dwh there is so much I disagree with in your post, it's hard to know where to start. I hate your language of "hung up", "built in innately", "too 'precious'", "blow-job queen", "Girls think that". Women get no power from giving blow-jobs. It's the language of brogressive boundary pushers who care more about making more women available for sex on men's terms than an underlying examination of the problems for women's sexuality under patriarchal domination.
I completely disagree that FSOG is the erotisisation of consent. I could scarcely agree less. It is the erotisisation of submission and of transaction. I'll put this quote in from Sheila Jeffreys as a starting point:
"Sexuality is socially constructed for men out of their position of dominance, and for women out of their position of subordination. Thus it is the eroticized inequality of women which forms the excitement of sex under male supremacy. As a result, radical feminist critics argue, the sexuality of men commonly takes the form of aggression, objectification, the cutting off of sex from emotion, and the centring of sex entirely around penile entry into the body of a woman. For women sexuality takes the form of pleasure in their subordinate position and the eroticizing of men's dominance. This system does not work efficiently."
Girls don't "get hung up". Society has a massive impact on shaping sexuality and how girls should and should not respond to their sexuality. For the most part, IMO, society tells girls that their sexuality is not important. They are presented with images of female bodies which please men. Then they are told that this is because men are visual and women are not, when it comes to attraction. The images of men that are available are often aggressive and dominant.
Girls are told that their sexuality is transactional - she may trade it for love or money or it may be a reward for the prince who rescues the princess, the hero of the tale where she is the prize. The choices available to women are generally to accept this position or to transgress it. However the acceptable form of transgression (promoted by liberal men) is by making themselves available to all men or switching the roles but maintaining the dominance / submission roles within sexuality. This is supposedly empowering and reclaiming sexuality.
It's hard to actually imagine what women's sexuality would be like if it developed outside of patriachal domination. I would think that the first thing to go would be the concept of consent, as that encapsulates the woman as passive permission giver rather than equal and enthusiastic participant.