No, avoiding persuasion creates a tepid, fragile relationship. Persuasion includes sharing influence and collaborating. Avoiding "persuasion" does not create a tepid, fragile relationship.

The distinction is that I am using the ordinary definition when I use the term unquoted, e.g. "the process by which a person’s attitudes or behaviour are, without duress, influenced by communications from other people" or "Persuasion or persuasion arts is an umbrella term for influence.", and your definition to the extent that I understand your meaning when I use the term quoted--basically a compact way to describe coercion or pressure. I still can't exactly tell, though.

I gave examples in my first (long) response about how the gentler forms of influence can be valuable in a relationship and how the rules you suggested, when applied to all forms of persuasion, would make a relationship more difficult either to start or maintain.

You wrote to Weng Seng Tam, "Why would you need or want to convince someone to change their mind??? Once someone has given you a “no” in whatever form — be it an actual clear “no” or simple disinterest — why do you think it’s your prerogative to try to override that in favor of your own self-interest? Wouldn’t you rather someone be genuinely interested in what you’re proposing rather than having to be convinced or persuaded?"

Now the topic was sex/relationships, so let's stick with that, and explore why the above heuristic is too simplistic if you use the expansive definition. (As I mentioned before, if you really can't read people at all, it's a good heuristic to adopt to stay on the safe side.)

Suppose two people go on a couple dates, and it goes well; one person moves in to kiss the other (doesn't matter for the purposes of the example which way), and the other says, clearly and firmly, "No, I don't want to do that."

First person backs off, says stuff about how they really enjoyed the night. They go on several more dates, and grow closer. But the first person can't try to kiss the second again--why do they think it's their prerogative to try to override that in favor of their own self-interest? The second doesn't initiate a kiss. But, wait! Aren't the dates themselves a type of persuasion? Aren't they trying to convince the other person that they're a good catch, or they want it to develop into something more intimate? Ohmigod! This is creep behavior!

So they give up, dump the second person, and find someone else who either is prone to giving legal-style contracts along with their refusals, ("No, I don't want to do that at this point but let's re-evaluate in the future."), or is bad at boundaries and just goes along with their partner, or happens to be perfectly aligned in pace.

Meanwhile, the second person was really liking the first person, but just wasn't that comfortable taking the lead. Oh well. You lose some, and then you lose some more, because once you set a boundary the other party had better go look for someone who always displays genuine interest in every step.

------

You ask why I didn't answer some of your other questions. In cases where there is a substantial disagreement, I try to take the best of what a person writes, or the part which is most central to the matter being discussed, and reply to that, in order to keep the conversation as productive as possible. That is what I did in this case.

If you particularly want an answer to one of the other points or questions, please mention it again and stress that you do in fact particularly want an answer to that. I will either answer directly, or I will explain why I prefer not to answer questions of that sort.