At least no one can poke fun at me now because I'm the only person here taking my position. So how about we have an actual discussion.
Question: What is actually wrong with the maiden winking example?
Answer 1: IMO. It's an in-fiction act that produces a mandatory effect whereas for whatever source material you are basing your groups shared fiction upon - in that source material maidens winks don't force any character to do anything.
What mandatory effect are you referring to?
Can you describe a concrete example, with reference to a real or conjectured system, that explains what you've got in mind.
All I'm seeing so far is a conjecture of a system that, in some circumstances, permits a GM to tell a player
The maiden's wink softens your heart. Until you tell me more about what you have in mind, that's not an example of anything
forcing anything beyond a description of a somewhat commonplace cause and an effect.
Rebuttal 2: What is the anticipated counter-argument? that the maiden's wink in the example isn't actually forcing the PC in question to do something, but rather that its a determination of what the PC's response would be and then locking the player into roleplaying for that reality.
Answer 2: I happen to think that's a solid argument. So what is actually wrong with the Maiden winking example? IMO. It attempts to determine what the PC's response would be instead of simply allowing the player to roleplay their response.
I don't really follow the detail of this. My take away - drawing in part on your earlier posts - is that you don't like a system which permits some mechanism to establish a PC's emotion other than player decision,
unless that mechanism correlates to or gives expression to an in-fiction thing that bears the label
magic.
I would therefore expect you to be fine with the 4e Deathlock Wight's ability to cause a PC to recoil in fear from its
horrific visage (mechanically, a fear effect that does some psychic damage and a push effect) but not with the 4e Fang Titan Drake's ability to cause PC's to freeze in terror at its
furious roar (mechanically, a fear effect that stuns, and then causes a to hit penalty as an aftereffect).
unlike the maidens wink - charm person isn't an effect that attempts to determine what my PC's response to an action would be. Instead it's an in-fiction example of an ability that can actually force my PC to behave a certain way and that such an ability is a common in most all source material we might draw upon for our shared-fictional world.
Your assertion - that failing a save vs Charm Person doesn't reflect anything about the emotional/mental response of the PC - is contentious. Here's Gygax in his DMG (p 81) about the in-fiction meaning of saving throws:
A character under magical attack is in a stress situation, and his or her own will force reacts instinctively to protect the character by slightly altering the effects of the magical assault. This protection takes a slightly different form for each class of character. Magic-users understand spells, even on an unconscious level, and are able to slightly tamper with one so as to render it ineffective. Fighters withstand them through sheer defiance, while clerics create a small island of faith. Thieves find they are able to avoid a spell's full effects by quickness . . .
So maybe if the MU fails a save that means s/he didn't really want to render it ineffective! If the cleric fails, perhaps that means his/her faith is not as profound as s/he believed it to be . . .
Now maybe the standard 5e interpretation is that all characters do what Gygax's fighters do - ie withstand magic through sheer defiance - but that's obviously not the sole approach even within the D&D tradition.
And if we look to the source material, the notion that being mind-controlled is a sign of secret desire (or at least uncertainty) can be seen in Star Wars, the X-Men, and Lord of the Rings, just to name a few classics of the genre.
Does the action force a response in any of the source material for our shared-fictional-world. If yes then it's acceptable (charm person effects fall here). Does the action simply call for a determination of how the PC acted/will act as opposed to being a mind control style effect? If yes then that's unacceptable because it truly is taking away a moment where you can roleplay your character.
Why is the last part so important - because what truly sets roleplaying games apart from other games is that in an RPG you the player are taking on the role of a character by making their decisions, declaring their actions, having the character behave as you envision etc.
I've bolded the bit that you continue to take for granted but haven't actually articulated or defended. How does this
truly set RPGs apart from other games?
And if this is so fundamental, why the obsession with a maiden's winking? If I envision my PC as a puissant warrior, but I keep being knocked unconscious in every fight, then my PC isn't behaving as I envision. Why is that acceptable? (NB: there are games which are able to make this aspect of the player's conception of his/her PC as central and sacrosanct as you want in respect of your PC's disposition to maidens.)