RE: Functional vs. Spiritual D/s

RE: Functional vs. Spiritual D/s (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion

Message

NihilusZero -> RE: Functional vs. Spiritual D/s (1/9/2010 3:23:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RedMagic1 Huh? It's not accepted by me, by Roman Catholicism, by any branch of Judaism, or by the Episcopalian or Anglican church. (I could list more, but why?) It is precisely because of the existence of the relationship that those religions consider carnality and spirituality to be intertwined. What I mean is, we're talking about spirituality in a relationship. That context changes the meaning of the word slightly. Just like the suggestion that "block" is the antonym of "hit"...except if I'm saying "hit" in a baseball game.

RedMagic1 -> RE: Functional vs. Spiritual D/s (1/9/2010 3:27:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero What I mean is, we're talking about spirituality in a relationship. That context changes the meaning of the word slightly. Don't you think physical contact (or lack thereof) is related to spirituality in that context? To continue with my example of the relationship between me and M, she had a requirement that I (not always but usually) come inside of her, because she wanted to feel as interconnected with me as possible. Edited to add: And maybe you don't, which is fine by me. Bottom line, though: at the very least, the two words aren't antonyms, much less obviously antonyms to any idiot. This relates to your second criticism of me in your previous post. It's bad enough for someone to say stridently that someone else is wrong. It's worse when the person doing the correcting is not the one who's right. If that is Psychonaut's pattern, he's going to continue to face reaction.

NihilusZero -> RE: Functional vs. Spiritual D/s (1/9/2010 3:32:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RedMagic1 Don't you think physical contact (or lack thereof) is related to spirituality in that context? To continue with my example of the relationship between me and M, she had a requirement that I (not always but usually) come inside of her, because she wanted to feel as interconnected with me as possible. Well, I'm the wrong one in this thread to talk about the spirituality part with. That's actually why I asked earlier if those who take to spirituality might see some of my preferences as particularly "spiritual", because I don't use the word to describe them despite the fact that I do have moments that are more emotional than physical. For instance, I've had moods where I wanted to be inside my partner. Not because I wanted to get off or because I wanted some genital massage, but because I wanted the symbolic feeling of proximity and consummation. I suppose that could be said to be an appreciation of the "spiritual" nature of such an act, but it's still not something I see as that.

NihilusZero -> RE: Functional vs. Spiritual D/s (1/9/2010 3:35:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RedMagic1 Edited to add: And maybe you don't, which is fine by me. Bottom line, though: at the very least, the two words aren't antonyms, much less obviously antonyms to any idiot. In a relationship, the words "carnal" and "spiritual" are antonyms to just about everyone, idiot (by your yardstick) or not. quote: ORIGINAL: RedMagic1 This relates to your second criticism of me in your previous post. It's bad enough for someone to say stridently that someone else is wrong. It's worse when the person doing the correcting is not the one who's right. If that is Psychonaut's pattern, he's going to continue to face reaction. I thought you were talking about me? Why did he get (again) brought up in the example where he has not done the correcting here. Actually you began the correcting in this thread by trying to assert his comparison was flawed when yours is (in the context being discussed). Worse yet, you appear to be showing a fixation with holding your ground simply because it means you'll get a dig in on him It's unfortunate you felt you had to edit your post, which had a neutral and honestly discussive tone, just to toss this in.

RedMagic1 -> RE: Functional vs. Spiritual D/s (1/9/2010 3:42:05 PM)
Nihilus, I was referring to this. I won't address your speculation as to my motives. It remains a true statement that if someone posts in a conversational style, instead of a lecturing style, they're less likely to draw fire -- and this is even more true if they are holding forth on a position that isn't necessarily accurate. quote: ORIGINAL: Psychonaut23 quote: ORIGINAL: sexyred1 That's a crock. A person could not POSSIBLY be both carnal and spiritual since you are not, right? Just because you are limited in your experiences don't assume others are. And people say I'm abrasive. Part of the definition of carnal is not spiritual, so the words are antonyms. Like tall and short. Big and small. Black and white. So to say something is carnal and spiritual is to say it's up and down, that its left and right, dead and alive. It's a contradiction in terms. I can understand where your confusion is coming from though. Many people confuse carnal with sexual, due to certain religious groups proclaiming that the sexual was carnal and not spiritual.

