Dude I'm happy to keep this conversation going but you really gotta explain to me why you're so keen to make a case for having sex with minors not being rape. It's kinda creepy.

I'm trying to explain how there is a difference between a minor agreeing to it themselves and one that includes physical coercion. In this case the two are equated to be one and the same. What does this mean? It means that if a person already engages in illicit sexual activity with a minor then there is no difference if there is also severe physical violence in play.

I'm not trying to downplay either side. I just want people to understand that you should not equate these two things, because it might encourage perpetrators to cause even more harm to their victims.

You can keep calling both of them "rape," because the specific term is not the important part. What is important is to see the difference between the two. Many here seem to fail to do so.

No they can't

You're getting confused again. I get why. In adults giving permission/allowing is the exact same as giving consent in most typical cases.

But consent is a legal framework, not a personal or emotional one. A kid can sign the paperwork but they have no legal authority to vote or sign onto a mortgage. They have no legal personage. So it goes with consent.

Yes, you are right. If we're talking about consent legally then there is no way for a child to consent. But the word "consent" does not only have the narrow legal definition. It also means the act of agreeing to something in a broader sense (look it up in a dictionary) and that is the consent I'm talking about.