What if there is no "relative power" involved? What if a man goes into a city park, walks up to a group of 10-year-olds and asks who wants to have sex with him? There is no power he has over them, they can leave or ignore him as they choose, or they can choose to go with him of their own volition.
Except for the fact that he's more intelligent than they are, vastly more experienced and knowledgable, much richer, and twice their size. Except those things, he doesn't have any power over them.
Except for the fact those qualities don't come into play in the scenario I described.
More intelligent - why does that matter for having sex? Dumb people aren't allowed?
More experienced - in having sex, or in life in general? Moot point anyway.
More knowledgeable - again, about sex or life in general? Another moot point.
Richer - A) not necessarily, B) that doesn't matter among adults' rights to have sex, why would it here?
Bigger - Did I say he grabbed the kids and dragged them off to the bushes?
Sorry, you post doesn't explain at all why it makes sense to distinguish between adults and children concerning sex, which was the point my first post was responding to. Nothing in your arguments establishes any real power over children other than brute force. If the sex doesn't involve brute force, the claims of the adult being smarter or richer don't seem to be a valid reason to prevent it.
As a final point, what if the adult was a 120-pound woman in her 30s, and she approached a group of athletic teenage boys (who are still below age of consent in their state) who are from rich and influential families? Your arguments don't hold up at all.