On Sunday, November 1, 2020 at 2:54:07 PM UTC-6, Ophelia wrote:
> "Bruce" wrote in message ...
> 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?
> >
> >===
> >
> > That word was never used by our Nuns!
>
> Nor by mine
> =====
>
> Ahaa! you had them too?

You're not supposed to *have* the nuns. You're not supposed to even think
about having the nuns. Even the priests aren't supposed to think about
having the nuns. Girls and women are not supposed to have sex except
within marriage.

You know why priests can so easily be against abortion. It's because boys
can't be impregnated.

--Bryan