In the seventies and in the eighties, people from all across this nation and others were looking to ensure the safety, viability and cohesion of kinky folk through organizations and groups.  They were succeeding.
     But, farsighted people decided that unless we were all in communication and agreement on basic tenants, then there was no hope (together we stand, divided we are aberrations that society can screw with).
     The original use of the term BDSM was to make cohesive the many elements of the 'kinks' involved in this thing we now call a lifestyle.
     It did include D/s... it did include BD it did include SM.... but, it was never intended to make these all inclusive of one another as a tacit requirement to "belong".
     In other words: You might do one... (BD.... DS... SM) but you may not do another to be "included" in our fine establishment (seating to the rear is for vanillas only... and the kitchen reserves the right to refuse service for being dressed.

    It is a term of political origin and of political concern today.

     Just as when it was first adopted by the National Leather Association, it brings people a reminder of what it must have been like to congregate a conference of pansexual multi-fetished perverts for the purpose of a unification and organization that was so freaking new that no one believed that it could hold water, hold together, or hold attention from people who could not even agree on something as simple as where to hold the meetings.
         Of late and, within cyber (as this seems to be our forum to bitch and discuss our navels until the cows come home; and, I do miss my sweet Bessey) there have been complaints (at first) that BDSM was allowing people who were strictly D/s to fall through the cracks.    'D/s Folks' complained they were told it was "normal" for SM or BD to be incorporated into the relationship to the extent that they were feeling alienated from the "community" by the inherent conjecture.
     The next thing we realize, the argument has developed into a scenario in which bold statements were made that 'BDSM does not incorporate D/s'. Organizations on the web and in real life are springing up to allow people who felt they were not being included as apart of the general BDSM pervert population to 'have their own group'.
     If you have followed this thread to this point, you realize that people are walking away and dividing the community through a simple a misunderstanding that we all are "kinky folk"... we all are perverts... and BDSM was an umbrella for all of us to keep the rain of vanilla prejudice away.
     It is a shame that people are tearing at the very fabric of our 'shield' because they may feel they are standing on the outside and getting dampened by the folks at the center.    They believe that in ripping the fabric from our whole, they can fashion their own in a different place, with a different structure.

     The fact is: Without the fabric, we have no shield... and they... without the structure have no support.