I have not read 3E, but that earlier one-liner about the person who has a problem with the Charm being the problem? That's a summarization of the response of the Devs to people pointing out that, by RAW, it doesn't have to be consensual. And, according to the massive argument about in earlier in the thread, they never changed that. It would take adding a single word, and people are really annoyed because the implications are really disturbing, much greater changes were made several times after that was first pointed out while this particular problem was ignored, and, of course, there were apparently insults from the Developers towards the people who did point it out. It may not be hard for a ST to fix it, but every time something has to be houseruled to stop it from causing incredible problems when NPCs use it in incredibly obvious ways, that just makes the game harder.
I don't want to go into this too much, but given you are not too familiar with 3E: first, there is a mechanic in place that explicitly forbids scenarios a player or GM is not comfortable with, called the Red Rule. There are no ifs ands or buts when it comes to this rule.
Second, I remember similar arguments over Apocalypse World when Vince Baker was faced with the argument that, because Sex Moves didn't directly imply consent, that they could be applied to unwilling partners. Baker became outraged over the speculation, and among other things said stuff along the lines of why would you even think that. There remained also the extra wrinkle that a lot of people arguing against CBT also made the argument that, because the rules only implicitly implied consent, it was not a player's fault if he chose to abuse an npc sexually.
The devs were understandably put out by this argument, and I honestly feel that insults were understandable when given arguments like those.