Not according to your post.

You're talking about punitive methods of manipulation (punishing undesired noncompliant behavior) and I'm talking about convincing an undecided person to try something that they enjoy or have never tried before.

Nope. 'n the part where you went wrong was...

You're talking about punitive methods of manipulation

I'm talking about... manipulation. The part you attributed to me was coercion through violence, not manipulation - which you'll notice derives from the latin manus, the dexterity of the hand, and tends not to refer to... blunt... instruments, this "manipulation" stuff.

The difference is that while the parent will try to bribe, wheedle, cajole, persuade, beg, lie, etc... and the mythical "mind-controlling superpaedos" are alleged to bribe/wheedle/lie/etc... only the parent can use violence - not manipulation - when manipulation fails.

'n you know what? Violence + manipulation fails too. The evidence is there aplenty.

'n surprisingly enough, it's there despite the fact that "do you want the lying nice daddy or the violent mean daddy" should, by most psych theories, be brutally effective. Instead, parents aplenty show that manipulation doesn't work, and that manipulation backed by violence doesn't work either.

'n that's a more extreme repitoire than "mind-controlling superpaedos" have, or are even alleged to have. Personally, I think the myth came from some sociopathic idiot not understanding how not trying to manipulate people and treating them like valid people with their own interests worthy of respect works as an interpersonal paradigm... which is usually a hell of a lot better as to "how it works," both interpersonally and on a societal scale.

Still don't let you mind-control, though, or we'd have a new governmental system already. Probably neotribal technoprimitivist voluntarist anarchocommunism or something.