Does every couple consist of a dominant and a subdominant ‘lover’? Does that mean that the dominant has an Alpha personally? I don’t know. I do know the validity of that notion as it applies to Raquel and myself.
Before meeting Raquel, I considered myself as being neither Alpha nor Beta I vigorish resist being ‘under’ one as I do being ‘over’ someone. I felt competent — ‘hot stuff’. Even though I was a commissioned officer, I was extremely uncomfortable being in ‘control’.
Both before and after we meet, Raquel was a laid-back Alpha person. A person that liked to lead. However, I did not feel she was either ‘over’ me’ or ‘leading’ me. As time rolled on, she started taking more ‘tasts’. In my opinion, this was not her plan, it was just natural for her. I, on the other hand, had no objections to her increasing her work load while decreasing me. I do not admit being stupid or submissive, just lazy.
During her last days, I over head her tell one of our children that she was concerned that “I might no ‘make-it’ on my own.” I wondered if she meant it literally or figuratively —– physically or spiritually? I like to think she meant figuratively and physically. I considered we were par spiritually. As for ‘making it’ in the body, that might be more complicated.
I am “making it” on my on by relearning the my ‘tasks’ of a half century ago. While not difficult, they are a constant reminder of better times with Raquel.
So, to the question concerning meaning of dominate verses subdominant —– that’s not appropriate. What’s appropriate is authentic love, loves because she (he) loves.