We need to change the way we see female sex offenders In almost every instant, the abuse is referred to as “having sex” with an underage boy – even though what happened was rape

There has been increased fervour in the past few years in tackling male and female double standards.

But one persists with little challenge: how we report and react to the abuse of teenage boys by older women. “Come Dine With Me winner moans her ‘life is RUINED’ after sex with schoolboy” was the headline on a recent story about 38-year-old mother of three Lucy Haughey, who took advantage of a friend’s son.

Though she avoided jail, she was put on the sex offenders’ register for three years. She was branded “vile” by the judge, who said she presented a “significant risk” of sexual offending towards teenagers known to her. But the word “abuse” was rarely raised in reports.

i's opinion newsletter: talking points from today Email address is invalid Email address is invalid Thank you for subscribing! Sorry, there was a problem with your subscription.

Acknowledging boys as victims would mean an upheaval of what we think men and women are capable of

Looking at how these stories are written, you’d wonder if any crime had been committed at all. In almost every instance, the abuse is referred to as “having sex” with an underage boy – even though for an adult to have sex with someone under the age of 16 is illegal sexual activity.

The articles also talk of “sexual relationships”, “romps”, “affairs” and “trysts”, all implying a level of consent. But there is rarely a reference to what has landed the perpetrators in the papers to begin with: sexual abuse and abuse of power. The double standard is especially stark, when you consider the scale of coverage of Jeremy Forrest, the “paedophile teacher” who fled to France with a 15-year-old pupil in 2012.

‘Tell-all’

In America, until the late 1970s, female-on-male statutory rape (the generic name for sex with a minor) was usually ignored by the law due to the prevalent belief that men (and boys) could not be raped by women. While convictions do now happen, the idea is still heavily ingrained.

Our inability to not objectify women (even as sexual offenders) compounded by the idea that boys are in a state of constant consent renders many reports akin to something out of a Carry On film.

We are so hesitant to acknowledge boys as victims, that when R Kelly’s brother detailed the sexual abuse he and his brother faced at the hands of their older sister, it was referred to as a “steamy tell-all interview”.

This is integral to popular culture, from noughties anthems such as Fountains of Wayne’s “Stacey’s Mom” and Busted’s “What I Go to School For” and normalised on television – in Desperate Housewives, South Park and Saturday Night Live’s “Teacher Trial” skit.

Our inability to not objectify women renders many reports akin to something out of a Carry On film

For teen soap Hollyoaks it’s a staple storyline. TV presenter Holly Willoughby even teased she’d like to be cast “as the teacher who has an affair with one of her pupils”. If her co-presenter Phillip Schofield made a similar joke the masses would shudder.

A 2013 study found women were responsible for 19 per cent of child sexual abuse committed in positions of trust in the US and a Daily Express investigation found that 142 female teachers were convicted of sex offences in 2016 in the UK. But acknowledging women as abusive and boys as victims would mean a complete upheaval of what we think men and women are capable of.

“That boy didn’t think it was so bad.” Haughey said in a later interview. “He didn’t report it to police… I’ve had officers laughing, saying ‘I’ve done worse myself’.”

We have a long way to go, when even those charged with keeping boys safe are incapable of seeing them as anything other than “lucky”.

@yomiadegoke