Trying to squish a whole, messy relationship into the tea analogy just doesn't work. I'd go so far as to say that the tea analogy really does make a mockery of how complex communication between humans is, in any situation. And throwing in the issue of "Was I complicit?" really does highlight the limits of the tea analogy when it comes to relationships, especially abusive relationships.
In domestic situations, the concept of "abuse" is often a more accurate way of understanding what was going on than trying to assess which night was consensual sex and which night wasn't. Because a relationship isn't a series of finite, single-act sexual encounters night after night between strangers.
using analogies: say he suggests you have tea. If you know from previous experience that declining this offer is too darn risky so you say yes? That's not consent. It's not even 'complicit' in the way I'm hearing you use the term.
Does the bank teller being heldup at gunpoint become 'complicit' in the bank robbery because they decide handing over the cash is the best option? No.
Relationships are even more complicated, because he hasn't just walked in off the street and heldup the bank teller as a one off here. If he's held up the bank teller before, or if the bank teller recognises him and knows from previous dealings that this guy is usually toting a gun and may pull it on me if I don't just hand over the cash even before he's asked?? Still not complicit.