I can't take this seriously, given that the first 3/4 of the article is the author just kind of bragging about how smart and so very current her son is. That's what the article felt like. A vehicle for bragging about her great kid. Which couldn't she have just made a Facebook post or something?

Also, if you're going to write an article ostensibly about teaching kids the whole sex-for-pleasure principle, what kind of sense does it make to only refer to your husband/partner as your "mate?" Doesn't that send a mixed signal?

Also, what was with the weird dig at the beginning about "there goes the government, all up in our kids' business again, bringing sex into the classroom earlier than we want," and then following it up with a long polemic about how kids don't have enough basic info about sex?

Also, just ugh.

Besides all of that, I'm not entirely sure where she's coming from. I started sex ed somewhere around the fifth or sixth grade I think, and I remember the class spending a lot of time focusing on how people can derive pleasure from sex. HIV/AIDS transmission was mentioned under the general rubric of STD's, and wasn't any sort of code for the evils of gay sex. It was code for "sex feels good, but if you do it too early and improperly, your genitals will shrivel up and fall off and you will die." Which was regressive in its own way, but more benignly regressive than the author is painting it. Especially since nobody took that part of it seriously- neither kids nor teachers.