Which means that one, very likely, had never a dom-sub relationship IRL[*], if that one thinks it sums up to: "Being a jerkass/blackmailing/psychologically abusing the other part".
It happens, true. As it happens that persons cheat on their "beloved ones". Neither of these behaviours are strict requisite for the respective relationships, though.
Mind you, I'm fine with one darker and edgier path, I'm just slightly annoyed from it being the only option.
(If we want to explore, then, the fact that in the "love" path the MC will probably eventually have sex with all the girls around, a couple of them being his mom and innocent and naive sis, and this will be accomplished without him being a jerkass, I think this should clarify even more the point of "he didn't need to be a jerkass.")
[*] Such relationiship might imply all the usual BDSM stuff, but it might even stop at "one leads, and makes the decisions, the other one follows"
Tautological point.
On the other hand, if convincing a mom and a naive sis to have sex with the MC can be done without the MC being a jerkass, then even convincing them to relinquish more of their freedom, giving the MC control, can be done without him being a jerkass.
Philosophy aside, anyway, mine is just a minor complaint: more the path being called submission where jerkass/forcing might be more appropriate.