For example today, commanding officers are not allowed to have sexual relations with enlisted members or bosses asking for sex from employees even if consensual.
Are there instances, where consent could not be given due to differences in power, Roman senator and an aide, nanny and employer, or other such relationships?
If not recognized as sexual coercion, any examples where it was at least socially viewed negatively due to the power difference in the relationship.
So I suspect what you are looking for is legal history, and unfortunately I can’t provide you with that. I am not aware of any legal text which discusses coercion in such a way, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist and hopefully someone with a better knowledge of the subject can offer information on that matter!
What I can do is offer the example of the Rape of Lucretia, a narrative in Livy’s Ab Urbe Condita, which is an interesting microcosm of male-female power dynamics regarding sex and bodily autonomy, and particularly societies reaction to coercion into sex.
A brief disclaimer: Livy was writing for an Augustan audience, and part of Augustus’ schtick was he was ‘re-introducing’ morality into the empire. This is reflected in Ab Urbe Condita, which is a moralising text which makes use of the exempla, a Roman convention where a hero/heroine is portrayed as idealistic, and worthy of imitation by the audience. As a consequence, Lucretia’s actions are representative of the ideal behaviour of a Roman woman, but are not the sort of thing you would generally expect to see in action.
So in Book 10, Lucretia, the exemplary roman matron, catches the eye of the Roman prince Tarquinius Sextus, who creeps into her room at night with his dagger in hand, and threatens to kill her if she does not consent to sex. Lucretia refuses, and he says if she does not agree, he will lay her dead body next to that of a slave, so it will be assumed she slept with the slave. Horrified at this concept, Lucretia has sex with Tarquinius.
After this, Lucretia calls all male members of the family together and tells them of her shame, and intent to commit suicide. What is interesting here, is that her husband and her family (rightly!) tell her that she is not to blame, and ‘They tell her it is the mind that sins, not the body; and that where purpose has been wanting there is no guilt’ (Livy, Ab Urbe Condita, 10.58). Nevertheless, Lucretia refuses to listen to them, claiming ‘I acquit myself of the sin, I do not absolve myself from punishment; not in time to come shall ever unchaste woman live through the example of Lucretia’ (Livy, Ab Urbe Condita, 10.58). Despite the fact she was coerced, and despite that this is acknowledged by everyone, she insists she still deserves punishment, and regardless of the situation adulteresses should always be punished. She then commits suicide, begging her family will avenge her.
Lucretia’s rape is the catalyst for the overthrowing of the Roman monarchy, with Brutus (who successfully overthrows the kings) holding Lucretia’s knife and claiming ‘By this blood, most chaste until a prince wronged it, I swear, and I take you, gods, to witness, that I will pursue Lucius Tarquinius Superbus […] and that I will suffer neither them nor any other to be king in Rome!’ (10.59).
Thus, the Rape of Lucretia provides an interesting narrative, where it is fully acknowledged by the characters in the story that Lucretia was coerced, and is innocent of adultery. Nevertheless, when presenting the ideal behaviour of a Roman matron, Lucretia still has to die. Therefore, whilst the Roman’s did apparently understand coercion, both parties still had to be punished.
I'm aware this isn't exactly what you are looking for, and Rome isn't my area of expertise, but if you have any more questions I will do my best to answer them! :-)
Sources: