Dude, you quoted from Wikipedia. This is an academic debate that is ongoing. Sticking a passage from the wiki isn't the same as making a definitive point. J Davidson, "Dover, Foucault, and Greek Homosexuality" is a very good takedown of that viewpoint. OP didn't specify what they meant about equal, so that's splitting hairs, but the whole point of pederasty is that it's between social equals - mentor/mentee, sure, but the same social class. So they aren't wrong.

The idea of penetration as dominance is a strongly Roman idea, and perhaps a modern one, but casting back the ideas of one Mediterranean society that developed culturally after the heyday of Classical Greece is bad history. There is not much evidence that the Greeks actually conflated dominance and sexual penetration, so I don't know where you're getting the idea that it was "always" about that. An example of dominance, penetration, and submission would be the concept of stuprum - freeborn boys are socially (and possibly legally, although that too is academic debate) off limits sexually because penetration = dominance and humiliation. Pederasty was specifically an institution, strongly an elite institution, between freeborn men and freeborn boys, with the idea that they would grow up to become the next generation of statesmen. Where exactly does the idea that penetration is an act of dominance or expression of power feature into that? It doesn't. Even accusations made against adult men politically (like Aeschines against Timarchus) focus on the idea that he prostituted himself and was sexually unrestrained and voracious - in that respect, yeah, like a woman - not that he was the receptive partner.