I can't understand why we make such a big deal every time some female teacher does it with a male student considering the sex education in school, condom distribution, oral sex (which is really not sex according to Clinton) in the schoolbus and other carnal practices. What the hell should we expect?
What has always puzzled me is how some hot teacher is able to rape (Rape!!??) some 16-year old stud who probably is some big linebacker on the football team. Perhaps she should take his place in the lineup.
"...arrested for having sex with a 16-year-old special-education student."
Had the victim been as you described, it might've been unethical but may have been legal in certain jurisdictions for the cross-generational sex.
That isn't always the case. If we believe in "equal treatment under the law" we should make no distinction between sexual predators based on the gender of their minor victims. Some victims have been as young as 12, an age where it's difficult to believe consent would ever be remotely considered possible. Yet some still tried to make the case you attempt.
Few victims have the well formed ego you, and the law itself too often, assume any male victim would have. That's exactly why they are sought out by these predators: because they're vulnerable.
You're also seeing this from a heteronormative bias. The student may be homosexual in inclination. Some here might see such heterosexual abuse as a "cure" or other benefit but I don't.
I think, in general, there are perverse immature individuals holding on to "hot for teacher" fantasies from their puberty.
And no, I don't believe the potential for pregnancy or vaginal penetration is sufficient cause to ignore real crime victims simply because they were born with a Y chromosome.