>>21710
>Or have him arrested for felony coercion and rape, I don't see why you think you couldn't.
Do you have any examples where this was done? I can't find any. Maybe you're right, but I haven't heard of any cases, and when I googled, I couldn't find any, so I'm a little doubtful. And the definition of rape according to the FBI that you pointed to immediately after doesn't seem to allow for that scenario (felony coercion, perhaps, but not rape).
But again, with the FBI thing, you're quoting a legal definition from somebody who has an interest in pushing a specific point of view, which doesn't necessarily mean that sex with a minor actually IS rape, just that it's considered such, and they will treat it that way. The fact that there's a power disparity doesn't necessarily mean it's rape, although it's certainly something to consider. And how far do we want to go? If a naive, dimwitted, but adult and not-legally-impaired girl, is seduced by a skilled manipulator, he's got a significant power advantage over her, so are such instances rape? I say no. What about if a poor girl has sex with a rich guy in the hopes he might marry and take care of her? He's certainly taking advantage of her if he's just out for sex. Let's call that rape, too!
To me, it makes more sense, in common usage, to say that rape is when you force or threaten somebody into sex they don't want to have. I'll even concede blowjobs-for-the-boss under that definition since they're threatened with firing. When you have sex with somebody who wants it, it's not actual rape, even if, due to circumstance, it might still be evil, a crime, or legally considered rape because you can't prove they did want it or didn't feel threatened.
Any other approach just makes the issue impossible to talk about, and a tautology: you discuss if it's actually possible for minors to consent if you start with the premise that they can't.
Look at it another way. There's a concept called Felony murder, where if, in the commission of a felony, somebody dies, even if you didn't kill them, you, legally, get accused of murder. In some cases, this has included situations where a nervous security guard pulls a gun and fires at the robbers, and shoots somebody else, even if the robbers were unarmed (sometimes they've even charged the surviving robbers under this because ONE OF THE ROBBERS got shot and killed by the cops). In such a case, legally, they might well be guilty of murder. And it might well be fair to say they're responsible for that man's death. But in my book, it's insane to say, other than from a perspective of strictly what the legal charges say, that they murdered the man. To use that legal definition in a common discussion reduces the term murder to meaninglessness.
Or, imagine lawmakers get together and decide that any murder of a member of the military, regardless of the reason, is legally defined as terrorism. It's within their rights to do that, it's even potentially plausible. Now, maybe a jilted lover kills their military ex. Or maybe a robbery gone bad, and the guy didn't even know the person he killed was a member of the military. Maybe it was self-defense, and the law didn't cover that, as a loophole. Do we now say they're a terrorist? I hope not. We might say he was charged with terrorism, or under the law is guilty of terrorism, but I'd hope we'd also say, "It's bullshit, though, it was just self-defense."