When I was a kid we didn’t have the option of online sex ed. We got it in dirty magazines like everyone else.

Oh, how the times have changed.

And now, Rep. Justin Fawson, R-North Ogden, is considering legislation to provide sex ed courses online that could be customized for parents.

Fawson is upfront about his motivation: He envisions the online courses as a way for parents to shield their children from information — information that might protect their health, but might also be embarrassing or uncomfortable.

And that’s fine, I suppose. Let parents parent.

But, if it’s done right, Fawson may have inadvertently found a way to crack the never-ending sex-ed debate that has been pricklier than a bad case of herpes. And in the process, we can find a path to strengthening — rather than watering down — our schools’ sex-ed curriculum.

Right now, state law puts a few topics off-limits, basically the “intricacies” of intercourse, advocacy of contraceptive methods and the advocacy of sexual relations outside of marriage.

The taboo topics had included any positive discussion of homosexuality — the “no promo homo” provision — but Equality Utah challenged that ban and the state finally capitulated last month and agreed to drop the discriminatory law.

Still, what students are taught within those parameters varies dramatically. Most Utah school districts have an abstinence-based curriculum, but four districts — Canyons, Jordan, Nebo and Provo — teach abstinence-only.

Even within individual districts, what is taught can diverge, since districts allow schools and even teachers to choose from an array of approved instructional material, some of it thorough and complete, some of it more conservative and restrained.

And, to take it a step further, parents who don’t like what their children are being taught may still opt out of sex ed entirely — although hardly any of them actually do.

So a student in Layton, for example, could get relatively complete information and a student in Lehi could get none.

All of this is a lot of buildup — foreplay, if you will, which, by the way, can’t be taught in classes.

The point is that the Utah Legislature and the State Board of Education could, and should, make the curriculum more uniform and comprehensive — expanding its teaching when it comes to issues like consent, boundaries and rape; talking more about use of contraception and prevention of pregnancy and STDs; and including information on behavior and relationships for lesbian, gay and bisexual students, who experience bullying and three times higher suicide rates.

If districts think those topics go too far — and some certainly will — then they could scale back the courses and let parents voluntarily augment the curriculum with the online lessons.

And if parents, for whatever reason, think the expanded curriculum goes too far, they can still choose from the watered-down modules — the a la carte lessons Fawson envisions. This would create upside would be that there would be reliable, evidence-based and peer-reviewed lessons that parents can rely on.

Granted, online sex ed is not ideal. An important part of the lessons students get is the opportunity to put questions to a qualified professional and develop some level of comfort talking about sexuality, consent and healthy relationships — things that will help students down the road. That would be missing if the lessons are offered online.

But information on human sexuality is a good thing.

While the teen birth rate in Utah is falling and at its lowest point since 1998, the state’s rate of sexually transmitted diseases — chlamydia, gonorrhea, syphilis — are all up and at the highest rate since 2006, according to data from the Utah Department of Health.