Uhhhhhh soo, I hadn't realized you had posted this at all... until just today......... oops........
In order to keep my response as brief as possible, I'll just post an off-the-cuff reply. It'll prevent me from overthinking the conversation and will likely reduce the number of tangents I go off on.
I admittedly overstepped my argument last time. From what he said, consent cannot be assumed and I was wrong to have suggested otherwise. But similarly, neither can coercion. We don't have any way of knowing what transpired during the events he was referring to in those tapes; it could have been consensual or it could have been coercive, and even then the line between what is legally allowed and what is not isn't entirely clear. If we view things through simplistic lens, in a merely sexual/physical sense, then perhaps things aren't too complicated. But sex is not merely physical, it is also emotional. Physical acts, whether they be acts of advancement such as kissing, groping, etc. or acts of repel-ment such as pushing (in the "away" direction), refusal, etc. are intricately linked to emotional and mental processes. Trying to land a sexual partner is a game, simply put, in which both sides enter the ring with a certain mindset and attempt to change the opposing player's mindset through emotional and physical appeal. And in this game, sometimes there is a disconnect between the mental and the physical. For example, occasionally men and women (who are generally above average in physical appearance) play hard to get in order to leverage the game in their favor. Perhaps a woman would be fine with having sex with a certain man, but only under certain circumstances. So when does her consent manifest? Let's say she'd only be willing once the man has demonstrated a sufficient amount of loyalty to her (taking time out of his schedule, being on time to dates, etc). At the beginning of the game, if the man attempted to have sex with her it would not be consensual, obviously. But through repeated interactions, mental games, sacrifices and compromises from both parties (and yes, physical and emotional manipulations that may be interpreted as "coercion" by certain people) a mutual agreement is eventually reached: either "yes" or "no." By the end of the game, things are consensual. Of course, this leaves a lot to interpretation, especially since people don't keep journals of their true intentions that clash with their public persona. And heck, sometimes people don't even know what they want. If two people have sex when they both believe they're consenting, but then one of them regrets the decision later (certainly reasonable, especially since no one is ever 100% certain about anything, ever) what should be done about that? The malicious thing to do would be to accuse the other person of rape, which is something women more often than men can rely on as a backup plan for obvious reasons. Anyway, this is getting way off topic. To put it shortly, consent is a moving, difficult-to-pinpoint target and coercion is far from self-evident. Since I'm rushing this, if you would like me to expand on this I'd be happy to, but for now this should be enough.
Of course, I say that but I also recognize that state laws have done their best to stabilize these two concepts, and since I'm no law student and am in no place to criticize, I can only assume that they are satisfactory. But at the same time, this issue with Trump and the tapes is not a legal one. There is not enough evidence to draw any conclusions. Could it have been consensual? Yes. Could it have been coercive? Yes. Because I believe in innocence until guilt is proven, I will defend Trump as far as that goes. I understand the concern though, insofar as he uses pretty extreme language ("I don't even wait" and "you can do anything"), especially coming from a man of his social stature. But that's merely just another facet of the "game" I mentioned earlier. Physical attractiveness gives people a massive advantage, but social standing does as well. And with that advantage, some people are given an edge in the "game" of love (or sex, or relationships, or whatever, I'm making these terms interchangeable at this point since they aren't significantly independent of each other). They're free to wield that advantage however they'd like so long as they don't do anything illegal, even if that means being borderline coercive. Because at what point does strategy morph into manipulation morph into coercion? When is one's consent established as a result of genuine emotions and not determined by calculated manipulations of the heart? That's the million dollar question, and there's no answer to it. Does it suck that things are like this? Yeah, that's fair to say, I know as someone who doesn't view himself as particularly physically blessed I sometimes think so too. Is it troubling that people like Trump are able to use their status to push the envelope? Sure, but as a guy I also find it troubling that females (both anonymous catfishers and ones legitimately so) are worshiped, given free stuff, and interacted with more reverence than males are online. I'm not going to get particularly upset about either, especially since there is only so much that can be done. I'm a fan of free market concepts and of all the places a free market has established itself, nowhere else has it been established more successfully than in the realm of dating/relationships/sex. There are hardly any government or authoritarian forces restricting the market, and thank goodness. I doubt anyone would be particularly happy if the government forced people, by law, to enter relationships with certain individuals, identified by some factor such as physical attractiveness, age, or social standing, predicated on some lawmaker's arbitrary notion of "fairness." Love is rough, but codifying restrictions on how you're allowed to feel is just distopian.
Anyway, after two fat paragraphs about that, it's clear that there is not much left to say about this topic, at least on my side. We've both at least come to an agreement on the facts of the matter, which is a miracle in and of itself. At this point, we're both just arguing how to interpret the facts and debating each other over how problematic or how dismissible this whole fiasco is. I can't even think of anything more to say that would add to the conversation about the Trump tapes themselves that has not already been said, which is why I'm finding myself discussing the broader philosophical aspect of the issue far more than any of the political parts.
And as a postscript, I'll admit that it wasn't the best idea to link to /r/The_Donald as a source, though I still stand by the validity of the research done in that thread. Regardless, to address your point about the rhetoric, I'm still not convinced. For one, all that is selective information. The most glaring is that survey by the HRC as evidence of a post-election bullying and harassment spike among young people. If you check the full report, you'll find that the the 50,000+ respondents were solicited through their social media sites and the social media of their "partner organizations" (among which is the National Queer Asian Pacific Islander Alliance totally not biased at all). It should be pretty obvious that the only people who would bother to follow the social media accounts of HRC are liberals (and pretty hardcore ones at all). But to prove it, according to the demographics section of the report, 64% identified as female, 27% identified as male, and 8% identified as another gender. Not only that, but only 45% of respondents identified as heterosexual, while the rest were either bisexual, gay, lesbian, pansexual, queer, asexual, or something else. I'm sorry, but it doesn't take a peer reviewed source to realize that this sample size is nowhere near representative of the average American youth, not even in the slightest. This alone should have been enough to disqualify this report as biased, but to make matters worse the report doesn't even list, verbatim, every single question asked and pads many of its pages with self-reported stories of individuals. This survey serves no purpose outside of pushing an agenda. If you had surveyed individuals from /r/The_Donald, you would have gotten equally skewed demographics and likely an equally alarming number of harassment reports, except the victims would have been conservatives and the perpetrators would have been liberals. The entire ABC article is just selectively listing one-off examples of incidents at schools, and quoting people denouncing those incidents. Has there been an uptick since before the election? I don't know, and no one knows because no legitimate surveys have been taken allowing for a comparison. Though I have a hard time taking the ADL seriously ever since their Pepe the Frog fiasco, I don't find anything glaringly wrong with their reporting on the rise of anti-Semitism at least. However, I'm a bit skeptical of how much of a "rise" they claim to report, and of course reports of hate crimes are not the same as actual cases of verified hate crimes (since "reported" hate crimes can and have been found to be hoaxes). And I'm not quite sure I agree with you about politicians and leaders having more pull than celebrities. The absolutely insane amount of loyalty that people have for their favorite authors, movies stars, singers, bands, television personalities, etc. shouldn't be overlooked. I'm fairly certain the average kid cares far less about politics than pop culture and dank memes. But I'll admit that some politicians have somehow entered celebrity status (Obama, Trudeau, JFK, Reagan, and of course, Trump) which is also something to consider. And this past election was as much as a cultural revolution/upheaval as it was a political one, so there's that too.
Okay but yeah I really should cut this short now. Feel free to respond if you'd like, but don't force yourself to do anything too rash (like rewrite the whole thing after somehow losing all of it how did that even happen??)
EDIT: OOPS I forgot to post a dank maymay, forgive me.