When one's debate opponent engages in defensive rhetorical games, such as creating strawmen withwhich to attack their opponent, they are signaling their intellectual bankruptcy. You've not countered even one of the substantive issues I've raised.
Until nonConstitutionalist USSC justices such as Sandra Day O'Connor claimed to be able to read the Constitution and see 'penumbras, auras, & emanations" of knowledge knowable and seeable only to themselves and from which they magically created your much worshipped "consent" argument, no such thing existed. And guess what? No such thing exists in our Constitution. They made it up.
Only those with a Personally Vested self-interest would believe in the existence of a 'right' that gives them {sexual libertines?} the right to depersonalize, debase, demean, and dehumanize other people in order that they can be used as though they were nothing but a disposable sex toy.
This is a losing debate for you because you must defend something ugly, dark, and twisted and which should never have been allowed out of the Hell of infinite darkness.
Strawman. Nobody believes in the right to depersonalize, debase, demean or dehumanize other people- such actions would violate their rights. However, people have the right to depersonalize, debase, demean or dehumanize themselves, if that is how they choose to live their lives.
This is a losing debate for you because you must defend something ugly, dark, and twisted and which should never have been allowed out of the Hell of infinite darkness.
A right is a right. Just because people use their free speech rights to demean themselves in no way invalidates such rights.