The OP only makes sense if xerx is floating an idea of thought control. There's a lot of confused thinking about "consent" because liberals made it the only standard by which they would condemn or excuse sexual activity, but weren't comfortable actually taking that logic very far. This is why pedophilia and bestiality are gaining acceptance. If you have an objection to pedophilia or bestiality but have no other way to justify your objection than as a matter of "consent"
you're left saying that animals or children can't "really" consent to sex, which doesn't hold water if you pursue that statement very far. Pedophiles and people into animals make the point, correctly, that it's absurd to say an animal or child can't consent to sex, or that they can't "really" do this, and then, morally justified, you get Discord moderators and French philosophers and "gender theorists" making pedophilia a civil rights movement. This confusion is shown in the OP when @
xerx says "should not be able to consent to" but really means "should not be allowed by the state" -- not actually saying this because that's an ideologically uncomfortable premise.