissives. Consensual submission is the willing exchange of power. People who hold authority in their business life are very conscious of the concept of power and would know how (if so inclined) to yield it quicker than most.

 

[Mr. Bootie]

For me it is a goal.

I am attracted to the confidence and strength of the personality. So it's not so much the challenge, but I like that sort of personality. Like others have said, it is thier willingness to submit that turns me on, not that I have a desire to "break" them. To have them totally and willingly sumit is the real turn on.

 

[Ebonyfire]

No need, i think Pure pretty much nailed this one thru the wall early in his last reply. The Alpha wolf ... smiling ... leads until killed or driven out of the pack. When that happens, he's no longer the Alpha male.

That has nothing to do with the conversation at hand. IMHO, he nailed nothing. The wolf pack theory is relevant to wolves, not submissives and dominants.

 

[AngelicAssassin]

Originally posted by Mr Blonde
... I don't think he nailed anything. A review of the thread shows seven people gave a response. Five of them (including me) appear to give responses that are against Pure's attempted definition ...

Pardon me, but it did nail the tangent s'lara and i discussed.

Originally posted by AngelicAssassin

... i assume s'lara asks about the Alpha of the pack?

Originally posted by s'lara Ahh the wolf pack theory. This i have been apprised of in the past. AA Sir, pray elaborate on the Alpha wolf and its position in the pack if You will.

lara

Originally posted by Pure ... I would say that 'alpha' is pretty well understood as implying a (male) dominance over (male) competitors in a given milieu. The dominant 'alpha' often has a harem, and the other males take what's left over, if anything ...

As to whether Pure's definition was attempted, or completed, that's in your mind to decide.

Originally posted by Mr Blonde
... People are just defining things any which way they want...so I will do the same! ... I will define "alpha" as being the strong-willed sort of personality. A person who is hard-driving, logical, authoritative, harsh and forceful. I was involved with one such girl for a short while and she will be the basis of my reply.

It was extremely satisfying to humiliate, degrade and discipline her. She would have a keenly submissive reaction to every provocation because it was such a departure from her normal demeanor.

You believe an Alpha would ever willing submit, i don't believe him or her to be a true Alpha. We seem to have a difference of opinion on the definition of an Alpha, and therein lies the crux of the matter. If what you wish to do involves taking a strong willed person and imposing your will upon them, i wish you success in your pursuit, however ...

Originally posted by Mr Blonde
... The biggest challenge, which led to the termination of the relationship, was her abrasive and unyielding attitude outside the bedroom. Sorry to be blunt, but she was just too difficult of a person for me to be around all the time ...

it appears that success sometimes is bittersweet.

 

[TwistaFate]

two dominants in a relationship

that is a truly scary thought, the words Hiroshima comes to mind

 

[s'lara]

Re: two dominants in a relationship

that is a truly scary thought, the words Hiroshima comes to mind

Why? Do you think it is impossible for two Dominants to cohabitate without it coming to explosions?

Questions to A/all - Do you think two clearly Dominant people can have a successul relationship? Are there precursors to every relationship wherein one must be Dominant and the other submissive?

i think it's possible. There must be some give on either side, but it's possible. i don't know if the "give" is submitting to the will of the other, but i am certain it does include compromise.

lara

 

[Croctden]

Re: Re: two dominants in a relationship

Why? Do you think it is impossible for two Dominants to cohabitate without it coming to explosions?

Questions to A/all - Do you think two clearly Dominant people can have a successul relationship? Are there precursors to every relationship wherein one must be Dominant and the other submissive?

i think it's possible. There must be some give on either side, but it's possible. i don't know if the "give" is submitting to the will of the other, but i am certain it does include compromise.

lara

Seems impossible to me, unless you mean a vanilla relationship. Two switches yes, but two dominates no. They both want the same thing and are not going to get it in the other. If they "give" to the submitting they're not dominate. If they don't "give" that far it's not BDSM.

 

[Justina123]

Ebony said:

Exactly. No sub of mine would push Me to do anything. they know better. I am not there to answer the call of their nature. I am stern enough, I doubt if one could take sterner

This could have been written by a Dom as well as a Domme, no? There are some submissives who seem to enjoy pushing back a little, some folks refer to them as "bratty" or, more kindly, just "playful".... and some Dom/mes who appear to enjoy this kind of relationship.

Personally, I am with Ebony... I have no desire to push my Dom. I may occasionally ask a polite "why" type question, or even make a request for something (whether sexual, play related, or just what to have for dinner) but in private and at an appropriate time. And, as I tell my kids, I only ask once.

Okay, now that I've gotten way of topic....ha!

- justina

 

[Justina123]

s'lara asked:

Why? Do you think it is impossible for two Dominants to cohabitate without it coming to explosions?

Sir shares an apartment with another Dominant male (except on most weekends, when he comes to my place, ha!) He and his roommate are friends and get along just fine. They share some non-bdsm interests, like fishing, and neither minds naked submissives wandering around or very interesting noises coming from the other's bedroom.

- justina

 

[Luna_Wolf72]

Re: Re: two dominants in a relationship

Why? Do you think it is impossible for two Dominants to cohabitate without it coming to explosions?

Questions to A/all - Do you think two clearly Dominant people can have a successul relationship? Are there precursors to every relationship wherein one must be Dominant and the other submissive?

i think it's possible. There must be some give on either side, but it's possible. i don't know if the "give" is submitting to the will of the other, but i am certain it does include compromise.

lara

Okay...I am gonna jump in here with my two cents. First, i would not call me a submissive by nature. In almost every aspect of my life i am the *do-er*, the one who plans, and conquers. I am the one that most people lean on...ie I am an alpha personality, period.

