Other countries might lump them together, or call them different names. If you're trying to discuss the actual crimes, you'd want to 1) mention what jurisdiction you're talking about and 2) use the actual names of the crimes as per the statute book. But as a practical matter, it's all rape.
If rape is defined to be a crime or class of crimes, it's completely unreasonable to selectively ask people to be very specific about which crimes they mean. In the US I don't believe there is any such crime as rape by threatening to fire someone, or if there is it is not a serious crime.
As someone using a colloquial term for anything sexual without consent, obviously. Sex without consent is generally called rape; most people don't have any clue about the exact legal definitions. You don't even know what legal jurisdiction OP is in; how could you interpret the word as anything but the colloquial definition?
> In the US I don't believe there is any such crime as rape by threatening to fire someone, or if there is it is not a serious crime.
First, sex crimes are defined at the state level in the US, so it doesn't even make sense to discuss what "the" law is in the US. Pick your state, and you get your answer.
Second, if we pick, eg, Michigan, you're describing...hmm. "Third Degree Criminal Sexual Conduct", which is punishable by up to 15 years in prison. Not sure about you, but I'd call that a serious crime. Other states have different laws, but generally speaking getting someone to perform an act via the threat of firing is coercion, and penetration achieved via coercion is one of the more serious forms of sexual assault.
But most people don't subscribe to your consent based definition of rape. I think the majority of people would lean towards the force based definition of rape. You personally might think that rape should be defined as sex without consent, but that's a different matter.
True, there has been some movement towards consent based laws in the US, but many states still retain the requirement of force (which could be expanded to include threats and physical restraint).
You are wrong; see for example Wikipedia, which represents a broad agreement of many editors and includes both coercion and abuse of authority as types of rape.
Edit to reply to swatow since I've hit the reply limit: that's a good article and I hope you read it carefully and think about what it says.
Here is an article that discusses the controversy over force based vs consent based definitions of rape.
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/117630/jed-rubenfeld-rape...
As your link makes clear, most states, the federal government, the legal community, and popular opinion has moved away from force based definitions as archaic and offensive. Which was, of course, my point.
I mean, it's literally an article about one iconoclasts weird and much criticized view that maybe rape shouldn't be defined as sex without consent. Even if you agree with him, the existence of the article proves that it's a fringe position, right? (And much of the article is actually just Rubenfeld saying he actually agrees with is critics, and disagrees with the historical requirement to show force, so...)
We call sexual coercion rape because it can cause severe and lasting trauma even if physical violence or threat of physical violence is not part of the coercion.
You're missing the threat of violence.