NihilusZero -> RE: Functional vs. Spiritual D/s (1/9/2010 3:47:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RedMagic1 Nihilus, I was referring to this. I won't address your speculation as to my motives. It remains a true statement that if someone posts in a conversational style, instead of a lecturing style, they're less likely to draw fire -- and this is even more true if they are holding forth on a position that isn't necessarily accurate. quote: ORIGINAL: Psychonaut23 quote: ORIGINAL: sexyred1 That's a crock. A person could not POSSIBLY be both carnal and spiritual since you are not, right? Just because you are limited in your experiences don't assume others are. And people say I'm abrasive. Part of the definition of carnal is not spiritual, so the words are antonyms. Like tall and short. Big and small. Black and white. So to say something is carnal and spiritual is to say it's up and down, that its left and right, dead and alive. It's a contradiction in terms. I can understand where your confusion is coming from though. Many people confuse carnal with sexual, due to certain religious groups proclaiming that the sexual was carnal and not spiritual. So your issue is that his last paragraph could seem mildly patronizing when he wrote it in reaction to a prodding post that was intentionally accusatory and derisive? Do you understand what an argumentum ad hominem is? (and I'm not talking about the silly chic erroneous appropriation of the term to where people think it equates to insulting someone...)

RedMagic1 -> RE: Functional vs. Spiritual D/s (1/9/2010 3:50:21 PM)
I'm not going to continue this line of conversation. I didn't want to blow you off by not posting, but I won't engage further on this. I hope you're having a pleasant evening.

NihilusZero -> RE: Functional vs. Spiritual D/s (1/9/2010 3:54:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RedMagic1 I'm not going to continue this line of conversation. I didn't want to blow you off by not posting, but I won't engage further on this. I hope you're having a pleasant evening. I'll honor in return, then. I wish you the same. Hope your neck of the woods isn't as freakin' freezing as it is here (unless cold weather is your thing).

RedMagic1 -> RE: Functional vs. Spiritual D/s (1/9/2010 3:58:56 PM)
Words have many definitions, Psychonaut, and you're not the only person who can generate links. http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=carnal Spirituality isn't mentioned there at all. If a word has more than one official definition -- to say nothing of street meanings -- it's kinda pointless to correct someone on terminology, because their word usage might not be wrong, even in the eyes of the dictionary gods. It's better to agree on terminology, so a discussion can proceed forward in a productive way. I really don't care who was mean to who, or who started what. If the tone of certain posters concerns you, my advice would be to respond only to the people who address you civilly, and to respond to them in a respectful (if sometimes forceful) way. Fairly, soon, you will find that only a handful of people talk down to you, and most of the people on the board will treat you with respect.

nephandi -> RE: Functional vs. Spiritual D/s (1/9/2010 4:01:55 PM)
Greetings I just wanted to include a list of good books about Spiritual BDSM. Kink Magic by Taylor Ellwood Dark Moon Rising Pagan BDSM and the Ordeal Path by Raven Kaldera Radical Ecstasy: SM Journeys to Transcendence by Dossie Easton and Janet W. Hardy Philosophy in the Dungeon The Magic of Sex & Spirit by Jack Rinella Spiritual Transformation Trough BDSM by Sensuous Sadie Sacred Pain Hurting the Body for the Sake of the Soul by Ariel Glucklich It's Not About the Whip: Love, Sex and Spirituality in the BDSM Scene by Sensuous Sadie Modern Sex Magick by Donald Michael Kraig *Pagan Polyamory Becoming a Tribe of Hearts by Raven Kaldera I wish you well

