>We're not talking about a 25 year old filming his 17 year old girlfriend giving him head here.

Yes we are. What you describe is child pornography. Depending on jurisdiction, the girlfriend cannot consent. Even in jurisdictions where she can consent, it is still child porn. Even in situations where the 17 year old is acting alone, it is child porn. Even in situations where the 17 year old draws a picture of herself masturbating, it is child porn.

I guest you are correct, my comment should read:

s/rape/depiction in a sexual manner/g

Either way, my point is that we should be careful of the language we use, and recognize that child pornography is far broader than circumstances that would generally be considered "rape" are. My phrasing was sub-optimal due to my other problem with the conflation of statutory rape and normal rape.

The idea the some people "cannot consent" is disproven by the fact that some countries allow underage people to have consensual sex with each other but not with overage people. Somehow they can consent sometimes but not other times. Where I'm from, it's common for kids to be having sex at 13. They "can't consent" but somehow do it anyway without breaking the law.

I'm not talking about 14 year olds; I'm talking about people in single digits, and children who can't walk yet.