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 11:13:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Psychonaut23 The idea of "functional" D/s seems strange to me, I'd wonder what the function is exactly if it's not growth and development of those involved, and I tend to think of spiritual development as an important part of self-development. I would definitely be at the "spiritual" end of the range. It cannot be anything but functional, working towards the end that ensures a prolonged partnership. The spirituality part is really just auxiliary because some people need to see that as part of the function in an ideal relationship (creating circular reasoning since they would say "if it is not spiritual then it would not be personally functional").

heartcream -> RE: Functional vs. Spiritual D/s (1/9/2010 11:39:51 AM)
Sometimes words do not accurately describe things. There is a tendency to use words and figure others share the same definition. Spirituality it such a word to me. In my understanding there are four parts, Mind/spirit, heart body and will/emotions. There is no doing without one or the other as much as some of these factions get ignored, judged, pooped on and that sort of thing.

lally2 -> RE: Functional vs. Spiritual D/s (1/9/2010 12:08:11 PM)
my paganistic spirituality has taught me to let go of the external and flow into the energies around me. it has taught me how to respond beyond my own ego, needs and concepts. i can let go of 'I' much more easily now and from this my submission has become far more functional and probably more fundamental to me. in an odd way my paganism has almost rendered me self sufficient as a submissive. submitting to the influences i tap into fulfills a huge part of that 'need' in me. a while back i went pottering around a cemetry. right at the far back i found 12 graves of ww11 servicemen. a number were from canada. sitting on a park bench i went into one of my peaceful meditations, just listening to the birds and the silence. when an energy came to me i was completely at peace with everything and was entirely peaceful, submissive to whatever came. he asked me to bring him flowers and so i went off and bought some red roses and left them at his grave. a week later i went back with some yellow ones, we'd had storms and rain and high winds and i wasnt expecting to see the red roses there. one was left, perfect in every way, untouched by deer or the weather, i knew it was meant for me. in a way i submitted to the spirit of that canadian serviceman. buried here in england he'd had no flowers left for him and it was important to him. finding that rose for me made me cry. believing in him, submitting to the moment was entirely spiritual for me and beautiful. it was all about submission or at least an expression of it. the point im randomly making here [:)] is that submitting to the spirit or energy of a person (living) is how i reach that depth of inner peace i just cant get from any other sort of relationship. whether they are spiritual or as spiritual doesnt really matter to me, so long as they understand its important to me.

wisdomtogive -> RE: Functional vs. Spiritual D/s (1/9/2010 1:37:03 PM)
Wow One of my favorite topics and i find myself just speechless. I am spiritual completely. i serve and am discipline through my spiritual practices...i am that is all i can say. nothing to explain or prove..wow..good place for me to be:)

UniqueRaven -> RE: Functional vs. Spiritual D/s (1/9/2010 1:58:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Psychonaut23 Maybe Raven can explain what she intended by her use of "functional." Hm, what do i mean by functional? i mean a relationship or an individual that does not contain a spiritual component - it may contain emotion, of course, but it is more about that the two do for each other in a purely physical sense than a spiritual sense, in other words "i Dominate you and you submit" more or less. It is more about the acts themselves, and perhaps the resultant emotions, than connecting those acts to something "larger" - whether that is the Divine, Universal Energy, Karma, G-d, or whatever. Jeffff seemed to illustrate what i'm thinking about in regards to functional when he said: quote: ORIGINAL: Jeffff Too much naval gazing can get in the way. There is stuff to do and life to be lived. Does this help? j

NihilusZero -> RE: Functional vs. Spiritual D/s (1/9/2010 2:17:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Psychonaut23 But what does it mean to say that something is functional as an end-of-itself? That's like saying "I have a machine that's very efficient." "What does it do?" "It's very efficient?" "But what does it do?" "I don't know, but it does it very efficiently!" Same with a functional relationship. What does that mean? I have a very functional relationship with George W. Bush. He stays in Crawford, I stay in Seattle, never the twain shall meet. Being absolute strangers is a very functional for us. Everything with humans boils down to a happiness quotient. It could be said that, reducing the human partnership endeavor to procreation and other old 'natural' predispositions, following to the end of those biological survival goals could also describe functionality, but I don't view those as applicable anymore with the human animal because of how our self-reflective sentience allows us the ability to rearrange our value-driven priorities. In the context of a romantic relationship, the goal is prolonged, happiness-inducing partnership. I'd consider, then, any relationship that yielded that output to be functional (of course each relationship determines for itself whether the output is consistently happy or not).

NihilusZero -> RE: Functional vs. Spiritual D/s (1/9/2010 2:19:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: UniqueRaven Hm, what do i mean by functional? i mean a relationship or an individual that does not contain a spiritual component - it may contain emotion, of course, but it is more about that the two do for each other in a purely physical sense than a spiritual sense, in other words "i Dominate you and you submit" more or less. It is more about the acts themselves, and perhaps the resultant emotions, than connecting those acts to something "larger" - whether that is the Divine, Universal Energy, Karma, G-d, or whatever. Out of curiosity: how would you define a relationship that is emotional but not spiritual? Then, how would you define (in a comparative sense to your first answer) a relationship that is both spiritual and emotional?

