For a number of years now, i have watched the development of the term Alpha submissive. Although the term in its new whimsical context has always, to some extent, irritated, what people need to call themselves is not high on my list of defining characteristics, and so, i left the debate to those who claimed they had an informed opinion and those bold enough to question it. How people behave towards others and how they take responsibility for who and what they are has always seemed to be far more important. Recently, i have had cause to reconsider the 'new' definitions of the Alpha submissive, as defined by one who is most vociferous on behalf of 'the cause' as well as observe the behavior of some of those same self-defined and self-designated 'alphas' and it has brought to my mind a need to respond. Thus i share these humble thoughts with you all *smiles* Upon first hearing it, the term IS kinda catchy, for someone new and/or lacking knowledge of group formations within the Lifestyle and especially if they are unaware of what the term means within its most widely understood, traditional, and functional definition. In my experience the term alpha submissive has always been used to denote the more experienced submissive within a structured group or household, trusted and expected to lead other submissive members by example as well as providing guidance. Within a particular group or household the alpha submissive is a valuable position of responsibility that is a key element to maintaining the harmony of the group. The wealth of resources available online is a vast, wonderful thing. I was certain if any of the recently published theories regarding the existence of this new and improved alpha submissive were credible, i would easily find corroborating evidence to the fact. A sample of well over 100 random results yielded the following information . The overwhelming number of results for the term alpha submissive were mostly anthropological studies of "Alpha" individuals in a social group (various primates, dogs, wolves, lions, hyenas etc.) most of which are rarely found attending a munch or other D/s activities. The few that used the term as it relates to the Lifestyle defined the alpha submissive as being the submissive in the role of "first girl," within a group, family, or home. This role is acknowledged and valued by both Dominant and sub alike within the group. ' The submissive acting as the Alpha sub the one among the other submissives, most respected and granted the greatest power. They have technical authority and the last word in the house over other submissives and when the house Dominant(s) are not present visiting Dominants will give the alpha submissive the respect of her position' (in Bolan,R. 2006; Mallory, F., 1994; Veaux, F., 2006; et al.). Clearly these definitions make sense in using the term alpha; "the 1st letter of the Greek alphabet to define "something that is first," (Merriam-Webster Dictionary, 2006). The authors apply the term properly in a way that has logical meaning to define a particular role of a submissive. My objections to what this term has evolved into within certain circles lies in the expectations of those who have dramatized its import and dismissed its traditional meaning. We are supposed to adopt a new, far more profound, meaning of the term. we are expected to not notice this new meaning has little to do with the literal definition of the word 'alpha' and that it is nothing as specific as a term for a submissives position within a group. We are expected to not find it offensive that those who tout the validity of the term lump togeter the rest of us non-alphas into one group declaring us similar in nature , weak willed and complacent. We are expected to not notice that the examples of proof which supposedly validate the definition of this group, are questionable on every level they are presented be it physiological, psychological or sociological. It is assumed we arent quite paying attention as thel game goes on and inevitably wont remember which shell the pea is under. After the flurry of supposed scientific proof - misinterpreted clinical evidence and passionate testimonial... The brilliance and glamour of the Alpha submissive (as sayeth the applicable alpha of the species (Dominant or submissive of course) is such that we should all be left in awe of what they say they are, recognize the burden of their rich heritage and the courage they must have to move amongst those who have a 'different nature; to the degree, that we will notice neither the invalidity of their science nor the broad generalizations that describe the characteristics of this species and are presented as unique in some way to themselves. We are expected to be dazzled by the pomp and fashionable fervor of this extraordinary creature to the extent we simply watch the growing parade go by and never speak out loud what it is many of us truly see. Yes, ...i’m the little girl pointing and saying "But...the Emperor has NO clothes!!"... the cloth they are made of is all in the imagination of the ones spinning the illusion. This is where my final objection lies, for we are dared to question the purveyors of this beautifully rich cloth. We are expected to accept their character is as above reproach as they say it is and their word �?the Truth." The ones who cannot see the cloth are the fools' they say .....They do sound convicted, they put on a good show, but there is simply nothing there. Alpha anonymous poses a theory of some sort of secretive, on-line only vernacular in which her definition exists. Instead of bolstering her argument it appears that she only strengthens the appearance that her Alpha species is more make believe than offering something relevant. For those with off-line knowledge and experience this typifies and most likely appears to be just one more of those off-line to on-line mutations that someone proclaims to be a fact and distorts into the latest "new reality." It is no wonder this rationale meets with a less than warm acceptance. One cannot simply remove a word or term from the relational context in which it has functional meaning then expect well-informed people to have unquestioning acceptance of whatever new meaning is fabricated for it. Alpha anonymous refers to the "building blocks" of the "Alpha nature" she was born with "swishing and swirling around" within her to set the premise for her mistaken belief that it is genetics that set the Alpha species apart from other submissives (or Dominants) and the underpinnings of her behavior. Nothing could be more naive or further from the truth. The once "sexy science" claiming that genes are the sole explanation for inherited traits has been proven false by the very studies conducted to prove this theory. Could there be anything more elitist, divisive, or condescending than to suggest that the genetic make-up of an individual’s submissiveness is significantly different and superior than that of another’s? The need for genetic predetermination to explain why one does the things she does more accurately reflects the desire to avoid our fears rather than to truly understand the results of our behavior and our responsibility for them. DeeMarie (2004) claims in a discussion group thread, that the Alpha submissive is strong, confident, and assertive. Alpha anonymous contends that Alpha submissives are thinkers and intellectuals who posses powerful minds. my question simply is are these qualities unique from those of the many individuals in general who identify themselves as and choose the role of a submissive? These traits are not at all unusual when considering the person who sincerely, willingly, and consciously lays herself at another's feet in order to serve and submit. i am privileged to know several submissives who exemplify these traits. They have all been strong enough, confident enough, and assertive enough to balance their needs and their life circumstances with their submissiveness �?and are quite able to "surrender" to another as well as to themselves. Alpha anonymous tries to further embellish the Alpha species with qualities like being well read, having exceptional leadership skills, holding managerial positions, and even something as arbitrary as being well traveled. Although citing descriptive qualities that are learned behaviors, acquired skills, or preferences of activities does nothing to support the theory that genetics are the source of such traits and therefore supports my own opinion.. For the purpose of continuity, i'll simply stick to the point that these traits are in no way unique to any one group. What is the difference between those who meet the challenges of their existence without the support of a self appointed term such as "Alpha submissive" and those who need to defend this term to the point of denigrating any discussion regarding its true purpose and meaning while belittling those of us who do not wear said term on our sleeve? In truth ...very little ... yet the discussion goes on. Like Alpha anonymous, DeeMarie feels a compulsion to form a unique identity around what ironically seems to be their lack of ability and willingness to actually be submissive. The one piece of clarity she offers is that her submission only comes out in the boudoir. If DeeMarie or any other "well read" Alpha sub were to read the widely distributed article The 9 Levels of submission (Vera, D., 1984), they would see that this new found identity was defined long ago and their attempt to reinvent the wheel erroneously with the Alpha sub term is really unnecessary.