Actually, If you go back to the core of the issue, Ronnie, you'll see that the main argument against it is the choice. Even in bondage, there is a choice, a safe word, a limit.... something. When you're incontinent, there is no choice, you're stuck that way. It's as if someone bound you up and walked away, probably forever.
Now, if it were an option to say "duck" and just go back to being continent, then hey, more power to ya, but that doesn't happen. I'm not going to say that's not part of the appeal to people, or that it's part of the "helplessness" or something, but to try and say that it's just another form of bondage is to ignore the fact that one is permanent, and the other is not. That is where the problem comes for me when I hear people ask how to be incontinent.
Maybe some of the attitude towards people who say they wish to be incontinent IS scornful, but hey, what do you expect? People see (me included) see these people as uninformed, idiotic, and just plain not thinking. Hell, maybe they DID think about it, and if so, more power to them. But if they DID think about it, they would probably have found a way to do it instead of just popping on a forum and asking. Usually with bad grammar and spelling, to boot. The first thing that pops into my head, and probably many others, is "What a moron!", and with good reason. I'm gonna say that the majority of people who are incontinent would change that if given even a tiny chance. It's not a condition that improves your life, as I'm sure you know. So why do harm to yourself?
In short, your theory that it's another form of bondage may hold some water, but the argument of choice is still THE argument against it, not that it's "weird". I bet a lot of people here would LOVE to have the ability to turn their continence on and off at will, the same way people who are into bondage LOVE to be tied up... when they want it.