Moral grandstanding, nice touch!
Seeing as we've just...JUST...come through a massive series of scandals involving people generally taking advantage of the idea that 'consent is assumed,' and having their careers torpedoed over it, I'm going to say that this is a pretty ignorant thing to say.
So, since it's amazing that we have explain something so fundamentally basic as consent, please watch this video about...tea.
It should clarify some of that 'self-hating' crap.
The vast majority of sexual interactions in the 21st century aren't done by sociopathic millionaire entertainers whose power relationships with their partners are way out-of-whack. The nitty-gritty of the sexual act can't be treated in a reductionist fashion without doing real and irreparable harm to the human spirit. Making consent "easy" is absurd, because nothing about sensuality and sexuality should be easy -- it's a project that requires immense vulnerability on the part of the two (or more) partners who should be able to fall back on their fundamental rights to irrationality at all times. It's essential to the human experience. This project of reductionist categorization of human experience is easily one of the worst parts of Anglo-American thought and civilization. It is fundamentally dehumanizing and is based on the same reductionist assumptions that were used to run ideological smokescreens for slavery and industrial mass murder.
I'm saying the litigious framing of it does, not the ideal of consent itself. If people don't have the emotional intelligence to see if a partner is willing, they shouldn't have sex at all.
Like Gob said Ran1, your idea of "consent" leaves me dubious about your future relationships. I'm seeing a lot of angry women and slashed tires.....
There are two members of this forum who could provide positive testimonials, although they haven't posted in years. I'm not going to out them, but some of the older members here might have an inkling.