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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Psychonaut23

Maybe Raven can explain what she intended by her use of "functional."

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeffff

Too much naval gazing can get in the way.

There is stuff to do and life to be lived.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?"

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.

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.

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Psychonaut23
Part of the definition of carnal is not spiritual, so the words are antonyms. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: Psychonaut23

Ask NihilusZero the same question, I bet he gives you the internet equivalent of a funny look.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RedMagic1

No.  "Carnal" means to take delight in the pleasures of the flesh.  "Material" is closer to an antonym for "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?

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. 

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".