1. There is an inherent problem with his usage of a telepathy dependant definition of consent. To any reasonable observer consent itself constitutes the proof of desire and therefore Rind et al and Sandfort can reasonably be read as presenting evidence of desire. Albeit not compared to non-desire; on that much Ethan is right. But as long as he defines consent in a telepathic way he can always fall back on the claim that consent does not prove desire.

2. I have not made citations on this thread. You are probably thinking of Entelechy.