I have long called true Alphas “omnisexual” animals. I suppose another (more popular) term might be “pansexual”.

Why have I referred to them in that manner? Because true Alphas have always (in my experience) been more interested in POWER rather than the boundaries and labels of sexuality modern society wants so desperately to place upon them. Power is an interesting concept when it comes to sexuality, because it doesn’t necessarily derive from gender, but rather Hierarchical positioning and mindset. And Alphas feed on power the way leeches feed on blood. Everything that comes from their power – the worship, service, and respect – they receive in every situation (sexual or non-sexual) and it excites them in every way; mentally, emotionally, and sexually.

That is why we see Alphas often turned on by large cash drains in the world of findom. There’s nothing inherently sexy about money, but the POWER that comes from a faggot tributing money to them excites them endlessly.

From my many encounters and long-term service arrangements I’ve had with sexually-straight Alphas in which they have used me sexually, I can tell you plainly that these Alphas left me just as interested in females and they were before they ever did anything with me. So why did they use me? Because I was submissive and service-oriented and obedient. And through that, they felt more powerful than they ever had before.

It’s this observation in my own life, coupled with the massive amount of information I’ve assembled here on this site, that led me to conclude that Alphas simply cannot be defined by a restrictive sexual definition. They will literally dominate and own, fuck and breed ANYTHING as long as they can take advantage of it.

I say all of this because I became engaged with an Alpha (I think) named Scott in the comments section of this post today regarding this topic. First of all, what he wrote was so exquisite and finely-tuned that I had to share it. But read it and consider what I wrote above, and see if we are really that far apart.

You’re all wrong. No such thing as gay or straight. Sexuality is like water. It flows wherever natural forces direct it. Male pheromones excite the brains of faggots most of all so they are drawn to the alpha whose scent is filled with them. Subs are attracted to doms because opposites attract (ask any magnet). One can fulfill the others needs. Doms have needs also to pretend otherwise is flakey. For whatever reason we all seem to share a basic concept of good looking (jaw line. eyes. body) subs and alphas alike. This perfect sub smells right , taste right, looks right and acts right and vice/versa. The alpha does not want to let this fish of the hook because he is a prize catch and does not want to lose his prize by appearing to want him as much as he is wanted. He is not used to that. Nothing gay or straight about it. Pheromones, dopamine, looks, demeanor, father/son dynamic and I’m sure a few others are all ingredients in a cupid’s spell. It’s like getting stuck by an arrow in a random sky filled with arrows, it can happen at any time.


I responded to him this way:

Sir, I think we are coming to the same conclusion, but from different starting points. Unlike you, I do believe that we each have a basic “default” sexuality. In my case, I’m homosexual. For very many Alphas, their default sexual preference is heterosexual. You, on the other hand, do not believe in that default sexual preference. I do think my position has more evidentiary support, but whatever.

But as you so poetically described in your response, our Hierarchical needs often supersede our default sexuality. That is why I tend to view most true Alphas as “omnisexual” in that the power they seek from sex and sexuality has no restraints of sexual preference. They want basic things like obedience, service, honor, and respect. They want ownership and possession. These things can be gained from both females and faggots and any lower-tier being, and they take it at will.

I thank you for the sublime quality of your argument, Sir. Truly masterful. Like I said, though, we are not so far apart in our conclusion as you might suggest. Thank you, Sir!

Do you see what I mean? I do think we are simply starting in different places, but ultimately uniting at the same conclusion. Who’s right about those starting points? Maybe that’s something that we can discuss below in the comments or on the FWA Discord server!

Regardless, I do think we are both correct about the omnisexuality of Alphas. Even if the Alpha chooses not to flex this part of himself (to his detriment, in my opinion), he is still CAPABLE OF IT because of his need for power for than restrictive labels.

(by the way, the flag above is actually the flag for pansexuals and omnisexuals!)