 |
| relaxed1 |
on Mon 4 Jan 10, 12:28 PM to relaxed1's blog.
I love these threads, not so much for their educative or discursive content, but more for the manner in which they seem to encourage disclosure that is entirely tangential to the point.
The best aspect of this always seems to be earnings – a matter that is entirely irrelevant to the question of whether one might be considered alpha or not – but is so often thrown into the mix with all the gay abandon of an over-enthusiastic cook mistaking a bulb of garlic for a clove.
It is as telling as someone being more interested in the cut of one's suit rather than the cut of one's jib.
Whether one is alpha (be it male or female, dominant or submissive) is a matter of opinion that only others can judge. Nobody can self-describe as alpha; it is a matter of subjective judgement for others to make. Yet still the thread postings are full of self-references that are apparently designed to establish alpha credentials, whilst serving only to establish a manifest ignorance of what constitutes an alpha.
It is, of course, every person's inalienable right to choose the person he or she desires, using whatever criteria they select. But to do so in the erroneous presumption that it is on the grounds of that person's alpha status, where it is clearly actually upon their earnings, is self-deluding at best, and dishonest at worst.
Still, it's amusing to watch.
| 4 Jan 10, 12:33 PM hollythedolly UK(NN), 2 yrs  |
What is "Alpha" What "Alpha" means to me, means different things to others.
| |
| 4 Jan 10, 12:35 PM MissP UK(EN), 8 yrs |
Indeed. However, I get wonderful images of chest-beating and knuckle-dragging when I read as you've described | |
| 4 Jan 10, 12:47 PM jules9 UK(CH), 3 yrs    |
 XxX | |
| 4 Jan 10, 4:07 PM Im_a_very_good_girl 4 yrs |
2 points: If you can't "self describe" as alpha then equally you can't acknowledge other people's apparent perception of any of your own subjective qualities, kindness, generosity etc High earnings must at least reveal that someone (the employer or clients) thinks that the Alpha-Beta-Gammery person has qualities above and beyond the average that merit commensurate pay. Thus, if you insist on third party perception of Alpha as the true measure, QED. | |
| 4 Jan 10, 5:03 PM relaxed1 UK(BR), 6 yrs |
I don't think that follows, any more than a person could self-describe as being attractive. They are subjective judgements that require the agreement of others. Being an alpha male or female has nothing to do with earnings. In the City, for example, earning £150k means very little in terms of being a person to whom others will look up and marvel, the natural leader, the one who is self-assured in company and so on. It is all relative to the environment in which the person finds him/herself. So it is with alphas; they will be considered alpha according to the qualities found desirable in the environment in which they are judged.
"We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking up at the stars" - Oscar Wilde | |
| 4 Jan 10, 5:09 PM stormywaters PT, 4 yrs |
Think I prefer the Joy of Sex myself but of course we mustn't forget YKIOK. I do have some sympathy for you OP, the tone of those threads was a trifle self conscious but that's ok. If it was a thread about a bunch of super fitties, sporty three mile run before breakfast types, and they were all telling each other how fit they were and how good it felt and generally enjoying discussing that part of themselves I don't suppose anyone would mind particularly. Intelligent people do on the whole know they are intelligent, it comes with the territory, and alpha types tend to know they are alpha types. Nowt wrong with self awareness. My object all sublime... | |
| 4 Jan 10, 5:19 PM stormywaters PT, 4 yrs |
Isn't this a bit self contadictory? Either it is " all relative to the environment in which the person finds him/herself... they will be considered alpha according to the qualities found desireable in the enviponment in which they are judged" or it is about "being a person to whom others will look up and marvel, the natural leader, the one who is self-assured in company and so on." ETA Y'know, this could begin to look suspiciously like one of those alpha threads if we're not careful.
My object all sublime... Edited 4 Jan 10, 5:23 PM by stormywaters | |
| 4 Jan 10, 5:24 PM El_Presidente UK(G), 4 yrs    |
Hehe! You're spot on there. Anything that equates BDSM tendencies with anything that can possibly be boasted about (such as martial arts prowess, etc.) inevitably seems to cause many people to abandon their modesty and self-awareness.
Terms and conditions apply. No purchase necessary. If you fail to keep up with repayments, your arse may be at risk. | |
| 4 Jan 10, 6:30 PM BarbieSlutLoki UK(E), 6 yrs |
As Spinal Tap said theres a fine line between clever and stupid.... The problem is someone can have confidence and consider themselves a natural leader, whilst others might just think they're an arrogant wanker. Gordon Brown being one prominent example. Anyone who has to tell the world they're a natural leader, most probably isn't though The first rule of Brat Club, we don't talk about Brat Club... | |
| 4 Jan 10, 7:14 PM CookieMonster UK, 6 yrs |
lol best alpha related post ever. Veritatis simplex oratio est. Seneca, Roman Statesman Ca. 65 A.D. The language of truth is simple. |
