Which Is A Better Ride: Minivans or Condoms?

I came across this bottle cap the other day. Made me a bit mad, I'll admit it. Turns out there are all sorts of products you can buy along these lines.

It's all right, dried up little souls. Go ahead and practice your contraceptions. Just...don't hate the players. We're busy doing good work over here, all minivan and no condom.

Lovers and spouses (these are one and the same in my universe, by the way) find that minivans are an unmitigated good, and condoms to be the least of the tools in a toolbox they often don't want around anyway.

Let's compare minivans to condoms.

Those surveyed find that condoms are
1. awkward to get into
2. constricting/no room
3.you can't really feel the road
4. have less responsive handling

Because of these built in problems,
5. your lady is always back-seat driving; the awkward handling makes her nervous.
6. you get to your destination either too early or too late, you never seem to arrive at the right time.

But once you get in a minivan, you find that
1. they are fun to get in and out of, offering sliding side doors, extra handles and holders, unexpected gadgets and a big trunk
2. they do not limit your room
3. they have tight handling
4. they give a smooth ride

What you can see from the outside of the van is crucial as well.
5. your wife likes it big. So you give it to her. It makes her feel safe and cared for.
6. she wants not just quality, but quantity. How many little squirts in one minivan? Oh, wow. Six in one ride.

That's why we own a Honda Oddysey.

And last but not least, minivans have a teleology, while condoms do not. And the minivan owners among us know: tail with telos is always better.

If the van's a-rockin', don't come a-knockin'.


  1. You should start a counter line: "Mini-vans are more fun." I'd wear that, except it's still small time. We outgrew a mini van 3 kids ago. ;)

  2. This is the single most sexual post about mini-vans I have ever seen.

    1. That's saying something, 'cause minivans are pretty sexy.

  3. While I admire your post and the philosophy (and theology) inherent in it, I would like to point out a couple of things: 1. I think the "Condoms prevent minivans" statement is not necessarily aimed toward those who think lovers and spouses are the same, but rather those who think "lover" is not synonymous with "spouse".
    2. Condoms definitely have a very obvious teleology, and I, for one, wish MANY more people would more seriously consider a condom's telos when trying to make a decision about whether or not to use one.

    1. Thanks for reading.

      We use birth control, just fyi. That being said, I have a hard time using the word "teleology" for negation. Purpose and end are not quite the same thing.

  4. Hey, Joffre. I was just thinking: the use of birth control seems to create a glaring paradox when paired with the anthropology you suggest in the article. Would you mind explaining your reasoning? Thanks. - Ross McKnight (now of NOLA).


    1. Truth be told, I saw your interchanges with Craig on the ol' fb! :-) I've gotten a few comments like that. It's definitely worth addressing, I'll try to get to it.

      Your wife is beautiful, be blessed with bounty!

    2. Great! Oh, the Facebook monster. It reveals all our secret mumblings and makes us honest!

  5. I thought this appropriate to our present discussion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQjW_rPIno0&sns=fb

    1. I'd seen this video, very good. What he says about poison is the reason I think that most forms of contraception are misogynistic.

      My general approach is to look at marriage the way Fr Giertych is looking at sex. Marriage must be fruitful, marriage must be loving, etc.

  6. I look forward to your detailed approach!



Post a Comment