However there's not need to take personal offense. The implication of Wojtek's theory is that authoritarian sex-games *are* normal, in the context of an authoritarian society where authoritarian relationships are pervasive.
It seems to me that this theory could be tested. Most people in our society are authoritarian in attitude. If the theory is correct it ought to follow that a large majority of people would be aroused by BDSM sex. That is to say BDSM shouldn't even be kinky or abnormal in the context of a class society, repressed perhaps, but most people should find it stimulating.
[WS:] I think the causal connection works a bit differently here - hierarchical social structure is a necessary but not sufficient condition for BDSM. That is to say, the presence of hierarchical social organizations is not enough to produce high incidence of BDSM in society, however the absence of social hierarchies will result in the absence of BDSM practices in society.
I think this connection can be easily tested by observing sexual practices in the so-called primitive, aboriginal (or whatever the current pc name for them is) societies with little or no hierarchical organization (!Kung Bushmen?) If BDSM relations have been observed in such societies, the above hypothesis is refuted.
I think there are people on this list with sufficient knowledge of cultural anthropology to at least direct those interested in this topic to the relevant literature, if not summarize that literature for us.
Another issue is the direction of this hypothesized causal relation: whether sexual practices featuring fetishized power imbalance are an effect or the cause of social relations featuring such imbalances. I prefer the Durkheimian perspective arguing for society being the cause, but one may as well take a Freudian point of view and argue the latter i.e. that social structure is rooted in sexual practices, which in turn are embedded in human nature - or perhaps that both sexual practices and social structure have roots in human nature.
Testing this hypothesis is far more difficult, unless we identify a specific part of the brain that controls sexual preferences as well as preferences for social interaction (hierarchical vs. egalitarian.) This may be possible, given the tremendous progress of neuroscience in the last decade or so, but I simply not aware of any bona fide*) research in this area.
Another point - whatever relationship between sex and power can be scientifically proved, this has little bearing on the normative aspect of sexual practices. Whether something is "natural" of "scientifically established" or not - this does not automatically translate into being ethical or unethical. Defecating or urinating is clearly a natural and necessary life-sustaining process - but that does not mean that one can deface and urinate as one pleases. Likewise, while there is clear natural variation in human abilities and physical appearances - building those differences into a system of institutionalized discrimination is unethical (at least in modern democracies.) Ditto for sexual practices. The fact that it is pleasurable or painful does not automatically mean it is ethical or unethical.
*) Research conducted in reputable research institutions and published in reputable peer-reviewed journals. I am highly suspicious of any claims presented as "research" made by advocacy groups and their think tanks.
Wojtek