Attention to men’s attitudes towards sexual consent and violence has led to sexual consent guidance targeting men specifically. This article examines conflicting notions of consent and the construction of implied readership in a UK corpus of online sexual consent guidance for gay, bisexual and trans men. ‘Positive consent’ discourse presents consent as free, active and able to be withdrawn. ‘Talk, listen, think’ discourse recommends clear and explicit communication about boundaries. I argue that these discourses present gay, bisexual and trans men as effective moral agents, but these conflicting discourses also weaken the message of consent as free and affirmative. I show how synthetic personalization constructs solidarity between the implied reader and an imagined community of gay, bisexual and trans men who share the aim of ending sexual violence, but also constructs solidarity with men who are presented as unintentionally violent. I conclude by suggesting ways to improve consent guidance.