> prevailing concept that "consent" can be revoked AFTER you have consented

No, it can't; but what does happen is people taking "she didn't complain" as evidence of consent rather than evidence of coercion into not complaining.

Of course it can. Someone might want to have sex with you, and consent, and then they might want you to stop, and remove consent for you to continue.

Continuing sex with someone after they tell you to stop, no matter what they said before, is sexual assault.

Well, yes it can. You have to dismiss massive amounts of male testimonies to say that consent has never ever been removed after the fact.

Reasoning recursively: To dismiss males’ testimonials, you’d need to take girls’ words at face value, which, in itself, demonstrates that girls’ words are taken at face value by a lot of people in society, hence the recurring massive problem of false convictions.

The idea that there's a recurring massive problem of false convictions for rape is bizarre. In most countries it's extremely difficult to get alleged rape prosecuted in the first place and the conviction rate is low. I'm not going to dispute that it might have happened in some cases but it's a comparatively rare problem.

(Also, I'm going to assume you're not a native English speaker - the contrasting group nouns should be "men" and "women" not "males" and "girls")

>The idea that there's a recurring massive problem of false convictions for rape is bizarre

You are talking convictions, the OP seems to be talking Accusations and where the latest trend is to gain a conviction in the court of public opinion and to inflict punishment outside of a judicial system

This parenthetical is an odd leap. Perhaps it was meant to suggest that the author (who is certainly fluent in, if not a native speaker of, English) shouldn't use the word girls to refer to women?