In 2006, the Journal of Homosexuality produced a double issue (2/3) on the subject of bdsm.
One of the articles is an "empirical investigation of four perspectives" on bdsm. While acknowledging that more research must be done to confirm their preliminary findings, at the conclusion of their paper the authors write that: "Sadomasochists in this research reported having had more sex partners and a greater likelihood of having explored non-herterosexual experiences. They were also more likely to be sexually active relative to non-sadomasochists . . . One might wonder whether SM ought to be understood best as a game explored by the sexually sophisticated and adventurous, involving the manipulation of power for erotic purposes."
If one can acknowledge that a person can have a more sophisticated understanding of Marx, classical music or Impressionist painting, what is so difficult about acknowledging that there are levels of sophistication at play in sexuality as well? Chuck's innocuous comment that "kinksters are more sexually liberated and enjoy more freedom than people who just muck along" may well be a simple statement of fact rather than the arrogant assertion that Carrol's hyper-defensive response would lead one to believe. (The study also showed that "dominant men were more likely to hold pro-feminist attitudes than 'normal' control group participants." Maybe getting men into bdsm is a strategy for increasing their pro-feminist tendencies. You might have to abandon your celibacy if you truly want to help women Charles).
Another study indicated that "gay male participants showed a preference for hypermasculinity and straight men respondents for humiliation" (gays also seemed to prefer dildos while straight men opted for gags). There is also an interesting article about "lessons from the edge" and the transformative potential of intense erotic intimacy. Maybe that wishful thinking is not so wishful under some circumstances.
Brian