I didn't say it was a good thing. I said "by and large the harm to boys is not as great as the harm to girls."
In law, that standard is meaningless as far as the crime goes. Relative harm to the victim must not be a factor in the crime but is properly considered in the sentence phase.
Consider murder, for example. The harm caused by killing a 92 year old individual with advanced lung cancer cannot may be less than the harm caused to a 32 year old, based on life expectancy. The murderer is after all taking many years from the younger individual while taking possibly only a few months from the elderly man. The same goes for stealing the wallet of a wealthy man as opposed to a poor man.
The killer of the 92 year old is just as guilty as the killer of the 32 year old.
As to sentencing, the judge properly considered the relative harm and gave her a fairly light sentence. She elected to ignore the conditions of the light sentence and was given a more lenghtly sentence. Put yourself in the judge's position. What message does it send if a criminal is permitted to ignore conditions of probation?