True, but, also, why the constant references to the '50s in these sorts of arguments? In a whole host of ways the 1950's were unusual (crime, for example, was at an unusually low level, compared to both before and after, and yet when A Certain Generation goes on about crime they always use the 1950's as a baseline). Shouldn't the question be considered over a much longer time scale? Attitudes to sexual matters in the 18th century seem to have been very different to the 19th. Why not go back to medieval times or ancient Greece?
The 50s are an idealized time of conservative society. My choice is mostly just availability bias due to that. But it's not completely arbitrary. 50s America is a lot more linearly connected to modern America than ancient Greece.
Though the thing that I have doubts about is the idea that there's some 'natural' attitude to sexual matters that we should be trying to achieve, stripping out all the 'unnatural' social taboos or 'artificial' forms of sexualisation. I kind of suspect its 'turtles all the way down', i.e. that it's all socially-determined and it will never stop changing and we'll never reach a 'true' or 'natural' attitude to it and it will always be a source of problems and arguments. Maybe.
I think if you raised a man and a woman in complete social isolation and then brought them together after reaching sexual maturity you'd find them engaging in sex and probably killing each other also. There is something instinctual about sex.
And your observation is also very much correct. There is no natural or perfect sexuality either. It's always socially driven, blurred lines (goddamnit that song is on my head now), and conflict. But that's not because we've failed to figure out sex. That's because it's what makes sex exciting. We want it because it's taboo and aggressive, both scorned and lauded by society at the same time. We want to express our desires to dominate and to be dominated. We want to make another vulnerable and to be vulnerable ourselves. And we want to be gentle, tender, loving at the same time as dominating, penetrating, hurting, angry. Sex is a way to enact all these conflicts. If we weren't conflicted about it, it wouldn't be much fun.
That's also why a clear and consistent boundary between sex and sexual assault is a fantasy. While there are clear examples of consent and violation, there's a whole lot that simply went too far for one person without the other person appreciating it. Which is why I'm not simply going to teach my kids that no means no and to get consent, I'm going to teach them empathy and the value of another person's autonomy. I don't think I probably have to teach them about rape and consent if they get the other, but I'll do both anyway.