Alpha Gays Are Real?

[malakos]

Maybe..

What I mean is that what constitutes the male ideal (masculinity) is significantly variable across different times and cultural contexts. I can point to three examples off the top of my head that illustrate this (there are a lot more I could check up on, but I'm not looking to write a treatise).

The first is how homosexuality was regarded in various ancient cultures. Homosexuality appears to have been broadly discouraged in ancient Jewish culture; it was seen as an aberration of one's nature and the call to procreate. In some cases in East Asian cultures, on the other hand, homosexuality was tolerated or overlooked, so long as the man was living an otherwise normal life (in terms of maintaining a household). The Romans had yet a different view that had more to do with specific acts; receptive homosexuality was seen as emasculating. So there are different views of what precisely constitutes masculine sexuality.

The second has to do with expectations of affect and manner. Some cultures have tended to see men being passionate and expressive as reflective of vitality and virility (Mediterranean cultures are often inclined this way). Some cultures see the masculine ideal in rather the opposite way: masculinity is about being in control, including of oneself. In most contexts this involves being restrained, calculated, and moderate in one's reactions. This view of masculinity is rather common in the modern Anglosphere. There's more variation than this binary might indicate, but an exhaustive survey of different views of masculine affect isn't called for here.

Finally, there is the matter of the masculine ideal in terms of body type. This too has varied widely across different regional and temporal contexts. In predeveloped cultures, the ideal masculine body was a symbol of power, not just in the sense of the most powerful body, but a body type that most reflected social power. The most powerful man is of course the one that has the most security, in a number of respects. One factor of this security is food security. So, looking well fed (read plump) was actually a mark of ideal masculinity in many premodern cultures. This tended to be more the case in more settled cultures. Other cultures have idealized men being especially built and physically competent and imposing. Then there is the Attic ideal of the male body that involves a refined physique that is lean, defined, and toned. As a side note, other physical features are relevant as well, such as hair. The Franks saw hair as an embodiment of a man's power, and so warriors strove to maintain lengthy hair; the Romans, on the other hand, preferred their men to keep their hair short.

This sort of cultural relativism is mainly what I had in mind when I said that masculinity is relative. I think there is also relativity on an individual level; "what kind of man" each man wants to be varies a bit, and I think that's because each has a somewhat different conception of what the ideal of a man looks like.

I'll lastly add that with masculinity being such a relativistic concept, it's hard to see how the notion of the alpha could be otherwise, since it rests on masculinity.

 

[headbang8]

"Alpha" is a debatable concept. If you mean what Nietzsche calls a Supermensch (someone who has more energy, smarts and charisma than others, and thus earns the right to be a leader) then arguably, yes. If acknowledging the existence of an Alpha means us Beta types—normal guys who just want to live a good, dignified life—should surrender to them, sexually/socially/politically, then no. If you mean that the most physically attractive, healthy, and conventionally "masculine" guys have greater social status, that can happen, but less often as we mature as a civilization. The same applies to Alpha Straights, BTW, and gender issues come into play.

 

[3HandsfulofDick]

What I mean is that what constitutes the male ideal (masculinity) is significantly variable across different times and cultural contexts. I can point to three examples off the top of my head that illustrate this (there are a lot more I could check up on, but I'm not looking to write a treatise).

The first is how homosexuality was regarded in various ancient cultures. Homosexuality appears to have been broadly discouraged in ancient Jewish culture; it was seen as an aberration of one's nature and the call to procreate. In some cases in East Asian cultures, on the other hand, homosexuality was tolerated or overlooked, so long as the man was living an otherwise normal life (in terms of maintaining a household). The Romans had yet a different view that had more to do with specific acts; receptive homosexuality was seen as emasculating. So there are different views of what precisely constitutes masculine sexuality.

