"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.

Men who penetrate young women under age 18 in love affairs and dalliances are not "rapists" either, honestly defined, since they are not guilty of using violence/force or threats of same to compel the submission of their de jure "victims." That's why, in the pre-feminist/"gender-neutral"/sexual-egalitarian era, the offense was defined and codified as "statutory rape." The modifying "statutory" denoted an absence of force/violence or threats of same - i.e., that the sex was factually (as opposed to legally) consensual - while "rape" signified the reality of penile/vaginal penetration, an act which only men can perpetrate. Thus even to define intrigues between adult women and biological men under age 18 as "statutory rape" and the women as "statutory rapists" is objectively false and absurd. 

Not even those who demonize such women as "rapists" believe that they have penises with which to anally penetrate their mythical and theoretical "victims." And, to my knowledge, no female teachers have been accused of using violence/force or threats of same -weapons such as guns or knives or their superior size and strength- to compel their "victims" to engage in sex-acts against their will, e.g., to penetrate the women who "raped" them.

 So what do they mean when they call such women "rapists"? They mean that the sex is nonconsensual. Like prepubertal children, pubescent teenage males are now seen as too young and innocent to consent to sex in a meaningful and comprehending sense.

First, even if this were true, describing these women as "rapists" would still be absurd for the reasons above.  

Secondly, in most of these "crimes" the woman isn't even guilty of seduction.

So not only is she not a "rapist"; she isn't even a "sexual predator," another epithet used to brand her as perverse and dangerous, irrespective of the facts and circumstances.

In fact, given the nature of young men ages 13-17 who are absurdly defined as "children" and, even more ludicrously, as "little boys," it's reasonable to assume that in most cases the "victims" are the aggressors, the initiators, the predators.

So, typically, the "victims" do not assent (i.e., appear to consent since, according to CSA victimologists, they're too young to actually consent) to sex with their victimizers. The "predators" and "rapists" consent (or acquiesce out of fear) to sex with their "victims." The issue of consent relates to the passive and receptive actor.

So what they actually mean in such cases is that the "child" is too young and immature to knowingly crave and initiate sex with an adult female. This is absurd. The objective fact of his willingly assenting to or initiating sex with an adult woman or girl his own age proves that he understands what he's doing and why.

Pubescent teenage males under age 18 knowingly assent to and initiate sex with women and girls for the same reason they knowingly rape myriads of adult women and underage adolescent girls: because the sex is thrilling, gratifying, empowering. And, in many instances, because they're violent, brutal, sadistic, degenerate, just like "adult" men age 18 and older.

Clearly, if they're old and mature enough to form the mens rea or criminal intent to commit rapes and other violent/mala in se crimes - or even to be "waived" into adult court in many cases given the nature of their crimes and criminal records - then they're old and mature enough to consent to or knowingly initiate sex with both girls their own age and adult females. If they know what they're doing, legally and morally, when they commit violent and other mala in se felonies, then they know what they're doing when they consent to and initiate sex with adult women. Fundamentally, it's that simple

 In closing, I'm aware of at least 5 cases in which I know or suspect that the woman was raped or sexually assaulted by the "child" she legally "raped" and "sexually assaulted." The paramount irony is that in these cases, and who knows how many others of which  I know little or nothing - the only rapes, accurately defined, are committed by the "victims of rape." The women are raped, in fact, by the "victims" they "rape" in theory and fantasy.

To define such women as "rapists" and "pedophiles" and "child molesters," one must not only believe that men and women and boys and girls are exactly the same apart from the inescapable differences in anatomy; that "gender" (i.e., "masculine"/"feminine") as opposed to sex (male/female) is an "artificial social construct"; one must also deny or ignore the importance of purely anatomical differences between the sexes, the significance of purely sexual (e.g., average size and strength, sex organs, pregnancy, etc.) as well as statistical "gender" differentiation: a preponderance of "masculinity" in men and "femininity" in women, universal generic disparities in violence and criminality, salaciousness, promiscuity, aberrancy, predation, brutality, etc. And one must also conflate pubescent teenagers under age 18 with prepubescent children, thus viewing biological men under age 16 or even 18 as fundamentally indistinguishable from prepubertal girls of 9 and 11.

Paradoxically, these women must not only be defined but also vilified as "rapists" precisely because they are not "rapists" in any sense and because women can't rape anyone in the pure and literal sense of the word, and because women acting alone, without male accomplices, or under the duress of violent males, commit less than 1% of violent sexual assaults.

They must be portrayed and punished as uniquely deviant and dangerous precisely because they're not deviant and dangerous in the sense of adult men and underage teenage males who violently rape adult women and underage adolescent girls, much less the monsters, virtually all of them males, who kidnap, enslave, rape, torture, and murder adult women, female adolescents, and prepubertal boys and girls like Megan and Jessica and Adam Walsh.  And those males who commit such outrages against prepubertal children may or may not be pedophiles.

And since they're not pedophiles, they're no danger to molest prepubertal children. Nor are they any threat to commit aggravated assaults, armed robberies, muggings, car-jackings, home invasions, kidnappings, murders, sexual and non-sexual. 

As for all the she-devil shoolmarms, few if any of them are even a threat to have sex with another young man under age 18, a possibility that is not only remote but over which no sane person would "lose any sleep" or work himself/herself into a paroxysm of hysterical panic and/or rage. If any of them "reoffended," surely the most infamous, it would be national news, a leading story on all talk shows and news programs, frontpage headlines in scores of national and local newspapers, all over the internet, on hundreds of websites. etc.

But it's imperative that these women be vilified as "rapists" and "predators" to sustain the "moral panic" and witch-hunt that began in 1997 with the Letorneau hysteria and continues to this day and won't end in my lifetime even if I'm lucky (or unlucky) enough to live another 15-20 years.

And also to justify and rationalize all of the "cruel and unusual" punishments to which they're gratuitously subjected: months in jail or years in prison (now even over a decade, possibly, in some cases); years of "sex-offender treatment," years of quasi-totalitarian post-incarceration supervision, and registration from 20 years to life as uniquely deviant and dangerous criminals who've never committed a violent or other malum in se crime in their lives and never will and are not a "threat to society" or to anyone but (possibly) themselves.