I could never see myself as a writer of bodice-rippers because whenever I've tried to describe sexual going on in my novels, I've always embarrassed myself so much I had to leave the room.

But sex rears its head - or whatever other appropriate part - in all sorts of contexts. I have before me this morning, for instance, a letter from a man who describes himself as "a middle-aged English teacher who is required to teach personal, social and health education to twelve-year-olds". The poor chap sounds even more embarrassed than I am.

He says he is obliged to base one lesson on a list of statements that the children have to rate on a scale of one to ten - with ten being really serious. Now these statements are not supplied by TV's Adult Channel or by Forum magazine but by the education authorities under their powers to decide what is taught in schools. If your eyes are prone to water, dear reader, turn the other way now.

For the first statement is: "My friend has given her friend a blow job". How would you rate that on the Richter Scale then? Remember this lesson is devised for twelve-year-olds. Next statement: "My friend has snogged her female friend". The next: "My friend has had unprotected oral sex". And just to add to the variety, this is followed by: "My friend has had unprotected anal sex". Some people have friends who live dangerously, don't they?

Naturally, the children put to this course make rapid progress from a mere discussion of generalities and by lesson two they are getting down to the nitty gritty. "Some people use a dam - a latex sheet to cover female genitalia in oral sex." Well, all I can say about that word 'genitalia' is that it's nice to see the children being given a bit of Latin among all the coarseness.

So what is the aim of this sex education course? The syllabus says, "It is to teach pupils as they develop a sense of sexual identity that there are different sexual orientations and different cultural norms in society today in sexual relationships". I would say the course ought to be described properly as Teach Yourself Sexual Perversion on the Income Tax. Am I allowed, under the enforcement of permissiveness which now rules everywhere, to say that this course represents the corruption of children - and by the way the corruption of the poor chap who is required to teach it?

Funny old world, isn't it? Never so much sex education, yet never so many unwanted pregnancies and subsequent abortions. Never has society been so panic stricken about paedophiles, yet this is the same society that sexualises its children unnaturally early. You might even say that much sex education in schools these days is a form of that disgraceful practice of "grooming" children for sexual experience.

There is so much emphasis in these lessons on the sordid mechanics of perversion in all its varieties. I think if we must have sex education it ought to come (like the fag packets) with a health warning: "Sex is one of the most powerful aspects of human relationships, affecting our happiness, health, well-being, financial condition and the future of our families. You have to be grown up for it".

* Peter Mullen is Rector of St Michael's, Cornhill, in the City of London, and Chaplain to the Stock Exchange.