IS it just because I am the mother of four young boys that I find the muffled national snigger over the 26-year-old female teacher accused of having sex with two brothers, aged 14 and 15, this week so nauseating?

Although found not guilty of indecent assault, Amy Gehring's behaviour caused such concern she has at last now been placed on a Government blacklist. This follows repeated warnings about her dubious relationships with young boys, which were, bizarrely, ignored.

Any male teacher who had behaved in a similar manner towards impressionable teenage girls - getting drunk at parties with them, talking about previous sexual conquests, walking them home, asking lewd questions and sending intimate text messages, admitting he may have had sex with a pupil when he was drunk once - would have been given short shrift pretty quickly.

Yet, this week, one titillated tabloid newspaper columnist remarked it was a shame the mini-skirted teacher was on her way back to Canada as she was a "heck of a cure for truancy".

Even the Daily Telegraph, stressing that teenage boys are not capable of intercourse if the idea of it does not excite them, remarked there was little shame attached to a schoolboy seduced by an older woman. "This was a case that should never have come to court," it concluded.

I beg to differ. Apart from the fact that Gehring's behaviour is an abuse of authority, privilege and trust, why do we assume young boys - more emotionally immature than girls of the same age - will emerge unscathed from such an experience?

Even English law reflects our "nudge-nudge, wink-wink" style double standards. Gehring was charged with indecent assault because it is not illegal for a woman to have sex with a boy aged between 14 and 16, although it is, of course, an offence for a man to have sex with a girl of this age.

The Gehring case did get people talking. Many men may have sniggered with their mates about how they wished they had received their teenage sexual initiation from an "older woman". But, regardless of this particular trial, surely it's either morally wrong for an adult to prey on a youngster, or it's not. It shouldn't matter what sex the abuser is.

THE pure, human drama unfolding week by week on Pop Idol had me hooked from the beginning. I'm now rooting for Will, who has by far the better voice and much more charisma, but am happy to accept that pretty, courageous Gareth, who has inspired the nation by overcoming his debilitating stammer to sing like an angel, will probably win. The only thing that bothers me is that these polite, well-mannered boys are far too nice to be proper pop stars. In their manifestos to attract votes this week, they promised to avoid celebrity hang-outs, not to throw strops, and keep their feet firmly on the ground. What, no trashing of hotel rooms? No picking up supermodels and groupies? No demands for their favourite foods to be flown halfway across the world by private jet when they are on tour? Wrinkly old rockers will be shaking their heads and muttering: "The young of today, they just don't know how to behave."