As it is, I have trouble considering the ethical implications of this system because I keep reflexively 'anthropomorphizing' your parable-humans and imagining ways in which they might resolve the double binds to mutual satisfaction. If I'm reading your intentions correctly, it might be better to use 'Red Martians' instead of humans. Suppose that 5% of all Martians are born Red, and are thrown in to a terrible and incoherent rage whenever they see or communicate with another Red Martian- so they cannot coordinate their responses and must live isolated among Blue and Green Martians that love to tickle them, and tend to accept Green and Blue social values that tickling need not be consensual. Does this preserve the moral problems you are trying to examine?

(This may undermine the allegorical clarity of your scenario, but that could be an advantage if you're trying to think through a particular ethical problem in isolation.)

EDIT: Now that I know what the allegory actually is, I am fairly uncomfortable with the fact that this variant seemed reasonable. I'll leave this comment here for legacy purposes and to respect PeerGynt's preferred method of approaching the problem, but I want to clarify that this was not intended to be commentary on gender or PUA strategies in any way.