I do enjoy how media outlets discuss women’s sexual violence against boys. This was the title of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s article on a recent child rape case: Melbourne woman who fell pregnant to 12yo boy jailed for sexual abuse.

Let us see how this woman “fell” pregnant:

The 40-year-old woman, who cannot be named, was sentenced at the Victorian County Court on Monday to at least three years and six months in prison. The woman had pleaded guilty to the persistent sexual abuse of a child under the age of 16 over her relationship with the boy, who was her daughter’s friend. In 2011 the woman, who was in her 30s, began driving her daughter and the boy to school. The woman has admitted she started developing feelings for the boy and began a sexual relationship with him. The pair had sex once a week over a five-month period and did not use condoms, the court was told.

That does not sound like the woman accidentally became pregnant. It sounds like she intentionally had sex with a child. There is a word for that: rape.

The abuse began after the woman’s daughter befriend the boy. According to another article, the convicted rapist became jealous of her daughter’s friendship with the then 11-year-old victim. She began taking the boy to and from school. Shortly after, somewhere around her divorce, she began raping the boy. The boy was 12 and she was 36.

The woman told psychologist James Ogloff that she was “sexually naive and did not realise the boy was old enough to father a child.” She also claimed that she was not attracted to children, but was attracted to the boy because he was “sexually maturing.”

Ogloff rationalized the woman’s behavior:

Professor Ogloff found the woman had not been acting in a predatory way or been driven by a deviant sexual desire, but instead had allowed her feelings of care and nurturing for the boy to develop into a sexual relationship. The psychologist said the woman had been a supportive and caring parent with no prior convictions who failed to recognise her feelings for the boy were completely inappropriate. Professor Ogloff did not believe the woman suffered from a paedophilic disorder and was unlikely to reoffend.

That may be why the court will allow the Department of Human Services to take her newborn daughter for weekly prison visits to see the woman. It also explains the low sentence. The woman will only serve a maximum of six years after repeatedly raping her victim for two years. Of course, the woman will not have to serve the total sentence. She need only serve three years and six months. None of the articles report whether she will have to register as a sex offender.

That seems like a fair trade for that the now 14-year-old boy is going through:

The judge said the woman had taken the boy’s adolescence away from him and while he clearly loved his daughter, he was having difficulties adjusting to fatherhood and what had happened to him. She said the boy was angry and confused, his relationship with his mother had deteriorated and he should not have to deal with these issues at such a young age.

Granted, this is Australia. It is shocking the woman was charged at all, let alone that she received a prison sentence.