I'm not sure "sex ed" was ever a matter of explaining that Tab A goes in Slot B. If it were just learning the anatomy and physiology of sexual reproduction, you could cover the basics age-appropriately for the middle-schoolers in 25 minutes.
"Sex-ed" has always been making explicit the social expectations. Beyond the diagrams of primary sexual anatomy, we got the expectations spelled out to us in the study of the Ten Commandments, the Sacrament of Matrimony, and the Lives of the Saints. That was Catholic School, 50+ years ago. But it is also how we homes-schooled our sons.
Now, I'm told, the classroom programs are not virtue-centered, it's more a disease-centered curriculum: how to not get a STD and how to responsibly entrust your long-term sexual health to SIECUS and PP. The only positive value is "consent": but you can consent to anything.
Some 40 summers ago I remember a hopeful crew of medical and educational missionaries from Gannon University (a Catholic institution in Erie, PA) spent a month in Afghanistan giving people shots and vitamins, installing water wells with pumps, treating simple infections and enjoying the lamb, naan and pomegranate. The whole Catholic crew were impressed by the warmth and hospitality of their Afghan hosts.
One of the mission group, a 40-ish lady with a PhD in whatever, was shocked to be approached behind the hosts' house by a young Afghan man who kept reaching for and pinching her nipples and her crotch while: "You want... you want..." She kept trying to get away, yelling, "I don't want! I don't want!"
"You WANT!" he insisted, grabbing her by the arm and running his hand over her from upper arm to fingers. He let her go only when someone from the house approached.
She was, of course, pretty shaken. When she explained the situation to the host, he expressed anger at the young assailant but he also shrugged.
"You uncover your arms," he said. "What he supposed to think?"
If it was, we could put everything else under "civilization education."