TLDR: Article 1 is a tiny, unverifiable sample of perverts talking about rape, not BDSM.

Article 2 is circular reasoning: BDSM is violence against women because it reinforces the patriarchy. BDSM reinforces the patriarchy because it is violence against woman. At no point in the article does the author justify the claim that BDSM is harmful to women, and outside of random anecdotes of rapists fails to present evidence that is broadly applicable to the BDSM community.

https://antipornfeminists.wordpress.com/2014/01/22/bdsm-is-abuse-and-rape-culture-the-sixth-siren-joined-fetlife-to-get-proof/

6 random preverts on the internet (without screenshots or links, so we can't check the authencticity of the quotes) doesn't really represent the BDSM community, or even a small fraction. This is the equivilent of saying "all lesbians are abusive" because of the small number of wife beating lesbians in the lesbian community.

https://liberationcollective.wordpress.com/2013/01/27/bdsm-is-violence-against-women/

There's a lot wrong with what she posted. Lets go over a few examples:

BDSM is the legitimization of domestic violence against women

This implies that women and men are unable to set boundaries, and that BDSM in inherently based on male sexual dominant/female sexual submissive, while the actual power dynamic can take many forms, including those seperate from sex entirely.

but Lock was cleared of all abuse charges once he claimed the assault had been “consensual”.

This isn't a problem with BDSM, but a problem where the legal system fails to prosecute male sexual offenders.

BDSM occurs in the context of patriarchal rape culture, where women always “deserve” the rape, violence, abuse and death that men dish out to them, and women who object to this treatment are called names, and dismissed out-of-hand.

Something "occuring in the context of something" is not causality. Literally all sex occurs in the context of "rape culture". Bathing occurs in the context of rape culture.

We are also told that we are “slut shaming” when we object to BDSM, even though we know that no woman is a slut, and no woman is to blame for the ways that men abuse her.

This implies that BDSM is abuse, a fact that has not been established.

We are told that we are “not respecting the agency” of women who “choose” to engage in BDSM when recognize that playing a submissive role in sexual situations is likely born out of Societal Stockholm Syndrome.

No evidence is given for this claim.

A good example of one such man is Snowdrop Explodes who was invited as a “BDSM expert” to talk about BDSM and abuse on the site Womanist Musings. It was revealed that this so-called “expert” had in the past blogged without apology about his plan to rape and murder a woman in his local park. These are the types of men we are “kink shaming”.

Again, individual perverts do no represent the BDSM community, and one can rape women in the park without condoning consensual BDSM.

Women who suffer abuse from BDSM are often blamed for having not “said the safe word” when they express discomfort about the abuse they received, which is clearly a case of blaming the victim.

No evidence of this claim is given.

Radical feminist are infuriated by this normalization of male abuse of women. (Just this morning I saw a copy of 50 Shades of Gray for 30% off at the local grocery store ferchrissakes)

50 shades isn't BDSM, it's abuse.

What about the submissive men in BDSM? They consent to violent beatings and humiliation too, so how can you say BDSM is strictly violence against women?” Firstly I’ll point out the fairly obvious: violence, humiliation, and abuse against any person is dehumanizing and wrong.

Again, this assumes that BDSM is automatically violence or abuse, neither of which has been established.

Leaving this point aside, however, I’ll note that the majority of BDSM occurs in a male-dominant/female submissive context.

There are a LARGE number of male subs, and you can't brusg away this. This is the equivilent of saying "I'm going to ignore all the evidence that disrupts my argument", because the existence f male subs (and the relatively large number of them) suggests that the dynamic is more complex than "man dominates woman.

In preparation for her documentary The Price of Pleasure, Chung Sun studied 50 of the 275 most popular pornographic films as noted by best-selling and most-rented list reported by Adult Video News. In the films, men being spanked constituted less than 3% of the total spankings that occurred onscreen.

This is an argument against porn, rather than an argument against BDSM

Obviously, the small number of male submissives will never be able to “even out” the harms inflicted against women in BDSM. It is never okay for women to be abused by men.

Again, this implies that BDSM is inherently harmful, which she has yet to establish.

In the context of life as a man in the dominator class, a small percentage of men may wish to “try on” what they perceive to be a feminized role during sexual interactions. They may find themselves turned on by imagining what it might be like to be sexually terrorized. They may get a boner from temporarily adopting the submissive—aka feminine—role. These submissive roles are often explicitly feminized, and submissive men are often referenced as “sissies”– a word used to humiliate men by implying that they bear some resemblance to their much-despised counterpart: woman.

Hmm...Interesting. So the claim is that BDSM is violence against women, BUT ALSO when women have power in the situation it's still violence because it's BDSM? That's called circular reasoning.

We know that liberated sexuality does not follow the patriarchal model of dominance and submission, and that BDSM is the normalization of domestic violence.

Again, this claims that BDSM is violence, which the author has not been able to justify.