The second has to do with expectations of affect and manner. Some cultures have tended to see men being passionate and expressive as reflective of vitality and virility (Mediterranean cultures are often inclined this way). Some cultures see the masculine ideal in rather the opposite way: masculinity is about being in control, including of oneself. In most contexts this involves being restrained, calculated, and moderate in one's reactions. This view of masculinity is rather common in the modern Anglosphere. There's more variation than this binary might indicate, but an exhaustive survey of different views of masculine affect isn't called for here.

Finally, there is the matter of the masculine ideal in terms of body type. This too has varied widely across different regional and temporal contexts. In predeveloped cultures, the ideal masculine body was a symbol of power, not just in the sense of the most powerful body, but a body type that most reflected social power. The most powerful man is of course the one that has the most security, in a number of respects. One factor of this security is food security. So, looking well fed (read plump) was actually a mark of ideal masculinity in many premodern cultures. This tended to be more the case in more settled cultures. Other cultures have idealized men being especially built and physically competent and imposing. Then there is the Attic ideal of the male body that involves a refined physique that is lean, defined, and toned. As a side note, other physical features are relevant as well, such as hair. The Franks saw hair as an embodiment of a man's power, and so warriors strove to maintain lengthy hair; the Romans, on the other hand, preferred their men to keep their hair short.

This sort of cultural relativism is mainly what I had in mind when I said that masculinity is relative. I think there is also relativity on an individual level; "what kind of man" each man wants to be varies a bit, and I think that's because each has a somewhat different conception of what the ideal of a man looks like.

I'll lastly add that with masculinity being such a relativistic concept, it's hard to see how the notion of the alpha could be otherwise, since it rests on masculinity.

Your 5th paragraph was all that needed to be said ...Great post..

 

[Player_01]

Sounds like what people see in Trump. Guess he's an Alpha.

Trump's cult claim he's an alpha but he had to pay for sex and screams like a sissy bish when he doesn't get what he wants, he's the total opposite of Alpha. Everything about him is fake.

Back in the day we would say butch or macho or str8 acting.

If that's the definition, then yeah I know a lot of them. There are as many "masc" gays as "femme" ones. The guys who are naturally masc are a turn on but the guys who fake it are so easy to see through and that's a turn off. I'd rather a guy just be naturally whatever they are.

 

[deleted6209261]

Trying to describe what makes someone ‘alphas’ is like trying to describe what kind of person you find attractive. There’s no ‘ones size fits all’. Your idea of alpha, could be not so alpha to me.

 

[Lanicky]

Owing to the relentless attacks done by zealot misfit feminists against masculinity, virility and against men, a slew of straight guys are on a hot pursuit of reclaiming their manlyhood which I find to be fine since they have been deprived of what a man is, but we as homosexual men whether you are a manly, normal or feminine homosexual shouldn't concern about this stuff, at least in the way they deem themselves. On a personal level I consider myself out of the system, albeit not an outcast, therefore I label myself as SIGMA male. At any rate, I am not extremely manly yet not effeminate but I am not in the middle. I have a lot of yang energy and a lot of yin energy and try to flow in accordance to the lad I want to attract.

Regarding the topic, leaving the lgbt movement which has skewed from its original purpose aside, many homosexual men have shown to be manlier than many straight lads. In the past, especially before the christian takeover of Rome by hords of resentful crackpots against the Empire, most homosexual were on the battlefield, were warriors and fought with pride, honor, strength and bravery for their nation. Shall I remind you Spartans who would engage on homosexual practiceses and had many male lovers and only bedding women for the sake of crafting new warriors for the nation? As long as we haven't smitten, destroyed, annihilated judeochristianity and islam for good we are bound to have homophobia, weaklings, guilt complex, shame for virility and misogyny

 

[Brodie888]

Sex is a primal act. When I think about sex with an alpha, I think of a lion biting into the neck of an antelope.

The lion is what it is, it takes what it needs without apology. Not to be boastful or cruel or pretending to be something it's not. It's acting on pure instinct to feed.