Kuehl, Scott; Woman as 'Rapists'
"The male can rape the female, the female cannot rape the male," so wrote Diana Trilling long ago. Her point is that rape entails not only the use of violence/force or threats of same to compel the submission of a victim but also the penile violation/penetration of the victim by the assailant.
For obvious anatomical reasons, woman can't rape anyone, male or female, in the pure and literal sense of the word. But we now live in a society in which adult women are vilified as "rapists" for allowing biological men under age 18 to penetrate them in factually consensual relationships, a grotesque and ludicrous perversion of language used to distort and invert reality for ideological, political, economic, moral, and personal reasons.
Sullivan, Randall; The Seduction of Peter Jay Rudge; Rolling Stone MAGAZINE, Jan 01 1993
A quite long but carefully reported true story of the close relationship between a women, Diana Walders, 40 year, and a boy, Peter Jay Rudge, 13 years.

The development and the form of the relationship is carefully told. Reading it, one might think of 'grooming' by the woman. She more or less seduced Peter Jay from the living sphere of his parents to the living sphere of Diana. The lady and the boy planned to 'disappear' together, to run away both from both their homes and families. This actually happened.

Forty days later, the pair was found by police. The boy was taken home, the lady was arrested.

The reporter guides the reader along the notes of two therapists of Peter Jay.
In the first therapy, Peter denied any sexual aspect in the relationship with Diana.

However, during the second therapy, Peter Jay told the therapist and his father and a priest about the quite frequent sexual contacts the pair has had.
During the trial, both therapist testified, as well as Peter Jay did, testifying also about his sexual adventures with Diana. Diana strongly denied such contacts.

Diana's lawyer found many inconsistencies in Peter Jay's testimony, as well as some impossibilities and improbabilities. "Too many for good evidence", said the jury.