Bigfoot? Nessie? Omega Dominants?

[bridgeburner]

We're all comfortable with the idea of alpha submissives. Anyone give any thought to the idea of Omega Dominants? Is it possible?

-B

 

[Netzach]

Sounds hot to me. I might be one?

I think the difference between this person (beta Dom?) and the alpha sub is a hair's breadth, and one of conceptual rather than physical issue.

I have a potential client who might fit this bill? He tops a lot, has a Dominant social personality, and finds balance in letting go completely once in a blue moon. He's remarkably relaxed and pleasant in his approach to submission, has no tendency to top from the bottom or direct -- when he's out to give up control he's out to give it up, but he is decidedly "not submissive" in his own estimation.

That kind of personality is an attractive one to me, actually. Not in the spirit and spunk sense, but in the self-awareness of it.

 

[bridgeburner]

I think I should perhaps define what I mean because clearly I'm tossing around a term that I thought had a standard meaning but doesn't.

I used to think Omega meant "outside the pack hierarchy" but my friend the dog trainer set me straight on that (assuming she's not wrong which she could be). The Omega dog is the lowest dog in the pack. This is the dog who eats last, who rolls first and doesn't get to pass on his genes.

I have no idea what dog it is that is outside the hierarchy, but if I had a term I'd let you keep it because I think you're right that it fits. Since I don't have one, you have to hold Alpha 'til I get one. I swear I'll ask her next time I see her.


I agree with you that Beta Doms such as you describe your friend are cool as hell. I like fluid folk and gray areas and those comfortable with blurring some lines without it messing up their essential knowledge of who they are.


What I'm wondering about, though, are Squigman type Dominants. People who are definiantly not Dominant personalities in their day to day lives. They are in charge of no one and no one defers to them and yet when they step out of the phone booth in their leathers they are Doms. Not because they necessarily have the charisma to turn submissives knees to jelly with a glance at thirty paces, but because it is their chosen role and everyone falls somewhere on the power spectrum so conceivably somewhere there is someone who could happily submit to them.


-B

 

[Netzach]

What I'm wondering about, though, are Squigman type Dominants. People who are definiantly not Dominant personalities in their day to day lives. They are in charge of no one and no one defers to them and yet when they step out of the phone booth in their leathers they are Doms. Not because they necessarily have the charisma to turn submissives knees to jelly with a glance at thirty paces, but because it is their chosen role and everyone falls somewhere on the power spectrum so conceivably somewhere there is someone who could happily submit to them.

Oh, I get it.

Well sure. Some might even be perfectly fine private-life Dominants, or might not. I don't think that public social life is necessarily related to D/s at all.

 

[Evil_Geoff]

I have no idea what dog it is that is outside the hierarchy, but if I had a term I'd let you keep it because I think you're right that it fits.

Hi bb,

If a dog or wolf is outside the pack they are rogues or loners. And frequently will be brought down if they are truly rogue, when the pack catches them. The loners have enough sense to submit to the pack, then go on their merry way once the pack is out of the way.

Not having a clue who Squigman is I'll await further information before commenting more than this.

No matter who plays the Dominant, unless they are really squicky strange as hell, they'll find _someone_ who will be willing to submit to them in a relationship or scene.

 

[RJMasters]

*sits under tree and takes out notepad and takes notes.

 

[MechaBlade]

We're all comfortable with the idea of alpha submissives. Anyone give any thought to the idea of Omega Dominants? Is it possible?

-B

Uh, of course. I'd wager that half or maybe most dominants are less than beta. I'm fairly gammaey myself.

One's Greek letter is based on how they act in social situations and one's level of dominance/submission is based on how they prefer to act in sexual situations. The two are pretty much mutually exclusive.

 

[cati]

No matter who plays the Dominant, unless they are really squicky strange as hell, they'll find _someone_ who will be willing to submit to them in a relationship or scene.

Yeah, just as Geoff said in his post.

The Omega "Dominant" if you want to call them Dominant at all, would be those individuals we refer to as posers or wannabe's. You will always find a sub who will get on her knees for just about anyone...ie. the "poser" in leather pants. In my opinion, there is no such thing as an "Omega" Dom.

From what I understand, an "alpha" submissive is a female who is first girl in a polyamorous relationship. In other words "the submissive accorded the greatest power or respect". The term "beta" would be used to describe a female newcomer to the group.

 

[Netzach]

If a dog or wolf is outside the pack they are rogues or loners. And frequently will be brought down if they are truly rogue, when the pack catches them. The loners have enough sense to submit to the pack, then go on their merry way once the pack is out of the way.

Story of my life.

 

[Netzach]

Uh, of course. I'd wager that half or maybe most dominants are less than beta. I'm fairly gammaey myself.

One's Greek letter is based on how they act in social situations and one's level of dominance/submission is based on how they prefer to act in sexual situations. The two are pretty much mutually exclusive.

I am so down with this. I think anyone who insists loudly and repeatedly on "alpha" status doth protest too much. Do I tell the IRS to kiss my ass? Did I bend my boss over the desk? Did all the other Doms in the room fall to their knees when I walked in?

