Charisma is bad. It's a talent that some people are either born with or learn (usually both), but they should be ashamed to use it.
Many, perhaps most, of the skills that people are taught under the heading of "public speaking" should actually be called "using charisma in public speaking" and they are detestable skills.
Charisma is essentially the encouragement of certain biases.
Using sexual power is generally a form of charisma.
Charisma is inherently exploitative EVEN IF YOU'RE USING IT FOR GOOD (like to persuade people to do the right thing). Things like mathematical ability or athleticism can be used in an exploitative manner but are not inherently so.
And, putting aside the main gist of the OP, i.e. the sex part--or rather, -besides- that, my immediate first thought was:
"Okay. Now I finally understand how Ralph Nader's candidacy happened."
Seriously, though, this has been a theme I've noticed in the loosely-defined Left (and no, I don't know where the commenter is coming from politically, I'm just extrapolating) in general. I...can't unpack all of it at the moment? But it's about more than sex or personal charm there, yes; it's also, I want to say, probably not unrelated to the deep suspicion of religious and spiritual movements, particularly (hello) the "charismatic" ones. And yeah, as here, it seems to stem from a sort of...well, there's a set of assumptions here, isn't there. About what's a "bias" (hey, since when are the valuing of mathematical prowess or being good at sports not related to cultural bias?) and what isn't, and whether one can or should avoid "biases" in the first place, and...
well, among other things, there's an implicit appeal to a sort of Gradgrindism here, isn't there? Like, it's -bad- to use one's charm or sense of humor or oratory skills or, well, whatever it is that makes people appealing to listen to; therefore, -good- would be the person who appeals -solely- to Pure Logic and Reason and -Facts.- Yes, this is a perfectly -rational- way of going about making one's case; even or especially if -it doesn't actually work.-
Because, hey, if it -worked- -too- well, you know, if you actually -achieved- what you were trying to do, especially if that had to involve -changing peoples' minds- and -getting power- and -making decisions-, that might be exploitive, -too-, and...
yeah, more later.