Looking at the case of Madeleine Martin, the 39-year-old RE teacher and mother of two, jailed for 32 months and placed on the sex offenders' register for sleeping with a 15-year-old male pupil, do we seriously think that a female teacher sleeping with a male pupil is on a par with a male teacher sleeping with a girl pupil? I don't. And neither, I'd wager, would most 15-year-old boys.

The issue shouldn't be taken lightly. All teachers, male and female, are in a position of trust and should not abuse it, though reading of Martin and the boy having sex in car parks, of her buying him mobile phones and tattoos with her name on "so he wouldn't forget her", of her failing marriage and terminally ill sister, Martin seems more pathetic than predatory.

Certainly, she has been severely punished for her nine-day tryst with the teenager, who, his mother says, has been mocked by peers. If anything, one would have thought they might be jealous. The internet is awash with sites dealing with "older woman teacher-pupil" fantasies. And there lies the rub – should the law be treating male and female pupil victims equally when male and female teenagers are so different?

Whether we like it or not, secondary schools are hubs of teenage sexuality. However, while girl and boy teenagers deserve the same protection, crucially what they want seems very different.

There are always exceptions, but surely one of the essential differences between the teenage sexes lies in the onset and manifestation of sexuality. Which is a posh way of saying that teenage boys mainly want sex, while teenage girls mainly want attention. Likewise, while teenage boys are usually sexually driven, teenage girls tend to be validation-driven.

This seemed to be the case when I was supping my can of Vimto in the fifth form common room trying (and failing) to look alluring and still rings true today.

When I interviewed young people on this topic, it was clear: girls (still) only invited censure by being sexually active, while for boys it was (still) win-win: excitement, experience ("practice," one called it), bragging rights, kudos.

From here, it is not too much of a leap to surmise that sexual contact with a teacher would have entirely different effects on the teenage sexes. For most boys, it would be the score of all scores, for girls, the ultimate exploitation of their genetic vulnerability.

While a large proportion of teenage boys may not have the sense to make the best choices, they are "up for it," none the less. This is why, in my view, a male teacher sleeping with a girl pupil amounts to statutory rape, whereas a female teacher sleeping with a 15-year-old male is a far greyer moral area.

Even from the perpetrator's side there seems to be a gender difference. Most would agree that a male with a 15-year-old girl would be all about sex. With Martin, (the mobiles, the tattoo "so he wouldn't forget her"), it seems painfully apparent that in her own damaged, wrong-headed way, she was attempting to mimic a proper relationship.

Maybe it is time for society to address this issue honestly. Why do we blithely accept that "men and women are different", but refuse to acknowledge that the teenage sexes are also different? Does anyone believe that males and females suddenly become different, at, say, 21?

Once we accept this difference, the justification for the equality of punishment starts blurring. In Martin's case, with her hefty prison sentence, and placement on the sex offenders' register, she has effectively been punished exactly the same as a man. What we have to ask ourselves now, is, knowing what we do about teenage boys, do women like her always commit exactly the same crime?

Men kings of the kitchen? Making a meal of it, more like

A new survey declares men to be "masters of the kitchen". The same survey, commissioned by Wickes kitchens and bathrooms, says men are to be found in the kitchen for more than seven hours a day. Which means they must come home from work and refuse to leave their culinary sanctum until bedtime – which sounds unlikely. Though not as bizarre as the statement that men now spend the most time cleaning the kitchen and washing up after meals. Pull the other one – it's got balsamic on it.

I have known truly fabulous male cooks, and some absolutely dreadful ones, even worse than me, who could burn ice cream given enough time. However, I have yet to meet a man who automatically clears up after himself or who uses fewer than 17 pans to cook a "light supper". In my experience, "male cooking" is often reminiscent of the everlasting gobstopper machine in Willy Wonka, involving an endless series of clunking, clanking bells and whistles, and then – finally – this tiny little thing pops out. Mind you, I prefer the chaotic well-meaning guys to the creeps who force you to smell their pots of fresh herbs or pompously drone on about the need for "love" in food, which always struck me as a bit ambitious. Nobody expects to find something as heady as love in a packet of crisps, so why look for it in Parma-wrapped monkfish?

The good news is that, despite what this survey says, most men would be big enough to admit that they're really only interested in Marco/Heston, high-end ,show pony cooking, at weekends or for guests. The daily grunt work is still mainly left to women, who, like the kitchen SAS, aim to get in and out as fast as possible.

I don't pretend to be qualified to speak. On the rare occasions when I've cooked for grown-ups (not gullible children), it hasn't gone well. I'm not sure if there is a correct mindset for guests as they leave – but I'm guessing "depressed, confused, pissed and starving" isn't covering it. Saying that, spare me the myth of the master of the kitchen. If modern women choose to spend less time in the kitchen, it's because historically we've seen rather too much of it. Only a man would consider it a treat to linger there.

Stop behaving like a child, Mr Chiles

Poor Christine Bleakley from The One Show. Imagine ending up in a life where you are punished for not finding Adrian Chiles attractive. Which makes her situation sound a bit like a Philip K Dick novel set in White City. Then again, the reality (if the rumours are real) seems even more confusing.

For those of you who are above tittle-tattle, the recently divorced Chiles is said to hold a torch for Bleakley who, reputedly viewing him as a friend and mentor, started stepping out with footballer Frank Lampard, allegedly upsetting Chiles.

Thus, in the spirit of journalistic inquiry, I spent the week sitting down with a mug of tea to observe this "breaking news". Indeed, there does seem to be a degree of "sofa tension" – Bleakley smiling with increasing brittleness, Chiles sulking like a big, angry, square-headed baby and, if not careful, putting us off watching The Apprentice: You're Fired for ever.

Children, please! If any of this is true, Ms Bleakley should learn her lesson: people generally don't dawdle telling "friends and mentors" they've got a new squeeze. Likewise, Mr Chiles, "intense glaring guy" is not a good presenting style.

But who are we to judge? Once again the British public rushed to view the latest emotional crash. In the spirit of journalistic inquiry, my foot; I wanted to gawp at the biggest water cooler sensation since Peter left Katie. Which seems to say rather less about what is (or isn't) going on between Chiles and Bleakley than it does about vultures like me.

The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has discreetly discontinued its booklet, "The United Kingdom: 100 Questions Answered", devised to help outsiders recognise the "British personality". Something tells me it won't be missed. With its Sir Humphreyesque emphasis on afternoon tea, cricket and morris dancing, most Britons, let alone visitors, would have difficulty recognising themselves.