UniqueRaven -> RE: Functional vs. Spiritual D/s (1/9/2010 2:30:14 PM)
First let me be clear i'm specifically speaking to a D/s relationship, and the actions of Dominance and submission - not a relationship in general - and does that Dominance or submission tie either individual, whether singly or together, to a spiritual place. And again, these are my thoughts, and what i'm considering via this thread. Perhaps i'm speaking in a circle, but a D/s relationship can be emotional without being spiritual. You can be very much in love, playing happily together, facilitating and experiencing together, and be an atheist, or agnostic, or keep your spirituality separate from your relationship - there is no connection to a Divine or Higher Power that is facilitated through the relationship for one or both parties. A D/s relationship that contains both emotional and spiritual components has one or both partners, either singly or together, connecting to the Divine or a Higher Power via their individual Dominance, or submission, or the power exchange of the relationship in general as a couple. They see D/s as a conduit tying them to some spiritual place - beyond their love for each other. This is not saying that this is a "higher" or "better" D/s relationship, just the type of relationship and spiritual connection that either or both parties enjoy and seek via their D/s. There have been some very good posts on this thread that illustrate what i'm saying as well - i'll point back to specifics if you like. [:)]

NihilusZero -> RE: Functional vs. Spiritual D/s (1/9/2010 2:40:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: UniqueRaven First let me be clear i'm specifically speaking to a D/s relationship, and the actions of Dominance and submission - not a relationship in general - and does that Dominance or submission tie either individual, whether singly or together, to a spiritual place. And again, these are my thoughts, and what i'm considering via this thread. Perhaps i'm speaking in a circle, but a D/s relationship can be emotional without being spiritual. You can be very much in love, playing happily together, facilitating and experiencing together, and be an atheist, or agnostic, or keep your spirituality separate from your relationship - there is no connection to a Divine or Higher Power that is facilitated through the relationship for one or both parties. A D/s relationship that contains both emotional and spiritual components has one or both partners, either singly or together, connecting to the Divine or a Higher Power via their individual Dominance, or submission, or the power exchange of the relationship in general as a couple. They see D/s as a conduit tying them to some spiritual place - beyond their love for each other. This is not saying that this is a "higher" or "better" D/s relationship, just the type of relationship and spiritual connection that either or both parties enjoy and seek via their D/s. There have been some very good posts on this thread that illustrate what i'm saying as well - i'll point back to specifics if you like. [:)] I think I'm back at the place I was thinking about it at earlier: it's another kink facet of the D/s relationship (of any relationship, really). Another requisute facet to be fulfilled in an ideal relationship (for those that wish it). What I'm still kind of confused about is how spirituality has any specific bearing on a D/s relationship apart from just being present. I'm having trouble seeing an angle much different than asking "How does the fact that you and your partner are blonde affect your D/s relationship?"

UniqueRaven -> RE: Functional vs. Spiritual D/s (1/9/2010 2:40:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Psychonaut23 Okay, I gotcha. The word you're looking for is carnal; pertaining to or characterized by the flesh or the body, its passions and appetites; sensual; not spiritual; merely human; temporal; worldly. That probably is a better word for what i'm considering, thank you. [:)]

sexyred1 -> RE: Functional vs. Spiritual D/s (1/9/2010 2:42:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Psychonaut23 quote: ORIGINAL: UniqueRaven i mean a relationship or an individual that does not contain a spiritual component - it may contain emotion, of course, but it is more about that the two do for each other in a purely physical sense than a spiritual sense, in other words "i Dominate you and you submit" more or less. It is more about the acts themselves, and perhaps the resultant emotions, than connecting those acts to something "larger" - whether that is the Divine, Universal Energy, Karma, G-d, or whatever. Okay, I gotcha. The word you're looking for is carnal; pertaining to or characterized by the flesh or the body, its passions and appetites; sensual; not spiritual; merely human; temporal; worldly. I tend to think that people are either spiritual or not, mostly because I think spirituality is just a matter of brain chemistry. I have a brain that easily experiences transcendental states, other people have brains that don't. I think spiritual people tend to find spirituality in everything, and sensates (carnal types) tend to find spirituality in nothing. 'Cause ultimately I think it's just about how people experience and interpret pleasure. 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.

UniqueRaven -> RE: Functional vs. Spiritual D/s (1/9/2010 2:44:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero I think I'm back at the place I was thinking about it at earlier: it's another kink facet of the D/s relationship (of any relationship, really). Another requisute facet to be fulfilled in an ideal relationship (for those that wish it). What I'm still kind of confused about is how spirituality has any specific bearing on a relationship apart from just being present. I'm having trouble seeing an angle much different than asking "How does the fact that you and your partner are blonde affect your D/s relationship?" Well that is the question i'm asking, equating "being blonde" to spirituality: do you care if your partner is blonde, or if you're blonde, and how does it affect you, or both of you? Does being blonde have a place in your relationship or not? And if it does, what does being blonde add to your Dominance or submission, or your partner's? For some people it matters, for some it doesn't. Just trying to find out for who it does, or doesn't, and does that necessarily correlate with the D/s role within the relationship.

