In some news articles, in the story and/or headlines, an editor or reporter, apparently recognizing the absurdity of defining such intrigues as “rape” and the women as “rapists,” will instead use the term “statutory rape.” As I’ll explain, such usage is not as absurd as “rape” but absurd nonetheless.
It’s important to emphasize that adult men who penetrate, and often impregnate, young women under age 16 or 18 in love affairs and dalliances and “one-night stands” are not “rapists” either, objectively defined, since they’re 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 “dark ages,” the offense was defined and codified as “statutory rape,” typically if not universally -not as “sexual assault,” “aggravated sexual battery,” “child rape, et.al, which imply violence- and the offense only applied to men in most jurisdictions. The purpose of such laws was to preserve the chastity and virginity of young women under age 18 and prevent their impregnation. Biological men under age 18 or of whatever age don’t get pregnant and only the silliest and looniest of prudes are obsessed with preserving the chastity and virginity of teenage males.
The modifying “statutory” denotes an absence of violence/force or threats of same -i.e., it reveals that the coitus was factually (as opposed to legally) consensual- while “rape” signifies the reality of penile-vaginal penetration, an act which only males can perpetrate. Thus even to define acts of coitus between adult women and biological men under age 16 or 18 as “statutory rape” and the women as “statutory rapists” is objectively false, given the nature of intercourse and the inescapably differences in anatomy between males and females, and thus absurd.