First, as with Superman and Batman, I'm guessing that Morrison is taking his approach to Diana all the way to her beginnings. And that means Marston. Byrne didn't write Diana until the 90's, so I doubt he'll get much attention.
And, sorry, but any sexuality that works on the concept of dominance is at the very least perverse, and goes all the way to sickening. I can understand BDSM, I can see the attraction, but the idea that there has to be a dominant and a submissive leaves me a little...worried, I guess, in a meta- view. It brings up uncomfortable images of slavery and such. I understand that isn't the point of Marston's stories, and that his views are understandable and even 'cute'. You look at how things have gone with men in control and of course you're going to go, "Well..." Totally understandable. It doesn't remove the problem that is inherent in the Amazons: Humanity 2.0 is comprised solely of women. No matter how many arguments you put to the contrary, the implicit argument here is that Man is the reason why humanity is shit as it is.
As for the playful bondage, sure, maybe it looks all cutesy and alright, but it doesn't remove the undertones. in comics alone we have all these examples of subversive messages being told through unassuming art and language. I have no problem with that. I love the subversive. But you have to admit that it is subversive. Don't you sense ANYTHING wrong in the statement you made just there?
"bondage as practiced by Wonder Woman and the Amazons is playful and done with the goal of making everyone involved happier, more loving and better people."
That is CREEPY. Really, really, creepy.
And don't drag in Woody Allen into a discussion of sexuality. Woody Allen is the creepy old man of Hollywood.