Fair warning, this one might be a little long, because this is something that absolutely fascinates me. Power dynamics. All power dynamics fascinate me, but the power dynamics in intimate relationships especially fascinate me.

A lot of people say they want an “equal relationship.” In most cases I think what they mean is that they want a “fair” relationship. They don’t want to be walked on, and they usually don’t want to walk on others. But that’s not the same as an “equal relationship.” There is never equality in any social structure. There is always a chain of power. If both parties are always equal in all things at all times, nothing ever gets done. While one can exist in a relationship of cooperation, at some point there is a disagreement and if a win win situation cannot be found, there has to be a winner. It doesn’t necessarily have to be the same person every time, but there has to be one. Consider two submissive type personalities.

Here is what you get: “I don’t care, I’ll go to whichever restaurant you pick.” “I don’t care either. I’ll go wherever you want to go.” I’ve seen couples like this. They can spend two hours trying to make a decision because neither is dominant enough to make a choice even over something so banal. Or you have two dominant types who butt heads and fight over everything. EVERYTHING is a power struggle wherein they each must assert their dominance.

Erica got me thinking about this, because the other day in the comments section she described to me a male that she would prefer over an alpha any day. And yet, to me these qualities fit perfectly in an alpha. (quiet, intelligent, decent, dignity.) So this makes me want to explore the many faces of the alpha and what does alpha even “mean?” Because when Erica stated her preference and I immediately thought “he could be an alpha” it took me away from the “standard alpha stereotype.” And maybe that’s a good thing.

If I’m not very much mistaken, we take the “alpha,” “beta” etc. terminology from wolf packs. These are very social animals and many similarities have been found in the way wolves organize and govern themselves and how humans do. I guess this makes sense. Both species are intelligent, social animals. And both are dangerous predators.

Things like alpha-ness are all about how one interacts with those around them when it comes to the exercise or potential exercise of power. Someone can be seen to have power but not be willing to exercise that power. As long as no one knows they aren’t willing to exercise it, they have power. But once it’s known they won’t really use it under any circumstances, their power is gone. Though not using power isn’t the same as not having it. All that is required is a theoretical willingness at some point to use it.

Some women who have been in abusive situations break the pattern completely and purposefully go for men who seem physically weak that can’t hurt them. But the amount a man can bench press has nothing to do with whether he’ll hurt her or not. It’s all in his character. A scrawny guy can do as much if not more damage if he has the character traits that precipitate hurting other people.

In a romantic situation I’ve always preferred alphas. Because if I don’t have an alpha I’ll walk on him. I need someone who won’t take crap from me, a partner strong enough to take me, basically. (And I don’t mean that in a physical match up. Just about anyone can take me in a physical match up. But not everyone can take me in a verbal sparring match.)

I think when we think of alpha males, our mind goes first to the savage warrior type. Or the “bad boy.” Though I love both, alphas come in many packages. What makes them alpha is how they fall in the power structure. Not their personal likes and interests or their relative loudness or quietness. Some of the most commanding men are some of the quietest and most decent. But people still fall in line when they speak.