Michelle's corner

A year or so ago, I was in Stratford-upon-Avon, staring at the building that was once the home of the one and only William Shakespeare.

One of the first thoughts that hit me was, "Wow, we've grown a lot in just five hundred years!"

There were other differences. A little un-scientific searching pulled up some interesting things to think on. Life expectancy in the 1600's was said to be 35, two thirds of the population worked in agriculture and worked 80 hours a week. London's population was a mere fifth of what it is now at 200,000 and contained 4% of the population... however Shakespeare himself died aged 52 in 1616 (his actual birth date isn't known apparently, only his baptism)

However, to bring us bang up to date, here we are debating things such as sex education in schools and I find myself pondering the differences. Socially, we have adjusted to living a lot longer than our recent ancestors ever did. But how about biologically?

Juliet is stated to be 13 and Romeo ... well ... the best I can really work out is somewhere between fourteen and sixteen.

Speaking on the social side of things, we've bent that. The actors and actresses that play Romeo and Juliet these days are in their late teens or early twenties.

But how about our biological processes?

Menarche has been known to start in girls as young as 10 but the average USA appears to be 12.

Biological impulses are pretty potent things to be messing with and while we've become a little taller, it doesn't look like the message has reached the other biological clocks that drive our bodies.

So when it comes to the debate about should we be teaching more detailed sex education in schools, I think that plugging our ears and going, "La, la, laaa..." is doing our next generation a disservice. There's discussion to be had here ... and who knows ... maybe even a book...