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...)