wisdomtogive -> RE: Functional vs. Spiritual D/s (1/9/2010 4:03:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero Well, I'm the wrong one in this thread to talk about the spirituality part with. That's actually why I asked earlier if those who take to spirituality might see some of my preferences as particularly "spiritual", because I don't use the word to describe them despite the fact that I do have moments that are more emotional than physical. For instance, I've had moods where I wanted to be inside my partner. Not because I wanted to get off or because I wanted some genital massage, but because I wanted the symbolic feeling of proximity and consummation. I suppose that could be said to be an appreciation of the "spiritual" nature of such an act, but it's still not something I see as that. NihilusZero I am going to attempt to answer this question regarding spiritual or emotional. First I must relay that responding to anything you say makes me slightly nervous, because of your intelligent means of using words. Wish i had that, but that is another story. The common usage of Spiritual has a strong connection to so many beliefs and systems. This is not how i see it. Spiritual for me simply means my spirit. My spirit is always present in everthing that i am and do, but it is not related or connected to any certain religious group, philisophy or ism. My spirit does have an emotional component to it, because it is how it speaks to me. There have been many ahaaaaaaaaaa moments through the revelation of my spirit that came through emotions. Yes, being taught to work with 'energy' in a certain way I have reached that aha moment when i have 'enter' another's being, or them mine. Not done often, but is totally achievable. This is my 'spirit' experiencing the emotions of another, or even as with late hubby his strong rooted practicality. What an experience to feel and experience especially since this i do not possess in myself, especially to that degree. This example I chose to use since you mentioned it. It is not any attempt to make another believe it can be done or not. The purpose was to show emotions explaining to the spirit what is being felt. So living a Spiritual D/s relationship to me is letting the emotions speak for how my spirit experiences life as a submissive. I hope I made sense. If i didn't that is okay, i am still proud of myself for giving it a whirl blessings wisdomtogive

Elisabella -> RE: Functional vs. Spiritual D/s (1/9/2010 4:21:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: UniqueRaven But then i see D-types who post who are purely "do it, don't think about it, etc. etc." and don't really care about spirituality. Conversely, i also see D-types who want to take their s-types on a spiritual journey of sorts, who want to lead him/her in that way. Those type of relationships, where the dominant makes a point of saying "just do it, don't think about it," from what I've seen those relationships are almost zen in their spirituality. There is a difference between not thinking about it at all, and having all your thoughts about it answered with "don't think, do." Because I've seen a lot of people with that dynamic posting about how after x many years they feel like they "get it" and they have some sort of sublime revelation that I can't even imagine. Whereas you and I, with our more cerebral spiritualities, are still questioning the whys and wherefores. Anyway that just stood out to me. In my current relationship I'm a lot less spiritual than I used to be. I really feel like I'm in a terrible rut, and it shows. But in general, ideally, I like to play with the spiritual side of things. For those questioning the difference between "a spiritual relationship" and "spiritual people who are in a relationship" I'd say the first focuses on actively incorporating it. Things like sex magick, or viewing 'beauty' as a conceptual ideal state to attain for a few minutes, or channeling primal male/female energies and viewing each other as earthly representations of divine concepts rather than Jack the accountant and Jill the publicist. If you're actively trying to incorporate spiritual activity, you're making the relationship spiritual.

Elisabella -> RE: Functional vs. Spiritual D/s (1/9/2010 4:38:14 PM)
Hey Nephandi, I think I'm going to have to check out that Modern Sex Magick book. I got one of Kraig's books back when I was 17 or so (borrowed it from a friend, still have it. Sorry Sam!) and it really changed my perception of occult studies from "this is cool" to "this is really interesting." Hope you're doing well, Bella

DesFIP -> RE: Functional vs. Spiritual D/s (1/9/2010 5:02:09 PM)
More functional for us. As I age, I am connecting more with my religion. He is entirely nonreligious and not very spiritual. Kink is just for fun, but d/s is simply how we function the best. He's better as a leader than a follower and I do better as an assistant than a leader.

