That's exactly what you are doing as well, though. You are ignoring a lot of instances where the game gives players legitimate reasons to interpret it as abuse. You ignore: 1. Spawn admitting he "wanted to be just like Cazador". 2. The narrative where Tav is not allowed to break up with him 3. Dev notes calling AA's line "abusive" 4. Parallels to repeating the cycle of abuse shown in the scene with Vellioth skull. 5. A lot of AA dialogues where Tav can call him out on being the new Cazador.
Who says we're ignoring all that? We are now talking specifically about the intimate component of the novel. There is a script for an intimate scene, and it wasn't described as violent. All of the above things have nothing to do with it, but for some reason you insist that it all has to be connected.... based on what? The fact that AA doesn't let go of Tav in the finale and epilogue logically has nothing to do with kissing. AA doesn't have to be a monster in an intimate sense to justify the narrative you're talking about.
Someone's words don't make AA a second Cazador. Spawn and Tav's words say more about their worldview. When Tav is first able to call him Cazador, AA has yet to do anything at all. Karlach says Astarion would have lost his soul. That doesn't mean AA lost his soul. None of the characters have omniscience of the plot. Tav taunts AA, saying that he has no vampiric abilities after the riutal and that he killed all those people for nothing. In the finale, AA summons an undead army for the final battle. Having the dialog option doesn't mean that everything Tav says is true. After all, even the phrase “you became a Cazador” is just moralizing. The developers confirmed that he only became himself. Why take everything so literally?
