On Sunday, November 1, 2020 at 12:28:19 PM UTC-6, Bruce wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Nov 2020 14:20:36 -0000, "Ophelia" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >"Bruce" wrote in message ...
> >
> >On Fri, 30 Oct 2020 14:14:17 -0400, Dave Smith
> > wrote:
> >
> >>On 2020-10-30 1:00 p.m., U.S. Janet B. wrote:
> >>
> >>> I don't see how the current U.S. population benefited from classes
> >>> that included sex. ed. , drugs, dating, etc., It seems to me that
> >>> young people were capable of finding out about stuff like that all by
> >>> themselves.
> >>
> >>Sex ed is probably a good idea for kids raised in families where stuff
> >>like that is never discussed. OTOH, it should only be taught by people
> >>who are capable of being honest about. My friend went to Catholic
> >>schools and was disgusted by the priest who taught sex ed and told his
> >>class that a girl can get pregnant by holding onto a boy's penis for 10
> >>seconds.
> >
> >Are you saying that's not true?
> >
If the girls were satisfying the boys, they would be usurping the role of the
priests.
> >
> > That word was never used by our Nuns!

Nuns try not to thing about penises. Again, that's the role of the priests.
>
> Nor by mine

If you ask a priests whether he spits or swallows, he is likely to become
offended. I mean, the semen of young boys is sacred to them. They'd
as soon spit out a communion wafer.

--Bryan