sexyred1 -> RE: Functional vs. Spiritual D/s (1/9/2010 5:18:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Psychonaut23 quote: ORIGINAL: RedMagic1 Nihilus, I was referring to this. I won't address your speculation as to my motives. It remains a true statement that if someone posts in a conversational style, instead of a lecturing style, they're less likely to draw fire -- and this is even more true if they are holding forth on a position that isn't necessarily accurate. I don't understand what your problem is with what I posted. Part of the definition of carnal is not spiritual. Look: carnal –adjective 1. pertaining to or characterized by the flesh or the body, its passions and appetites; sensual: carnal pleasures. 2. not spiritual; merely human; temporal; worldly: a man of secular, rather carnal, leanings. Check it yourself. And frankly, given the raw hostility in sexyred1's post, I thought my response was quite polite. It's hard to be "conversational" in response to an aggressive and insulting attack. But really, can we keep to the topic? While I don't mind being the center of attention, there's still a 60+ page thread all about me on the main page. Do we really need two? It seems that you have a flawed perception of my intent in my post. Your flawed perception was that my post was "raw and hostile". You were not polite back. I was not aggressive and insulting. I find it interesting that you and Nihilus Zero, who seems to enjoy defending you and being your translator, find aggression in replies that are blunt and don't cite the dictionary terms of the topic. You both attacked RedMagic for disagreeing with you as well. And he certainly was pleasant in his posts. I felt that what you wrote was a crock and I still do. If the word "crock" is too raw and insulting for you, I will change it to say "bullshit". Is that better? Unless you keep being so insulted, I doubt this thread will go to 60 pages.

hungwabbit -> RE: Functional vs. Spiritual D/s (1/9/2010 6:23:16 PM)
I think in terms of there being a body and a mind. The body tends to be simplistic according to its native instinct, seeking to satisfy it various appetites according to whatever biological system is making its needs foremost. The mind is typically lost in the shadows of its malformed conceits, having nothing better to do than pester other people who are similarly afflicted. For that comedy of language there is a range of ready beliefs and notions people adopt haphazardly in pursuit of emotional affirmation. Despite that burden of delusions, people still and luckily manage to get laid, in various ways.

MasterFireMaam -> RE: Functional vs. Spiritual D/s (1/9/2010 7:37:13 PM)
We are the guru, Priestess or otherwise liaison for whatever spiritual path slavelliot would like to develop. This doesn't mean that it (he) must choose Our path or that We must become proficient in its (his)path. It doesn't mean that We are G-d or whatever, but that it (he) connects spiritually through Us. it (he) is more grounded and functional as a slave who is connected to Us in this way. Master Fire

aldompdx -> RE: Functional vs. Spiritual D/s (1/10/2010 12:25:03 AM)
See Bhakti Yoga: Wikipedia Bhakti Surrender is about gaining aware connection with one's own light of love as the sacred self, and then sharing that with another while having a transparent ego. Control is not of another, but of one's own faculties and psyche with the free choice and self will of humble awareness.

Elisabella -> RE: Functional vs. Spiritual D/s (1/10/2010 12:29:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Psychonaut23 I have a copy of MSM by Kraig. If you've read his Modern High Magick (bet that's the one you've got), then few of the ideas will be new, and its basically a very basic sex manual. Very, very tame for a book about sex magic. I'd recommend Sex Magic, Tarot and Tantra: The Way of the Secret Lover by Christopher Hyatt and Lon Milo Duquette if you've already got Kraig under your belt. Yeah that's the one I have. It's great, really comprehensive. Thanks for the suggestion :) It looks really interesting.

NihilusZero -> RE: Functional vs. Spiritual D/s (1/10/2010 12:30:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sexyred1 It seems that you have a flawed perception of my intent in my post. Your flawed perception was that my post was "raw and hostile". You were not polite back. I was not aggressive and insulting. I think "disingenuous" just gained a new footnote in the dictionary. quote: ORIGINAL: sexyred1 I find it interesting that you and Nihilus Zero, who seems to enjoy defending you and being your translator You'd get better traffic to your strawman if you just said that we're having sex. Otherwise, perhaps you'd care to swing back to objectivityland long enough to realize I'm not concerned with any person, but rather with the actuality of things. quote: ORIGINAL: sexyred1 I felt that what you wrote was a crock and I still do. If the word "crock" is too raw and insulting for you, I will change it to say "bullshit". Is that better? It doesn't matter what word you use to describe it, your assessment of his words was wrong. How about you? Do you know what an argumentum ad hominem is?

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4] 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

5.078125E-02