You can be skeptical and friendly at the same time.
Follow Patheos Atheist:
Or else the kids suffer:
Do it for the children.
(via Spaceboy Productions)
Hemant Mehta is the editor of Friendly Atheist, appears on the Atheist Voice channel on YouTube, and co-hosts the uniquely-named Friendly Atheist Podcast. You can read much more about him here.
I can not tell if this was a joke or not. Someone, please clarify this.
Men and women fucking while making a public service announcement to encourage fucking, and you don’t know if it’s a joke.
In all fairness, it captured the Catholic Church’s attitude almost perfectly. Except for any implied fornication, that is.
That’s what I was thinking. Send it to one of the Catholic bloggers.
The Catholic church regards practices that prevent the conception and birth of children as akin to killing children. This vid just takes it – about half a step further – to its logical conclusion.
Does the Church regard those practices in that way? Can you give us a reference for that?
You need a reference showing that the Catholic Church is against condoms and abortions? I’m chuckling.
No – a reference that gives the reason the Church is against contrsaception as “because condoms prevent children from being born.” Shouldn’t be too hard to do – several people have claimed that. Is it just an atheist echo chamber or is that opinion actualy based on anything factual.
Brave free-thinking free-from-the-ignorance-of-religion atheists wouldn’t make a factual claim without evidence, now would they?
Frankly, any other reason would be even dumber. So I’m actually giving them some credit.
Why, in your learned opinion, does the Catholic church disapprove of condom usage? Aesthetics?
The Pill Kills is a CATHOLIC site run by the AMERICAN LIFE LEAGUE which is a CATHOLIC organization. According to the Roman Criminal Church, I am a serial killer because I use an IUD which irritates the lining of my uterus and disallows fertilized eggs from implanting themselves…The eggs DIE a gruesome death, a death by starvation, and I’m plumb tired of all the fake crying I do in public for my fertilized eggs.
It’s not not a joke.
If you can’t tell whether this was a joke, you should probably get off the internet immediately before you cause damage.
This might seem like an overly negative response, but I will not not not have kids.
I would love to, but my potential partners are in New York and Denmark, and I’m in Arkansas.
Would that mean there is an available cousin….yeah, yeah, I know, tasteless joke. I deserve all the down votes.
Not for me. All my family is in Texas.
Yeah, I’m in Texas. So that means the cousins are cuter…but not the sharpest tools in the shed….
Yeah, mine are in Massachusetts, Detroit, Chicago, and I can’t remember where the other one lives. Makes it tough. You can’t text unprotected sex, after all.
I would gladly have sex with the woman in the blue blouse.
Oh, look. A down vote for finding a woman sexually attractive in a video that talks about having sex. Seems someone needs to get laid and not take everything so fucking serious.
Then I shall bestow upon you an upvote, dear Sir. For I too find some of those actors quite attractive.
The guy was pretty hot too!!!
Yes, a woman talked about sex in a video meant to criticize religious attitudes about birth control. That clearly means it’s just peachy for you to make it all about how you want to have sex with her. If I had a Disqus account, I’d give you downvote, too.
You didn’t know that any time a woman talks about sex, that pretty much means she’s open for business? I thought everybody knew that…
Somehow, I don’t think the folks making this video would be surprised if someone thought about having sex with them after a parody about having sex, ya know, for the children and all, and then ACTING OUT the sex act.
Lord forbid a male find a female sexually attractive but we can’t have that in the atheist community. No sir, we must walk around on egg shells.
It’s hardly “walking on eggshells”. If you don’t want to be part of a civilized society, that’s not my problem.
Wow…that sounds like a rather imperialistic argument. Gotta invade those lands so we can bring civilization to those uncivilized folk!!! Yeah…I suspect I don’t want any part of your “civilized” society. Adding, thinking women are attractive does not equal viewing them as objects. I’m quite sure a good number of female atheist feminists will tell you that (pretty sure Amanda Marcotte has said about as much over at Pandagon).
She was bouncing up and down saying she was having sex right now. It must really suck not to have a sense of humor.
It must really suck not to be able to refrain from commenting on who you’d like to bang and to mistake that for a sense of humor.
Because the proper response to someone talking about sex is to totes talk about how fuckable they are, not about the subject of the talk.
Fucking is pretty much the topic of the video so yes, it is.
I’m sorry, but I must disagree.
I thought the brunette in the white sweater was much more attractive. Alas, if I did have sex with her there would never be children.
I know! She looks like Eliza Dushku.
All of those countries having sex it’s very scary.
Anyone else wish they could get 1:38 minutes of their life back?
You kidding? I’d have sex or not sex with all of them singly or in multiples.
meh, I probably would too, but I would hope the sex would be better than what I thought the video was. Maybe film that, and then I could find something to laugh at. I’m sure it’s the camera’s fault my ass always looks too big; it has to be a riot in the nude.
Everytime I have sex.