Bullshit, I call bullshit.

 

[bridgeburner]

Hi bb,

If a dog or wolf is outside the pack they are rogues or loners. And frequently will be brought down if they are truly rogue, when the pack catches them. The loners have enough sense to submit to the pack, then go on their merry way once the pack is out of the way.

Not having a clue who Squigman is I'll await further information before commenting more than this.

No matter who plays the Dominant, unless they are really squicky strange as hell, they'll find _someone_ who will be willing to submit to them in a relationship or scene.

Yes, that's my impression of the non-conformist in the wild --- and to a great degree in the concrete jungle as well.

Squigman is my own shorthand. Did you ever watch Laverne and Shirley? Remember the upstairs neighbors Lenny and Squiggy? Squigman? Now imagine him as a Dom. That's the guy I mean except not so endearing. Cati's kind of got the right of it below.

As far as being too strange to pair up, I just don't believe it. There is no such thing as can't get laid, there IS however not desperate enough to take what's available to you. ;->


-B

 

[bridgeburner]

The Omega "Dominant" if you want to call them Dominant at all, would be those individuals we refer to as posers or wannabe's. You will always find a sub who will get on her knees for just about anyone...ie. the "poser" in leather pants. In my opinion, there is no such thing as an "Omega" Dom.

To a certain degree my bias falls along this line. (I try to wave my freak flag harder and higher than my snob flag but sometimes I just fail miserably.) While I wouldn't deny their Dominant identity--(for me that's based on where a person's sexual impetus is rooted not on what other people observe) I do tend to respond to such people from my own pack position if they attempt to muscle up on me.

From what I understand, an "alpha" submissive is a female who is first girl in a polyamorous relationship. In other words "the submissive accorded the greatest power or respect". The term "beta" would be used to describe a female newcomer to the group.

That definition is one I recognize but I've also seen the term used by submissives who are not in poly situations to express the fact that they are Alpha personalities who happen to be sexual submissives. It was that definition which prompted my question here about Omega Dominants.

-B

 

[bridgeburner]

Uh, of course. I'd wager that half or maybe most dominants are less than beta. I'm fairly gammaey myself.

One's Greek letter is based on how they act in social situations and one's level of dominance/submission is based on how they prefer to act in sexual situations. The two are pretty much mutually exclusive.

I so love to be validated.

-B

 

[FurryFury]

I am so down with this. I think anyone who insists loudly and repeatedly on "alpha" status doth protest too much. Do I tell the IRS to kiss my ass? Did I bend my boss over the desk? Did all the other Doms in the room fall to their knees when I walked in?

Bullshit, I call bullshit.

I love you Netzach!

Just had to say it.

Fury

 

[cati]

That definition is one I recognize but I've also seen the term used by submissives who are not in poly situations to express the fact that they are Alpha personalities who happen to be sexual submissives. It was that definition which prompted my question here about Omega Dominants.

Gotcha. I just threw in an extra tidbit or two.

 

[Marquis]

I hate this thread!

I find the idea that our sexual and social personalities coincide rather romantic.

 

[bridgeburner]

I hate this thread!

I find the idea that our sexual and social personalities coincide rather romantic.

Echoes of the ever-present fear that our nebbishy alter-egos might be our true selves and the awe-inducing capes and masks we don to transform ourselves into
superheroes merely wishful thinking and pipe dreams?


-B

 

[Marquis]

Echoes of the ever-present fear that our nebbishy alter-egos might be our true selves and the awe-inducing capes and masks we don to transform ourselves into
superheroes merely wishful thinking and pipe dreams?


-B

*shivers*

 

[bridgeburner]

Never fear, Marquis, your muscles don't come off with your shirt. ;->


-B

 

[Marquis]

Never fear, Marquis, your muscles don't come off with your shirt. ;->


-B

Yeah, but my pudge is a lot more obvious!

 

[MechaBlade]

I hate this thread!

I find the idea that our sexual and social personalities coincide rather romantic.

MechaBlade's Grand Theory of Sexuality suggests we seek out what we don't get enough of in our "normal" lives. Our strengths are defined by our weaknesses.

 

[Xelebes]

The Omega Dom is more of the lone wolf, me thinks. One who lurks in the shadows and remains quiet only to speak seldomly. The mystery of the Omega is just as dangerous as the boisterousnous of the Alpha. At least, that's what I think.

AA kinda fits the bill.

 

[Marquis]

I see the Omega Dom as a lot more peaceful than AA.

 

[cati]

Echoes of the ever-present fear that our nebbishy alter-egos might be our true selves and the awe-inducing capes and masks we don to transform ourselves into superheroes merely wishful thinking and pipe dreams?

I believe that's what they call a narcissistic personality and the true inner self.

 

[bridgeburner]

I believe that's what they call a narcissistic personality and the true inner self.

Not the year or perhaps even the lifetime to get me started on Narcissistic Personality Disorder, but, yes, quite. Charming people, exciting and fun to be around but don't turn your back for a New York minute. They make the best liars because 99% of the time they believe their own spin.

-B