The reason my generation, the baby boomers, required no such training was that our parents, and the whole of society, inculcated a whole different world view into our consciousness. The first lesson, of course, was "Boys don't hit girls." It was easy to learn because, although boys may settle their differences with fisticuffs, girls belong to a different tribe, and are outside the male dominance hierarchy. Most boys also learned at least the rudiments of how to be a gentleman. If they didn't offer their seat to a woman, at least they knew they ought to. From popular culture, be it comics, books, or movies, they absorbed the truism that the male role was to be the protector of women. It went without saying that wife beaters were recognized as low life (and still are.)
As for consent, this was also something you absorbed from your surroundings. Consent was obtained when you both made your solemn vows before the altar, and put a ring on her finger. Before that, the issue was not supposed to arise. If you did make an indecent proposition to a girl, and she said no, it was because most girls would. And you would be a rat for asking. You would probably also lose status in her eyes, and certainly in those of her parents and brother(s).
It also needs to be said that this was not some sort of quirk of my era. As I have explained elsewhere, it is the default position on humanity, upheld by the vast majority of societies, and all of the successful ones. It is modern permissive, hypersexualised society which is abnormal, not to mention dysfunctional. And yes, I am describing the ideal. There were always people who broke the rules and bucked the system. But the modern educationalists are attempting to construct another ideal. It will also have others who break the rule.
There is another point: if a man knows that, by making an indecent proposition to a woman, he has already crossed a red line, he is not likely to cross yet another by forcing himself on her after her not unexpected rebuff. Date rape, which is what we are talking about, occurs in a culture of entitlement, where dating is automatically expected to end in intercourse, if not on the first date, then not long after. When Mike Tyson was on trial for rape in 1992, he unsuccessfully argued that his victim must have known he expected sex when he took her to his flat. His victim might have been a virgin, but his expectations would have been produced by all the other women who had been all too ready to oblige him. I note that some of the women loudest in their demands for consent training are themselves unchaste, and admit that they themselves would be happy to end a date with copulation if they felt in the mood. They don't realise they are part of the problem. Bad women attract bad men, and bring out the worst in them.
A major sex scandal rocked the Australian Defence Forces back in 2013. A female soldier called "Kate" had a one night stand with a male colleague, and was appalled that he had videoed their encounter in order to share it with his friends. Yes, his behaviour was despicable, but I can't build up much sympathy for "Kate". She was a slut. She used men to slake her own lust, and was shocked - shocked! - that the sort of man who would do it with her would, by the nature of the arrangement, be a low life rake with absolutely no respect for womanhood.
So yes, we probably do need to teach consent in school. But the need is only a symptom of a much deeper moral malaise. The powers that be refuse to recognize that there might be such as thing as an indecent proposition. They apparently expect their charges to accept that all sexual activity is on the table, just as long as there is consent. This will not end well.
And parents, you might wish to examine what your children are actually being taught at school. And you yourself might care to start early and teach them right from wrong, because they aren't getting the message from school, or popular culture.