Great video. It compelled me to visit the accompanying website and ask for more info on obtaining my Procreate Action Kit. I suppose that makes it a great not not success.
Australians not having sex! Nooooooo…..
I had sex in St Louis once. So there, Missouri!
I don’t know if I should be proud my State was mentioned, or not. Probably not.
I was born in missouri….how did that happen???
Well, you know that there isn’t a 100% fail-proof method…
Wait, born in Missouri. Are you sure you were conceived there?
You know, that’s what really sold the video for me. The timing on that was fantastic.
LOL! Might be a fallacy or three in there, but it’s funny.
What’s a fallacy or three between friends when we’re bagging Christian views on sex, right? Actually knowing what one’s arguing against? Pshaw, who needs it?
is this for real!? wow…
I’m not sure of the point of this video. Is it spoofing birth control? Also the woman with the fake yellow hair needs to do something with it. It looks glued to her head. The guys are too young for me, besides, I’m infertile now.
I got a spoof of people who want to restrict birth control. There could have been more emphasis on the “unprotected” bit, but basically it takes the lunacy of never using birth control to its logical extreme. If using a condom is wrong because it prevents a baby from being born, than abstinence (the birth control that religious people do endorse) is wrong for the same reason.
Sure – but who says using a condom is wrong because it prevents a baby from being born? Who apart from Monty Python I mean.
The hardcore religious view of sex is that it’s sacred only when procreation within the marriage is a possibility, and absolutely filthy when it isn’t. That’s what my parents raised me on.
Hm. So that’s one view. Not the Catholic view.
Actually, I was raised Roman Catholic, and my mother is one of Francis’s biggest fans.
Sure. See my comment above.
Sure – but who says using a condom is wrong because it prevents a baby from being born?
Pope Paul VI issued his landmark encyclical letter Humanae Vitae (Latin, “Human Life”), which reemphasized the Church’s constant teaching that it is always intrinsically wrong to use contraception to prevent new human beings from coming into existence.Contraception is “any action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act [sexual intercourse], or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” (Humanae Vitae 14). This includes sterilization, condoms and other barrier methods, spermicides, coitus interruptus (withdrawal method), the Pill, and all other such methods.
Pope Paul VI issued his landmark encyclical letter Humanae Vitae (Latin, “Human Life”), which reemphasized the Church’s constant teaching that it is always intrinsically wrong to use contraception to prevent new human beings from coming into existence.
Contraception is “any action which, either in anticipation of the conjugal act [sexual intercourse], or in its accomplishment, or in the development of its natural consequences, proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible” (Humanae Vitae 14). This includes sterilization, condoms and other barrier methods, spermicides, coitus interruptus (withdrawal method), the Pill, and all other such methods.
It appears the RCC “says using a condom is wrong because it prevents a baby from being born.” Are you actually pretending that’s not their view? Really, Emmet? What, are you looking for some magic words or something?
Edit: I was, of course, assuming you were Catholic, Emmet. You’re obviously not, otherwise you would have known that.
If you are Catholic, you would simply be a lying disingenuous fucking troll. No popes have issued any encyclicals against trolling, as far as I know, so you’re ok with that.
a. Just because a website has “Catholic” in the url doesn’t meant it’s authoritative Church teaching. But, being a clever atheist, you knew that already, and would hesitate to cite any website, just because it has “Catholic” in the title, to prove your point.
b. Read “Humanae Vitae”. The letter, not someone else’s interpretation of it. But you knew already to always go to the source, not a secondary piece of writing – being an intelligent free-thinking child of the 20th century, you knew that, right?
c. The Church doesn’t say that condoms are wrong because they prevent a child being born. You’re the one making the claim that something exists – ie, that this is the teaching of the Church – so prove it – give me a citation.
Otherwise you’re the troll.
d. Take a breath and save your f-words for when they’re actually necessary.
Fucking, while fun, is futile unless family follows: Findings which front a flavor of funky fraternal flair are foisted upon frauleins to foment a falsely frenzied fetus function.
Sure. Except that the teaching of the Church is that it’s OK to have sex even if no baby is conceived – indeed, even if a couple know at any given time that their combined fertility is nought and that it’s basically impossible for conception to occur that day.
i know, making an argument against what the Church actually teaches instead of what the internets say the Church teaches! Fancy that!
Well, that’s an…interesting reading of Casti Connubii. (It’s cute you keep redirecting to Humanae Vitae, but I know what’s up ;).
[...A]ny use whatsoever of matrimony exercised in such a way that the act is deliberately frustrated in its natural power to generate life is an offense against the law of God and of nature, and those who indulge in such are branded with the guilt of a grave sin.
But wait! You must be referring to this:
[...]Nor are those considered as acting against nature who in the married state use their right in the proper manner although on account of natural reasons either of time or of certain defects, new life cannot be brought forth. For in matrimony as well as in the use of the matrimonial rights there are also secondary ends, such as mutual aid, the cultivating of mutual love, and the quieting of concupiscence which husband and wife are not forbidden to consider so long as they are subordinated to the primary end and so long as the intrinsic nature of the act is preserved.
