Then I think we might agree to a large enough extent about what actually should happen.

If you've added an extra helping of negative connotations to the word persuasion, that will make it hard for some people (e.g. me) to understand you, but as long as you're not driving people to socially destructive behavior (either directly by seeming to give bad advice, or indirectly by making it hard for people to communicate with each other), that's not particularly my responsibility. (Note that the canonical definition of the word persuasion is not particularly a challenging to verify--it's heavily used, there are definitions all over the place, etc. etc..)

The reason I objected initially is that it appeared you were advocating for a position that would result in tepid, fragile "relationships" where both partners were so busy running away from each other that they couldn't communicate their own needs and perspectives. They couldn't use approaches that make the other feel valued and heard while still presenting one's own desires.

The reason I'm not exploring why coercion and pressure in establishing relationships is a problem is because it is so obvious that hardly anything needs to be said. The basics of "treat others as you would like to be treated" covers it, and that's a kindergarten-level skill.

Granted, it's a skill that some people, including some former Presidents, never seem to have mastered. But we don't need to spend much breath on why it's a problem.

And in a conversation about anticipating when it becomes a problem, or about where the boundary lies between pretty-okay and yeah-better-avoid-that, everyone had better be clear on what definitions are being used or there won't be enough communication going on to make any progress.