It’s been quite a while since a child’s knowledge of sex was left to a parent’s explanation. This was no doubt a good development, since many parents did such a poor job of it. Indeed, the fact that they had a child at all was often proof of their lack of expertise on the subject.

But sex ed has gone from the controversial information of means of preventing pregnancy, AIDS and venereal disease to indoctrination into the current flavor of sexual politics.  This isn’t just because some teachers prefer the flavor, but because the law requires it.

Teaching birth control was shocking enough to parents who felt it compromised their message of abstinence. Whether or not one agrees, one has to respect a parent’s right to teach their children well. Morality, contrary to those who see it as an absolute, is left to each of us to decide, and having the government override our parental views is a problem.

Birth control, however, is at least a factual matter. We may not like it, but at least we can be assured that it’s accurate. Teaching children the vagaries of social interaction is an entirely different matter.

The classroom of 10th graders had already learned about sexually transmitted diseases and various types of birth control. On this day, the teenagers gathered around tables to discuss another topic: how and why to make sure each step in a sexual encounter is met with consent.

The transition from “no means no” to affirmative consent was accomplished by platitude. The new rule, “yes means yes,” was hailed by its proponents as a great step forward in the protection of women from rape and sexual assault. There was only one problem: no one could enunciate a comprehensible line.

Its proponents didn’t find this to be a problem, since wherever that line was, it was left to them to decide it, before, during or after a sexual contact. As for the other person involved, hey, tough nuggies. Figure it out, and don’t screw up.  For feminists, this was an acceptable answer. For high school students, it was not.

“What does that mean — you have to say ‘yes’ every 10 minutes?” asked Aidan Ryan, 16, who sat near the front of the room.

“Pretty much,” Ms. Zaloom answered. “It’s not a timing thing, but whoever initiates things to another level has to ask.”

Self-styled sex gurus like Laci Green on Youtube can make odd noises and proclaim this “deliciously hot.”

That’s nice, but kids are weird about not buying into phony social manipulation. It’s not hot because some youtuber says so.

“What’s really important to know is that sex is not always super smooth,” she told her 10th graders. “It can be awkward, and that’s actually normal and shows things are O.K.”

The students did not seem convinced.

A student went on to call the requisite dialogue “awkward and bizarre,” but that’s of no importance when the law is being used to compel a cultural shift.  Missing from this fortune cookie rule is the outcome of this lesson in awkwardness.

Well, actually, under a “yes means yes” policy (sometimes referred to as “affirmative consent”), there is no room for awkwardness or unsmoothness. If students don’t follow the policy to the letter at every second (meaning the entire encounter is run like a question-and-answer session) they risk being labeled a rapist. And since sex doesn’t happen like this, every sexual encounter is labeled rape by default.

If the law mandates that high school students be indoctrinated into this new culture, what then are the rules of the game that will save young men from committing, or being accused of, rape?  Is it really a ten minute rule?

“There’s really no clear standard yet — what we have is a lot of ambiguity on how these standards really work in the court of law,” said John F. Banzhaf III, a professor at George Washington University Law School. “The standard is not logical — nobody really works that way. The problem with teaching this to high school students is that you are only going to sow more confusion. They are getting mixed messages depending where they go afterward.”

And if the message isn’t sufficiently confusing and unworkable already, there is the problem that this new “law” of relations isn’t the law.  There has yet to be a single court that has held the affirmative consent standard to be legally viable for college students, the only group to which this currently applies. And even as academics push to make this law generally applicable, it defies comprehensible parameters.

But there is another problem with this government mandated effort to push culture in a feminist direction, one that parents (you remember parents, right?) may not realize at first but creates a direct conflict with what many want their daughters to learn: personal responsibility.

A corollary to affirmative consent is that young women have “agency” and “autonomy,” code words for the entitlement to engage in whatever conduct pops into their heads at any moment, with impunity. They can drink or take drugs, engage in sex if they feel like it, and bear no responsibility for their actions afterward.  They have a right to hook up, and a right to disavow it the next day.

Another bit of fortune cookie wisdom explains why this is the new sexual normal. Anything else is “victim blaming” or “slut shaming,” and that’s wrong.  Except for the fact that it flies in the face of personal responsibility and, given the circumstances, may very well be right. No, the fact that a woman wore sexy clothing does not justify any man in forcing himself on her. But yes, having a drink, lowering inhibitions, and inviting a man to have sex falls squarely on a woman’s shoulders.

So when your daughter explains that sure, she was only too happy to experiment with sex in tenth grade, because, you know, kids, but it’s not her fault, understand that she’s not being dense or irresponsible. It’s what she was taught in school. And the good news is that she got an A in health.