This is the same argument I addressed with
@Bill Zebub -- the existence of one rule that codified some action does not imply anything about the intent to not allow a different action that doesn't have a more codified rule. There are very good reasons why a designer may choose to leave a type of action uncodified and open rather than provide codification for it and those don't involve wanting to minimize or restrict actions of that kind.
As for explicit exceptions, these don't exist all over the place but are assumed. Charm person doesn't call itself out any more explicitly than do the options for use of CHA ability checks. This is an argument where there's some level of explicitness that's present in one place but not another yet cannot be qualified in any real way.