That little bolded part is a serious issue for your liberal, freewheeling interpretation of sexual ethics! I mean, it was blindingly obvious then that Pius XI was merely talking about when married peoples’ parts naturally expire. I do like how Paul VI weaseled family planning through the “rhythm method” back in later through the same narrow door, though it wasn’t enough to stop the Western Church from wandering off the reservation.
Something does confuse me, though, that maybe you could help with; the encyclicals were unrevealing. I understand that it is the decided teaching of the Church that the primary purpose of matrimonial sex is the creation of life, and that while there are secondary purposes which are grudgingly important too, the primary purpose is primary. Condoms (and hormone pills, diaphragms, et al.) are evil frustrators of that primary purpose because they are tools made by humans to subvert its primacy in favor of some of those secondary (or even, [gasp], tertiary *sinful*) purposes.
Natural law and all that. Here’s where I’m stuck: in what sense, precisely, is a condom an evil artificial affront to the primary sexual purpose, when used, but a calendar is a perfectly natural and even encouraged way to achieve the exact same end? Why are hormones unclean but mucus sample swabs kosher? The Rhythm Method: They even have an app for that.
What’s the magical x-factor that makes some artificial, human created technologies perfectly fine to use to prevent pregnancy, but makes others anathema? Why calendars and cell phones and cotton swabs but not rubber sheaths and cervical caps and hormones?
Maybe they need a new encyclical.
You should get extra up votes for the time you put in understanding his little philosophical masturbation exercise.
Except that the teaching of the Church is that it’s OK to have sex even if no baby is conceived – indeed, even if a couple know at any given time that their combined fertility is nought and that it’s basically impossible for conception to occur that day.
Awesome! So contraceptives, including condoms, are okay with the church, then, right? No?
If not, why not? That’s what you’ve been refusing to say for close to a dozen posts. It can’t be because they’re, you know, contraceptives, despite what legions of other Catholics say about it, because you, random anonymous catholic troll on teh internetz, said that’s wrong.
However, I’ll just have assume that it’s correct, and you acquiesce to being a fucking liar when you don’t give an actual explanation as to why the church thinks condoms are bad.
Funny you should fall upon the letter F for your facilely futile alliterative efforts:
Catholic thinking on marriage and sex can be summed up by saying that a person is meant to give themself to their spouse freely, fully, faithfully and fruitfully.
Stop. Stop right there. Giving yourself fully to your spouse? GROSS! Do you want me to go into detail as to what the comely Rhythm/Billings/Creyton Method implies? Now, I admit that I’ve done kinky stuff in my past but NOTHING like the Rhythm Method. EWWWWWW!!!! Let’s talk about the grotesque Catholic agenda, the one that instructs that you please keep your mouth shut and blindly believe in the same bitter God as everyone else, and by the way please bury your true sexuality and get married at 23 and pop out six kids and become quickly and quietly miserable and gain 30 pounds and stop having sex entirely and get divorced at 50 and wake up just in time to watch yourself die. Gross.
What? I mean… what?
Fuck you, fucking rude, arrogant shit-for-brains. Every fucking one of my fucking words are completely fucking necessary to fucking accurately express myself, Trolly McTrollerson. Take your medication if you feel dizzy when assaulted by “naughty words.” Make sure you have your fainting couch ready, too.
Then why are condoms wrong? You’ve failed to explain that. Or are you saying that they’re fine and dandy, according to the church?
You have three options:
1) Condoms are bad, m’kay, because they’re contraceptives,
2) Condoms are bad for some other reason which you have utterly failed or refused to elucidate in your little game of Catholic “Nuh-uh!”, or
3) Condoms are fine and dandy.
So just save your fucking (yes, the word “fuck” and its iterations are appropriate here, I know your delicate Catholic constitution feels assaulted) childish games of “nope, haven’t found my reasoning, yet, and I’m not going to tell! I win!” and fucking explain your one True Catholic (TM) interpretation of condom use.
Adding to what Kellen has said, I found the rebuttals to be aimed at abortion arguments as well, especially the parts about Oliver and “killing a child.”
Funny, you never see Joe Klein not not having sex…
And I for one am very glad of that.
You had to give people the image.
Bleh, pass me the syrup of ipecac!
Uh… not having kids is a very good thing in today’s world. The human cancer needs to be checked. That said, there are effective ways of avoiding children that don’t involve not having sex!
As a lesbian I feel deeply Offended and Erased. … …… No, I don’t. I’m laughing my ass off.
I will! Er… I won’t!! Oh, I’m so confused!!
ABSTINENCE IS MURDER!
You know, I used a very similar argument against someone standing next to one of those giant signs with an aborted fetus on it, so everyone walking past it had to see it. I didn’t get to the part where I discussed implications, though.
Follow Patheos on