This isn't merely a point of view? What evidence would you cite?
I meant to answer this two years ago, but I got bored with the thread and forgot.
It's not something one can prove by means of an RCT, so I wouldn't cite any evidence.
When I have the time, I'll try to explain it using recognizable anecdotes and well-known facts.
In posts
413 and
424, I described how shame impacts sexual fantasies and thus sex itself.
The first time I noticed this (without getting the concept quite right) was when I was 18 and doing the dishes. From the kitchen window, I could see kids playing in the courtyard when two very young boys (four or five years old) pushed a girl (late prepubescent or very early pubescent) up against a wall, lifted her skirt, pulled down her panties and then ran away. What made it particularly weird was that she was in no hurry to get her skirt down and her panties up while looking at the windows of the building as if she were both fearing and hoping that somebody was watching her. Besides, the boys were too small to have done what they did if she had put up any kind of resistance. It also didn't seem to be sexual to the boys in any way like it seemed to be to her.
In other words, she appeared to have used them to live out a fantasy of hers. I think it's more than likely that she even arranged it with them, i.e. persuaded them to do what they did.
It's not uncommon for children, even toddlers to come up with 'play scripts',
which parents sometimes find disturbing because they don't remember doing so themselves at that age. It's also not uncommon for children to use these play scripts to create plays that let them get do something that's otherwise taboo, embarrassing, humiliating, shameful, but makes sense according to the script, e.g. playing doctor to see and maybe even touch each other undressed. It's a way of getting to do what you are not supposed to do but nevertheless desire to do, so you do it under the pretext of doing
something else that
lets you do the taboo thing as if doing the taboo thing weren't the
actual purpose of what you're doing.
That's why I mentioned dialectics in one of the posts mentioned above:
1) You want to do something.
2) You can't just go ahead and do it because it's associated with shame or embarrassment.
3) The contradiction is solved by pretending that it isn't what it is.
The pretense helps you overcome the shame. It's a detour to overcome the shame, a hurdle you need to get past to fulfill your desire. It's the reason why humiliation in all other contexts is something people don't like and try to avoid, but when it has become an integral part of sexual fantasies, it has also become charged with lust – almost like the bell in the case of Pavlov's dog.
It is the reason why masochists see an act as
liberating that in any other context would be the exact opposite: being tied up ('I literally can't resist') or humiliated ('This is embarrassing, but I can't be blamed'). In the case of sadists, what the whole BDSM scenario liberates them from is the embarrassment of being rejected: 'the object of my desire can't refuse, can't turn me down.'
I see no other explanation for the complicated scenario of whips and ropes and chains and uniforms, which would otherwise have no place in lovemaking and usually doesn't in normal relationships.
Neither is strangulation, by the way. Why the ◊◊◊◊ would somebody want to strangulate or even pretend to strangle somebody they're making love to? (This is not a rhetorical question!) People who are into that kind of thing usually can't come up with anything other than meaningless euphemisms, e.g. 'kink', which is just a way of avoiding having to explain anything at all – to oneself or others.