True alpha status... ?

[anpuZA]

Okay... just a silly question / statement:

Suppose you have three realities, and in all three realities there is, for sake of the most muscular muscle god I can think of right now (and also by virtue of his hotness, my favourite), one Petr Mollnar in each one.

In every one of the three, he is equally aggressive, equally muscled, equally strong, equally dominant, equally sexed and equally horny.

With me so far?

Okay, so in each one he is basically (for the sake of argument) the greatest Alpha on the planet. : )

But (indeed there always is), in one he is straight, in one he is gay and in one he is bisexual.

Now assuming that all three are physically and mentally as male and dominant as the other, which one - by virtue of his sexual preference- is the most alpha male of the lot?

My money is on the bi Petr, then the gay guy and then the str8 guy.

Why? Well the bi Petr obviously is sexually attractive and dominant for both sexes. The rest is more or less the same.

So whaddya think?

[Mdlftr]

Originally Posted by anpuZA

Okay... just a silly question / statement:

Suppose you have three realities, and in all three realities there is, for sake of the most muscular muscle god I can think of right now (and also by virtue of his hotness, my favourite), one Petr Mollnar in each one.

In every one of the three, he is equally aggressive, equally muscled, equally strong, equally dominant, equally sexed and equally horny.

With me so far?

Okay, so in each one he is basically (for the sake of argument) the greatest Alpha on the planet. : )

But (indeed there always is), in one he is straight, in one he is gay and in one he is bisexual.

Now assuming that all three are physically and mentally as male and dominant as the other, which one - by virtue of his sexual preference- is the most alpha male of the lot?

My money is on the bi Petr, then the gay guy and then the str8 guy.

Why? Well the bi Petr obviously is sexually attractive and dominant for both sexes. The rest is more or less the same.

So whaddya think?

So someone who can attract BOTH men and women is "top alpha" then some one who can dominate men is "second level alpha" because dominating men is "more alpha" than "just" dominating women?

That is your logic, right?

What about an "alpha" woman? Like a Maggie Thatcher, Golda Meir, Condolezza Rice, Indira Gandhi or a Hilary Clinton? Do you think any of those "alpha women" would be easily dominated by ANYONE?

What happens to your logic then?

Makes sense if "alpha" means
"male domination"

[anpuZA]

Uh, read into it what you like... there is no logic in this really. And it's more than just a bit implausible, it also deals with perceived "Alpha-ness", and by Alpha I do mean male dominated like you stated last.

Look, in reality men are (usually but not always) more physically strong than women. So if you, say... regress civilisation back to before the stone age, in terms of values etc. you will maybe find a bi Petr Molnar
who is more errr, Conanesque or at least Barbaric enough to force himself on either of the sexes. In which case, I think, Margaret Thatcher wouldn't have a snowballs chance of doing anything to stop him. And neither
would I or most of your average male, and female, have... unless you have some kind of weapon handy. So, I suppose, on that base and rather primitive level a bi Petr the barbarian would definitely be more Alpha than a gay or str8 one since in such a society women won't count for much, so dominating another male would probably be the way to show superiority.

No I don't think rape is acceptable, in case you were wondering, and I don't think women are beneath men.

I guess the point I'm trying to make using this shitty example and my shitty logic is that this scenario did play out in our past. We are still a male dominated society, although it is changing. And in stead of fucking their rivals
men would in past (and sometimes still today) kill to show their dominance.