Mr. Happy wrote:but I can't help feeling that if somebody consents then they take responsibility and if that is no longer enough then it's a dangerous
This is my problem with it too - we're currently in a phase where it's okay to infantilise the agency of people based on the vaguest of power relations, when these interactions are taking place between two (or more) adults.
It also gives those whose motives are more manipulative the ability to self-infantilise and claim their consent was predicated on fear of some kind of speculative, unknown consequence.
To me, fearing damage to your career or friendship isn't much of an excuse for abandoning principle. Claiming victimhood when you've consented verbally or tacitly to uncomfortable situations in order to advantage yourself, instead of doing the right thing and saying no, walking away, etc, simply reinforces the inappropriate behavior that made you feel uncomfortable in the first place.
Part of this weird media climate is the conflation of the type of thing Louis CK did with the genuinely rapey actions of guys like Weiinstein and Spacey. When you look at the media, they're all presented together in a kind of 'rouges gallery', as if to imply some kind of equivalence. Sexual interactions are complex and there are times where people's sexual expression is going to make you feel uncomfortable while not necessarily being an abuse of power-relations or a breach of the law. To equate this with actual rape and sexual assault is, at best, ignorant, and at worst indicative of an ideological agenda.
Maybe we need to educate people that if you give consent to something, then the thing you consent to is probably going to happen?