No, but I'm pretty sure "she" showed signs of being a man.

Can people just stop throwing the word rape around, whenever there is sex involved... Rape is when it’s against their will. She most likely consented, of they even had sex yet. Also there is no mention of and other connection between them warranting a special liability like a teacher student kind of thing. Since she thought hes 19 she actually basically said there is no such connection. With 17 most people are psychologically evolved enough to decide. And of she is and did, this was definately not rape.

Look up the textbook definition of "statutory rape." It's a legal term. It means simply "sexual intercourse with a minor." As noted on ageofconsent[dot]net, "The key difference between statutory rape and rape is that the only deciding factor between legal sexual activity and statutory rape is age. Lack of consent or use of force may increase the extremity of the punishment, but does not need to be involved in the sexual contact for statutory rape to have occurred." The age of consent varies from state to state, but it generally ranges from 16 to 18. So whether this was the crime of Statutory Rape depends entirely upon the age of consent where these events took place.