In a relationship based on male dominance, the man will probably have the woman's blanket consent (good terminology, BTW) to use physical force to control her. In that case, he does not need to get her consent each and every time he does that; he can assume that it still holds even if she is protesting vociferously at the moment. Indeed, something like that sort of blanket consent is necessary if the man's dominance is to be maintained as a serious and permanent state of affairs, and not just a fun game that happens for a few minutes during a play session.
Is this violence? I think most of us don't consider it violence as long as the woman is consenting to this type of relationship, and as long as the man doesn't cause her any real harm – that is, no lasting physical injuries. But I don't think you can have this sort of relationship without incurring a few temporary bumps and bruises – and that is precisely what would make it ‘violent’ in certain politically correct circles, and maybe even in most people's view. Like so many things, it comes down to a question of how we choose to use language.
Looking For Canadian Craigslist dating alternative? Try these pages: