First of all, credit to /u/nobody871, who I believe was the first person to post this in a comment.
The fact that there are women going around thinking like this is hilarious and scary at the same time. For them, they aren't getting revenge; they literally think they were "raped".
That is how little credit and agency they grant themselves; that they could completely invalidate their own decisions 1 day or 1 year later. They are so misguided, confused and unable to stand on their own two feet that they must resort to even their OWN affirmatives being non-affirmative somehow.
I want to draw attention to some hilarious but sneaky parts. I give this women props: her Hamster must be massive if she can mentally masturbate like this. The problem is, these hamster tactics are a bit advanced and could brainwash the uninitiated.
This is her thesis and everything else is hamstering to make it true:
Here’s the thing: it is possible to consent to having some experience and then, sometime in the future, not consent to having had that experience.
Put another way, you have “the right to retroactively withdraw consent” from any encounters you had, at any point in the past, that no longer feel good or safe to you.
Discourses about consent that don’t make space for such after-the-fact evaluations are flawed.
This is called assuming your conclusion. People will often pre-define the opposition as inherently wrong. It's a lazy and sneaky tactic so you don't have to go through the work of actually proving anything. By simply declaring that something is flawed, she doesn't have to do any work.
Example: "But we know premarital sex is wrong because the bible says so!". Logically, it's up to the theist to prove the bible is true and then prove that premarital sex is wrong here. But by assuming it's wrong already, they can use self-reinforcing tactics. Above, our feminist simply declares that the ONLY discourse is HER discourse.
Meta-consent means that it is possible to agentically consent to having your consent violated.
Meta-consent...layers upon layers!
This tactic is simply adding alternate definition(s) onto something in order to fit your argument.
The most obvious example is how feminists changed "rape" not to mean force penetration, but to mean anything the woman doesn't like that the man did (eye rape, stare rape, gym rape, etc). Change the "meta" and you change the definition (and thus who has access to it; now 1 in 5 women can be raped!).
We can do better: Consent as a Felt Sense
She then goes onto define "normal consent" as "consent as permission". She says that is bad and offers "Felt Consent" (whatever you FEEL 1 year later without letting anyone else know) as a superior model.
This is a very sneaky tactic.
In this situation, the writer is trying to label something completely normal (consent = "Yeah baby, fuck me!") with a special name, which implies that there can be "other alternatives". By doing this, she can now put her bullshit theory ("oh my feels!" = rape) on equal footing with reality (normal consent). She does this by giving BOTH ideas esoteric/academic labels, which implies that both are somehow equal theories that deserve their due consideration.
Uneducated people will see these "new terms" (permission consent vs felt consent) and think "well they both have labels, so both must have merit and both should be considered!". That way, if you reject one outright as bullshit, you are now portrayed as "close-minded" and not open to "discourse".
This is wrong. It's the same thing that Creationists use with "Intelligent Design". You can also do it with something ridiculous like the Earth being round. "No! You just believe in the Round Earth theory. I reject that hypothesis and subscribe to the Flat Earth System. We just really need to step back and examine the implications of how non-inclusive the Round Earth is!"
TL:DR Laugh at the funny feminist's bullshit. I know I'm preaching to the choir here. But be aware that people without critical thinking skills DO believe this. I wanted to shoot out a quick example.