I know people who straight-up reject BDSM in all forms because they view it as a glorification of abuse and misogyny. I don't think that's fair:
some BDSM, if done without a thorough understanding of consent and boundaries, can become abusive, toxic, relationships, and
some BDSM scenes are toxic environments - I think that should be recognised, and acknowledged, and that should be combated when it occurs, but I don't think BDSM is necessarily an abusive. As for misogyny, BDSM occurs between all kinds of couples (with different sexualities, races, genders, etc.) and to read it that way ignores all those variants.
I'm good friends with a lot of people who are seriously into their kink. There was a massive fetish scene at my old university. So I have known people who have been in absolutely fantastic kinky, sub/dom relationships, and others who have been foul, destructive ones. I would hesitate to say that it's 'just like any other relationship' though, because of the amount of trust BDSM requires means that you get abusers drawn to it who use the scene to be... well, disgusting people, who do horrible things. So I generally feel that you need to be supremely careful, more so than you might with a vanilla relationship, just because of the stuff you're consenting to off the bat requires a hell of a lot of trust.
Specific to written smut: a lot of it does conflate dominance and abuse. A lot of it does glorify and romanticise incredibly unhealthy relationships. Part of this problem is ignorance: many people don't recognise what makes relationships abusive or toxic, and assume they're expected to fulfill certain obligations in a relationship when they're really not. A lot of fiction doesn't understand that most BDSM only exists as a form of roleplay in the bedroom: it is a persona, an act, that is discussed and debated thoroughly before it is put into actions, and does not permeate the rest of the relationship a lot of the time (although there are variations on how far this extents). I get really nervous around fiction which dictates controlling people's habits and who they can make friends with.
Also, a lot of smut is written as an extended fantasy rather than a realistic depiction of a relationship with BDSM. So you see things I just straight up... well, dislike would imply it's more personal than political. Things that I don't think should be there. Dub-con, for instance, makes me scream. No. That's not how it works. I also absolutely cannot stand non-con. Caps lock, double underline. If it were up to me, I would rather that sh*t be banished off the face of the earth - and if that makes me the nastiest kinkshamer who ever kinkshamed, then I'll live with that.
I mean, if you want to play out a scene like that having consented - I'll reluctantly say, fine - but, fiction does not exist in a vacuum. You can't pretend what you write doesn't influence other. I think people should be careful when it comes to stuff which is pure fantasy but wouldn't be played like that in real life without serious harm. And people should be conscious of when their fantasies may suggest they have internalised nasty ideas. Dominance? Sure, can be hot. But nobody should want to be abused, should feel like that's what they need or deserve.
As for myself: believe it or not, I consider myself relatively kinky for someone who hates sex as much as I do (you can't read ME smut without realising that
). I don't mind mild power play, and I don't mind sub/dom fiction, but only when it's good, clean fun, and its established that the relationship is in fact between equals who trust each other. That is sadly very rare so I don't read much sub/dom stuff.