You bring up a lot of the same old stuff. It wasn't convincing before, and it's not convincing now.

You say I'm anti-science. I've looked at that Newgon article and seen how you handle science: selectively, for your own ends. You decide I am ignoring science if I do not agree with your questionable interpretation of scientific results. You're entitled to your opinion, of course.

I will make a few specific points:

further research [showed] the results from the girls were "much more homogeneous" in comparison to the boys.

Even if the correct numbers for females were exactly at the male level, those numbers are 33% negative at the time, 26% negative later. They are still quite significant. Whenever I've had a sexual experience in my life, I've made sure the chances are right down around 0% that the woman is viewing it as a negative experience at the time.

I also note that consent here is as perceived and recollected by the girls. It is quite likely that the men experienced these same interactions as consensual. I do not trust men to properly perceive girls' consent.

Regarding Sandfort, you say I do not pay attention to what the boys say, because they might be "wrong" in the long run

My principal objection is not that at all, it is that the sample was self-selected. Men were invited to show up with boys they were involved with, and it's a fair bet that if they thought the boy might say something too negative, they wouldn't have come. Even being in that population that heard about the study is selecting for relatively good situations.