Here is something else
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/soc-subcult...age-faq/part3/
"If what I've been saying in this FAQ is accurate, then why haven't more
people heard this? Why are the prevailing images of SM so negative?

There is no doubt that they _are_ negative. Not long ago I was informed
that there are some members of the Winnipeg (Canada) police department
who believe that soc.subculture.bondage-bdsm is "a textbook on how to
torture women for sexual pleasure. It's obscene." Said police were
considering how to deal with s.s.b-b on obscenity grounds. In England
in 1991, a group of gay men who had gathered for an SM play party in
which they were using whips for pleasure were arrested and charged with
battery, EVEN THOUGH they had all agreed to be doing exactly what they
were doing, and WANTED to be doing it. Consensual SM is illegal in
England. How can this be?

The crucial distinction here is between consent and non-consent. The
difference between whipping someone in a scene and assaulting them on
the street is the difference between sex and rape. If everyone involved
agrees to what is happening, it is not a crime. If they do not, then it
is. This distinction is not in principle difficult to understand, and
being involved in SM makes it very clear. SM practitioners are _more_
familiar with consent issues than most, and as such are _less_ likely to
commit crimes of the sort that people confuse with SM. And NONE of the
material in this FAQ advocates ANY kind of nonconsensual, criminal
behavior.

Unfortunately, there are many who would be arbiters of what others may
and may not legally consent to do. I believe that consenting adults
should be free to do as they wish in the privacy of their homes. There
are many who don't believe this is acceptable. It serves them to
confuse the issue by claiming "SM people are sadistic rapists" when in
fact we are nothing of the sort. Criminalizing consensual sexual
activities (sodomy, SM, even prostitution) is an old tradition, but in
my view, an unjustifiable one.

This problem is exacerbated by the body of "scholarly research" on SM
and related practices. Almost all the books written about SM and other
alternative practices in this century have been written by psychologists
and therapists (i.e. people outside the scene), and almostall have
portrayed SM as a dangerous practice, indulged in only by "unhealthy"
individuals. The reason? Healthy individuals weren't the subjects
being studied; rather, the subjects were all seeking psychological
treatment from the authors of the books! The "studies" completely
ignored the many many well-adjusted, happy people who were also into SM.
It's easy to conclude SM is harmful when your only experience is with
psychologically maladjusted SM people, and when you aren't interested in
presenting a balanced view (as few authors are--psychologists can be as
sexually judgmental as anyone).

More recent events in the psychiatric community have shown a change in
opinion about SM. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Psychiatric
Conditions is a document produced by the American Psychiatric
Association. The DSM-III, published in the late '80s, classified
"sexual sadism" and "sexual masochism" as disorders for which treatment
was recommended. The APA, in the DSM-IV, reclassified SM as _not_
necessarily a disorder, unless the practice of the SM produces
clinically significant ongoing emotional trauma, or leads to death,
serious injury, or disability. The DSM-IV is recognition by the
theraputic community that SM can be practiced in a psychologically
healthy way.

As for "natural": people have practiced SM behaviors throughout history.
Many are the saints who scourged themselves in the name of the Lord.
Using intense sensation to reach altered states of mind is a practice as
old as humanity itself--and hence can be considered in no way
"unnatural".

Our society (as do most societies) tends to ostracize the different. If
you don't fit the mold, you're weird and dangerous. People into SM
don't fit the mold. This is why there is such pressure to remain
anonymous in the scene; people have lost their jobs, partners, children,
and liberty by having their sexual preferences revealed to their
community. This stems from the same source: lack of understanding of
what we do and why, and lack of respect for what is different.

Of course, there are plenty of people who just aren't into SM. (Most
people, in fact.) There's nothing at all wrong with not being into SM,
or with not wanting to be exposed to people who do various forms of SM;
many people have emotional issues with some kinds of SM activities and
may be repulsed or disturbed by witnessing them. These people should
clearly avoid SM (and probably should avoid
soc.subculture.bondage-bdsm). I would hope, however, that even these
people would manage to learn about consensuality as it relates to SM,
and learn how SM, practiced carefully, is not abuse.

Some people feel that any power exchange between people is unhealthy.
The argument is that giving power to someone else is tantamount to
giving away your essential right to self-determination, which must be
considered an unqualified evil. Moreover, there is no doubt that many
social evils--wars, abusive relationships, et al.--derive from one group
of people seeking power over another; therefore, the argument proceeds,
it is always wrong thusly to seek power.

These issues are very controversial, even now. In the 1992 Oregon state
ballot, voters narrowly overturned a measure named OR 9, which contained
the following paragraph:

"State, regional, and local government and their departments, agencies,
and other entities, including specifically the State Department of
Higher Education and the public schools, shall assist in setting a
standard for Oregon's youth that recognizes homosexuality, pedophilia,
sadism, and masochism as abnormal, wrong, unnatural, and perverse and
that these behaviors are to be discouraged and avoided."

Homosexuality, sadism, and masochism are neither wrong nor unnatural.
All three are consensual ways of living and loving that many people
enjoy. They are not for everyone, but nor should everyone be told that
they are for no one. Note also how this measure seeks to confuse the
issue by grouping homosexuality, sadism, and masochism together with
pedophilia, a practice which is in most places legally nonconsensual.
(It is not my intent to enter here into the debate over whether children
are ever capable of fully consenting to sexual acts. Suffice it to say
that whether they can or not has no bearing on the fact that adults
_can_ consent to SM play.) Legislating what consenting adults may and
many not do in private is neither healthy nor democratic."