If kids are with you right now, be warned, I’m going to talk about sex. Not graphically, but honestly. You may or may not want your youngsters to see this.

I came across a story about my alma mater, the University of Southern California. A lot of people don’t know this, but USC is a private school. My parents preferred I attend there rather than one of the public schools like UCLA or UC Santa Barbara, because they thought I’d be safer from indoctrination and receive an education that was less liberal. That was marginally true then. I doubt there’s a difference anymore.

Anyway, this year, in order to register for spring courses at USC, students were required to complete a training course. In it, they were asked to disclose the number of sexual encounters they have had over the past three months. It wanted to know how often they are having sex, with how many people, whether or not they used a condom and whether they are using drugs or alcohol. The course then proceeds to teach students that before future sexual encounters they should ask their potential partner for consent with questions like, “how far would you be comfortable going?” or “would you like to try this with me?”

Many students thought the questions were a bit intrusive and were uncomfortable taking the test. But students were instructed they must complete the training. After February 9th, their registration would be put on hold until they completed it. In other words: It’s mandatory. The campus-wide email informing students of this requirement also assured students they would “enjoy the assignment” and that it is in line with “our shared belief that Trojans care for Trojans.”

The course is created to comply with Title IX and to deal with the issue of sexual assault on campus. It teaches students to look for signs that someone might not want sex like “crossing arms” or “lack of eye contact” and to remember that only verbal signs indicate a person does want it. It also warns that a person who has had too much to drink cannot give consent for sex.

Later the course encourages students to “challenge gender stereotypes” and question “traditional thinking” about these things, suggesting “traditional thinking” does not endorse ideas of freedom and equality.

I wish universities across America were a bit more traditional in their thinking about premarital sex and wouldn’t communicate to students “we assume you are engaging in this.” I get that colleges want to prepare students for unwanted sexual advances and that there’s also an atmosphere on campuses where young men can have their lives ruined with accusations of sexual assault. I get that kids need to be warned about all this.

But, a much better course would be one that is more informative and complete. One that teaches the real benefits of saving sex for marriage.