To be fair, BDSM is typically so reviled in the public consciousness I would expect it to be cancelled long before anyone bothered to get around to examining any of its jargon.
>I would expect it to be cancelled long before anyone bothered to get around to examining any of its jargon.
I wouldn't since people attempting to control what consenting adults can do with each other in the privacy of their bedroom were the ones that were trying to keep gay marriage out and that's not really the winning side.
The issue is not neatly divided into one of puritanism vs sexual license. In just the same way that a segment of the lesbian and gay community is hostile toward transsexual and bisexual and asexual individuals, and certain feminists have issues or not with transsexuals, etc, the divisions are far more multifaceted. In this case, we're discoursing on the usage of words in or out of context, or, more accurately, that to some there is only a singular context. Under such strictures, it is impossible to succeed in asking for nuance around the idea (or image) of a woman being tied up and hit.
And going by the best barometer of these things (that of its portrayal in publicly broadcast material) transsexuals and gays and lesbians have a measure of the normative. Such a thing cannot be said for BDSM. Outside of specialized media, it is almost universally coded in the negative. Here, we should not confuse popularity with the non-negative. The prime example is 50 Shades of Grey, a piece of media that can exist because it is fundamentally founded upon the notion of the 'brokenness' of such a state and practices, the narrative thrust all leading to the eventual redemption and healing of the protagonist, allowing the audience the titillation of the 'naughty thing', all while safely packing it away as being 'wrong' and always having been so.