NihilusZero -> RE: Functional vs. Spiritual D/s (1/9/2010 2:49:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Psychonaut23 I tend to think that people are either spiritual or not, mostly because I think spirituality is just a matter of brain chemistry. I have a brain that easily experiences transcendental states, other people have brains that don't. I think spiritual people tend to find spirituality in everything, and sensates (carnal types) tend to find spirituality in nothing. 'Cause ultimately I think it's just about how people experience and interpret pleasure. This is interesting for a couple of reasons. First, it appeals to me as someone who arrived at existential nihilism via taoism. Second, while I don't hold to any concept of spirituality myself, I do prioritize my way of approaching relationships in a way that seeks intoxication (in the way your sigline would suggest). As in, I work towards (or to create) instances where there is a certain 'magic', per se, of the moment...as if what is happening could have been scripted from a novel or movie. So, while I am attracted to that kind of intensity-hunting, I don't consider it at all spiritual. I'm wondering, though, if by my description above, some who do view things spiritually would be prone to say that, in their opinion, I am looking at things "spiritually" and just not calling it that.

NihilusZero -> RE: Functional vs. Spiritual D/s (1/9/2010 2:51:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: UniqueRaven Well that is the question i'm asking, equating "being blonde" to spirituality: do you care if your partner is blonde, or if you're blonde, and how does it affect you, or both of you? Does being blonde have a place in your relationship or not? And if it does, what does being blonde add to your Dominance or submission, or your partner's? For some people it matters, for some it doesn't. Just trying to find out for who it does, or doesn't, and does that necessarily correlate with the D/s role within the relationship. Gotcha. I think I was reading too much into it then. Big surprise, eh? [:D]

NihilusZero -> RE: Functional vs. Spiritual D/s (1/9/2010 3:07:06 PM)
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. I don't think that's at all what he was alluding to. He's essentially pointing out the human phenomenon of 'meaning attribution'. And people are normally rather easily dichotomized between those who have the propensity to read meaning into things and those who eschew doing so. this is precisely why I mentioned existential nihilism and taoism: both seek to rip apart the veils of illusion and credulity that humanity surrounds itself with. Taoism, once it gets to the nucleus, sees "everything". Existential nihilism, once it gets to the nucleus, sees "nothing". Each is a matter of perspective.

RedMagic1 -> RE: Functional vs. Spiritual D/s (1/9/2010 3:08:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Psychonaut23 Part of the definition of carnal is not spiritual, so the words are antonyms. No. "Carnal" means to take delight in the pleasures of the flesh. "Material" is closer to an antonym for "spiritual." Most of the world's major religions consider sex between married couples to be something blessed and beautiful, maybe even holy. Beyond that, my friend M, the sub I met on Alt and was in a relationship with for a while, is a modern hippie, and she and I would meditate together with a Tibetan Prayer bowl, just before I spanked the crap out of her. Spiritual carnality, baby. You seem profoundly confident in your misunderstanding of the English language. I tend to avoid your threads, but do you think your lack of communication skills is what frustrates so many people?

NihilusZero -> RE: Functional vs. Spiritual D/s (1/9/2010 3:09:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Psychonaut23 Ask NihilusZero the same question, I bet he gives you the internet equivalent of a funny look. I have collected numerous internet smileys just for this very sort of reason. digs through collection [img]http://www.robguimaraes.com/s/eyebrow.gif[/img] See?

NihilusZero -> RE: Functional vs. Spiritual D/s (1/9/2010 3:13:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RedMagic1 No. "Carnal" means to take delight in the pleasures of the flesh. "Material" is closer to an antonym for "spiritual." Except it's already accepted that we are discussing things in the context of a relationship, in which case "carnal" would be the antithesis to "spiritual". quote: ORIGINAL: RedMagic1 You seem profoundly confident in your misunderstanding of the English language. I tend to avoid your threads, but do you think your lack of communication skills is what frustrates so many people? Okay...now I get that he's ruffled enough feathers on these boards to re-plume every cartoon bird that ever got scared into nakedness, but nothing he's said here has been at all abrasive in any way and yet people are still responding to him as if this was the Misogyny thread. From what I know of your posts, this isn't at all a precedent for you.

UniqueRaven -> RE: Functional vs. Spiritual D/s (1/9/2010 3:16:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Psychonaut23 Ask either of them if they've ever experienced washing the dishes as a profoundly spiritual event, I'll bet they both say yes. Yes. [:D]

RedMagic1 -> RE: Functional vs. Spiritual D/s (1/9/2010 3:19:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero quote: ORIGINAL: RedMagic1 No. "Carnal" means to take delight in the pleasures of the flesh. "Material" is closer to an antonym for "spiritual." Except it's already accepted that we are discussing things in the context of a relationship, in which case "carnal" would be the antithesis to "spiritual". 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.

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875