For me, submission is a decision. I decide to give up control to someone else. I don't do it half-way. I don't do it grudgingly. I do it full force, just like i would do anything else!! I believe Twist was speaking from experience. He was my old *Owner* and yes, two dominant personalities in one house hold can be a complete and utter BITCH. Especially in day to day living...with D/s being the cornerstone of the relationship. It is a very hard thing to maintain and conversation on ALL levels is a must.

I know, for me, submission is something i do when i trust and love the person enough to give up complete control to Them. If there is not an abundance of either one, then I do NOT submit. Whipping me or humiliating me under those circumstances would get you a fight, point blank. And if i did give in, it would not be because i wanted to...it would be because i was forced...thus ruining all the joy of submission for me.

Anyway, I threw my 2 cents in...i will be reading this thread with much interest.

PET

 

[TwistaFate]

interesting thread

it is always interesting to see what some people think, I love the way we all get together and voice our beliefs and such. I still beleive two dominants in a relationship where it is established a D/s relationship can only bring drama

 

[yaspis]

I'm a bit late with my first post, but here goes.

I myself enjoy having a playful sub who sometimes "tests" me and my sterness. I don't consider that being a flaw, because afterwards, when s/he is sore and sorry it is pleasant to watch them sinking deeper into submission.

Me and my s/o are both very dominant personalities, and we've got a great relationship. We've both stretched ourselves to switching, and this has worked for both of us very well. Conversation, again, is a very vital part of the relationship.

 

[catalina_francisco]

Bump

 

[sunfox]

I'll take Catalina_Francisco up on their bump.

I do think for some people, it must be said that there is a particular enjoyment in dominating a normally strong-willed, 'alpha' type person.

In my own case, I am definitively a leader.. I am the kind of person that my group of friends looks to for decisions, and I am very opinionated and a strong personality. I really don't think that my significant other would find me nearly so interesting if I weren't such a polar opposite when it comes to our intimate relationship. Anyone viewing our relationship would probably picture him as the submissive, but truly, I enjoy handing the reins over to him when he chooses to take charge. I am more detail oriented, and more confrontational, so I am the apparent boss.

The truth is much more complex, and it works for us. There has never been a clash of wills between us, and likely never will. For this 'alpha'.. submitting is not an admission of omega status.. it's just a part of my personality.

I don't know that this is as clear as I'd meant it to be. I'm getting over a migraine, and my brains are a bit scrambled.

 

[Limbhugger]

I am VERY much the alpha male. I will have to ask my wife if that lends to her enjoyment. But Wife has only dominated me and me alone so her basis of comparison is nill. But I do know that she wouldn't have me any other way. She enjoys my strength and I believe it lends to her sense of control.

 

[Sodapop Z]

lol

this thread is quite funny

talking about and making comparisons with wolves

first off, an alpha male wolf can only be driven off by another MALE wolf since you're talking about wolves

and secondly if you ask me, there is really no such thing as a so called "dominant woman". its an oxymoron.

the only time a woman can dominate a man is if he allows her to.

a true dominant doesn't need to be allowed to do anything.

therefore the only true dominants when you're talking about the human species are males.

so called "dominant females"are just females ROLEPLAYING the role of a dominants.

soda

 

[Krinaia]

Re: lol

this thread is quite funny

talking about and making comparisons with wolves

first off, an alpha male wolf can only be driven off by another MALE wolf since you're talking about wolves

and secondly if you ask me, there is really no such thing as a so called "dominant woman". its an oxymoron.

the only time a woman can dominate a man is if he allows her to.

a true dominant doesn't need to be allowed to do anything.

therefore the only true dominants when you're talking about the human species are males.

so called "dominant females"are just females ROLEPLAYING the role of a dominants.

soda

Oh, my!! Just you wait until one of the ladies sees that.

 

[Krinaia]

Reading this thread... has finalized my sense of confusion... that I really don't know who I am or what I am... yet. But that the journey will be fun, if somewhat frustrating at times.

I know that, in groups at work or in normal social circles - I often pick a leader role. I know I have a fierce sense of competition. I know that I'm often strong-willed, stubborn and at other times hesitant and flaky. I still blush when someone refers to me as a woman instead of a girl - because I don't always agree with that I have grown up enough.

I while I am willing and wanting to submit to a man. To be his, to give over control to him... I hope that my strong personality makes him treasure my doing that just a little bit. And the guy I'm currently talking to - I feel like things are a little unsteady and perhaps it is because I have not opened myself to him as fully as I can or could if I was braver. And I think I need to think and that the walk I was considering is becoming a very good idea.

And I know that's not exactly on subject... but as someone so new and fresh in the journey, I just have to say that I'm no wolf or wolf cub. I may have alpha-like traits at time. I can take charge, I can organize, I can give orders, I can give rewards and punishments. But inside, I want to bow down and back out and let someone else be in charge. And I don't think I fit into any label, male or female, sub or bottom. And I'm not willing to limit myself yet by giving myself a label.

 

[Anna Sue]

responds to Sodapop Z

I know I will regret it to answer you but your words put it this way "really gets me through the roof ".
I think you have no idea about what you are talking.

>and secondly if you ask me, there is really no such thing as a so called "dominant woman". its an oxymoron.<

I am sorry but I know what you said is not true,

>the only time a woman can dominate a man is if he allows her to.<
This part it goes wise versa or you think every woman will fall in front of your feet only by your sight.

>a true dominant doesn't need to be allowed to do anything.<
What!!!! I would teach you a lesons in respect thats for sure.

>therefore the only true dominants when you're talking about the human species are males.

so called "dominant females"are just females ROLEPLAYING the role of a dominants.<

No words.. you soooo don't get it.

and for once for my part when I don't want to be dominate then I wouldn't let anybody do that to me.

Anna Sue