I saw a great post about consent and amatonormativity earlier that made me think of how teaching consent and platonormativity are also at odds, but to avoid derailing that post, I'm making my own here
All statements about consent are muddled by platonormativity, because platonormativity depends heavily on a lack of consent. Friendships are established without consent or communication, only assumptions and personal decisions. Going without friendship, even temporarily, is seen as a horrible thing and symptom of great mental distress/a horrific mental state, and so people are pressured into them at all times from a very young age, if only to appear normal. The very idea of rejecting friendship baffles the minds of most – and when they get over that bafflement, they sling accusations and insults at the one who rejected it. There is no consent within platonormativity.
When people are raised in a culture that teaches them there is no need for consent in their relationships, they internalize that. Discussions of consent in relationships must acknowledge that most relationships are built on a lack of explicit consent.
Like what the original post that inspired this said, you cannot preach that consent is vital and "you can always say no" and then continue to live your social life in a way that completely disregards it as a necessity, always insisting that those without friends are "missing out" at best and "horrible, heartless people who are probably secretly serial killers" at worst.