In today’s Inquirer, I read that a rapist was sentenced to 30-60 years in prison. No ordinary rapist, he’s been called “the worst serial rapist in the city’s history.” Something else is a little unusual — his age:

A 15-year-old boy who has been called “the worst serial rapist in the city’s history” was sentenced yesterday to 30 to 60 years in prison.
Michael Massey, most recently of the city’s Logan section and previously of West Philadelphia, pleaded guilty in April in Common Pleas Court to charges of raping or attempting to rape eight girls and women.
The attacks occurred between July and September 2005.
His victims – all strangers to him – were 16 to 32 years old. At the time, he was 14.

Raping women is something we normally think of as an adult activity. So is shooting people.
For that matter, so is driving.
So why is it that if this same rapist had gone online and discussed whatever fantasies he might have with an adult, the law could in theory call him a victim — of the adult?
At the risk of sounding like a mean, awful, and cynical person, I’d like to posit a hypothetical. Suppose a teen rapes an adult, and it turns out the adult enjoyed it, and comes back for more. Would the rapist become a victim?
Anyone understand why?
Is it because “innocence” is involved?
MORE: I don’t mean to be offensive, but considering that Wikipedia has an entry on the subject, what are the legal ramifications of minors sticking their you-know-whats into one of these? Do they become victims, said to be incapable of consenting to the actions of whatever anonymous person might come along? Is age relevant in an anonymous sexual situation where neither party can be seen? Or is there a legal duty to know?