And now, proving my point, Sierra Indigo! 
And lest anyone think I’m implying there’s something wrong with extremely kinky, I’m not- quite the opposite, in fact. 
Please, hold your applause 
Inflicting violence, by definition, causes harm to yourself or others. Homosexuality has nothing to do with violence. I have no problems with the idea that the woman who asked me to punch her had issues, though I’m sure she’d have been just as indignant as you at the suggestion. If you can’t enjoy the simplest, most pleasurable things in life without piling on your own psychological baggage, that’s pretty much the definition of “mental issues” to me. If you knew someone who couldn’t enjoy a meal without having a knife held to his throat or being slapped around while he was eating, would you or would you not conclude he had issues?
Isn’t sex, in se, an act of violence? Hurts so good, or something. I have no problem hitting a girl (a la Isabella in “Blue Velvet”) or spanking her or pulling her hair or whatever if that’s what she wants (and she needn’t expressly ask – some desires can be communicated nonverbally – but she would have to be pretty damned clear to get to anything heavy). I did have to draw the line at an ex-girlfriend who really liked it in the ass, though – sure I’d help her out when I felt like it, but not my thing.
Doesn’t say very much about my morals, I guess, but I can sleep just fine at night.
You seem to assume that just because someone ENJOYS an act means they REQUIRE it to get off.
Just because I like dirty, hard, edgeplay sex doesn’t mean I require it every second of every day. It’s something I enjoy as part of my sexual experience as a whole. Sometimes slow, tender lovemaking is what I’m in the mood for. Sometimes a little self-love, no pain required.
If someone has fetishised an act to the point where they require it before arousal or orgasm is possible, then yes there may be mental issues there. But just because someone asked you to hurt them, because they’d like to try it or because they know it does arouse them, doesn’t mean they’re mentally warped and need to seek therapy. It may just mean sometimes they like something a bit different. To take your meal analogy further - if you knew someone who only ate the same thing at every meal, and refused to try anything different at all EVER because they claimed it was deviant and wrong, wouldn’t you think they had issues?
Spoken like a true prosecutor. 
To me, the part I’d call ‘moralizing’ is his false (IMHO) equating of spanking with hitting:
[QUOTE=Shodan]
But if you find someone attractive, why would you want to hit them, even in play? Or dominate them - good sex is equal sharing - I do nice stuff for you, you do nice stuff for me, we do nice stuff together that makes us both feel good. Hitting someone doesn’t make me feel good - just the opposite. Maybe it turns you on, but it has exactly the opposite effect on me.
[/QUOTE]
Those of you whose parents used spanking as a punishment when you were growing up surely remember that there was a point, maybe at about 9 or 10 years old, when you realized that this didn’t hurt anymore, so the threat of a spanking ceased to be much of a threat.
Equating something that ceased to actually hurt when you were that young with hitting, which can hurt and inflict genuine harm at any age, is either a mistake or an attempt to make something you disapprove of sound much worse than it really is.
And after the spanking, the oral sex.
Even when they are not, everyone knows that “no” is the new “yes”
Oh sure, yes means yes, and no means maybe later.
This is generally how things work out for me. But I’m a traditionalist.
My opinion is pretty simple:
Any woman who is willing to jump in my bed and get busy can ask anything of me. I’ll do (just about) anything she wants.
But I do draw the line at anal sex. It’s just not really healthy for either party. Regardless of whether you’re pitching or catching.