If rape is defined as intercourse between two non-consenting parties, then does it matter what the threat or intimidation was to force the victim into the act?
If not, then there should not be a male/female difference.
I am not saying women and men should be treated the same in all matters, they should not. What if the woman raping the boy used blackmail or something similar to enforce the act, would that be different than a male raping a female using the same type of coercion, blackmail? Then we can leave out the physical differences that otherwise would play into a forced rape, where the male because of superior physical strenth needs no other means....
I don't think anyone suggested the boy in this case didn't consent. Your emphasis on that detail in this case is misplaced.
Sex with a minor is statutory rape, however. Even the younger party's express consent isn't a defense, since there is a public policy decision that minors are incapable of meaningful consent.
In the example you give, the person would be guilty of blackmail on top of any sexual crime involved. Whether a person is male or female, they are still blackmailing - which may be illegal. That doesn't address the public policy concern I originally raised, though.