All this hyperventialted angst may or may not be warranted, and certainly the skank broke the law, but to compare male adult rape of a female with the seduction by an adult female of a young male is twisted. Two different "crimes" altogether. And, um, "most" likely this boy in particular will "probably" end up alright, is my guess (and hope).
You don't know how it might, at bottom, affect his relations to women. How about that? There're myriad unseen ways in which some1 can be adversely affected by this kind of thing (conversely, tho, it could also be not as bad as the psychobabblers want us to think). And that's the truth. That's what more moral and modest people understood in an earlier age when they ruled and made the rules like this. It should be intuitively obvious. But in this day of no morals and sex any time you want - it's not.
Then what about a male who molests a boy--no penetration=no emotional damamge?...your analysis is way off base.
By that logic,only penetration constitutes rape- or,in this case,serial molestation?This isn't some"Summer of 42" initiation into manhood.When does a sex act qualify as "statuatory rape" for an underage male?