To some he's known as the "Messiah of Improv," and a "rebel without a curse." To others he's known as America's Conservative Comedian or simply, Brad Stine. In his latest book, "Live From Middle America: Rants From a Red-State Comedian" he rants against liberalism and political correctness on a number of topics ranging from tobacco use to athiesm. In the following excerpt, Stine talks about how liberals have sex all wrong.

Thanks to liberal relativists, what has become the absolute epitome in recreation for postmodern American now is unequivocally…sex. The very nature of the sexual experience is so powerful and so internally robust that it is used even to sell products that have absolutely nothing to do with sex. Any cursory glance around an auto mechanic's shop is all it takes to confirm this self-evident act. The superior quality of the latest socket wrench kind of becomes muddled when that same wrench is being held by a bikini-clad female posing in a calendar. She may be determined that you use this particular brand of tool, but any guy looking at that calendar who has even noticed that there was a tool involved must be a former member of the Vienna Boys' Choir. Talk about wasting your time. If there's a nearly naked girl involved in your ad, forget about anyone remember your product—it's going to get lost in the shuffle since a guy's libido is easily exploited. 'Course when our liberal society winks and looks the other way, it's essentially making this behavior acceptable. "Boys will be boys" is the name of that marketing game.

That, by the way, is an idiom that has never worked for me because it is so incoherent. There must have been a lot of creativity expended to come up with that little nugget. The highly paid ad agency probably tried out a few other alternatives, things like "Boys will be…cheese?" and thought, Hmmm, maybe not, any other suggestions? Who is writing these pearls of American wisdom? They make even Yogi Berra sound like Keats.

But once the liberal mind-set decided that a urine-filled jar containing a crucifix was art, pornography somehow assumed an equal place in the ideology that nothing is sacred, including the sacred. And yet, whether we like it or not, pornography seems here to stay because it represents big money, which used to be the liberal's main target of injustice until the liberal got a piece of the action and justified it as another wonderful example of what the First Amendment was intended for. I'm sure most of the Founding Fathers envisioned a day when women in handcuffs and leather masks would be marched around by a man in a Little Bo Peep outfit wielding a whip as a way of celebrating exactly what a democracy stood for.

Now conservatives and liberal mind-sets even see sex different. The purpose of sex from the liberal POV is to have pleasure. The problem is, that presupposition is wrong. There are many things our bodies find pleasurable, but the pleasure is a wonderful by-product to the actual purpose of the act. We find pleasure in eating, yet we don't consider the purpose of eating to be able to keep Krispy Kreme Doughnuts in business. No, the purpose of eating is so that you don't die! Some people find pleasure in running though its purpose is to exercise, catch something, or flee from someone chasing you with a two-by-four. We find pleasure in watching our kids in preschool play even though the purpose of attending the play is to avoid being brought up in their therapy sessions when they're adults and are lamenting that their parents never showed up to watch their interpretation of a rutabaga in their "Tribute to Funny-Sounding Vegetables" school play extravaganza. The inability of the liberal mind to rank restraint over desire renders them unable to articulate their reasons for their positions beyond, "It feels right." What makes the idea of individual desire defining morality is that is becomes problematic when it begins to become mainstream.

The conservative mind sees sex as…take a deep breath…holy. It is to be engaged in with full force, uninhibitedly, and with great gusto, but it is so important that the only limit is its indulgence is that it is designed for one man and one woman who have promised it to no one else for the rest of their lives.

Suddenly, under those conditions, sex isn't sex for the sake of sex, but an act of giving love at its most intimate all the while creating the possibility of having a child. Remember, the Judeo-Christian ethic states that we are made in the image of God, and so procreation is our way of being fruitful and multiplying more of God's creation through an act of our own will. It is a celebration of the privilege God entrusted us with and, consequently, it comes with a perimeter and a price, as all privileges do. God considered it so important to the order of things as to demand that we love our lover to such an extreme that we promise never to leave them or to seek another. Not quite what the liberal had in mind in his view of a life self-absorbed.

To pretend that the temptation for pure hedonism isn't there would be untrue, but it's a little like making a sled out of a Rembrandt—sure, it's a fun ride down the hill, but in the act, you're destroying a masterpiece. Liberals have taught our children that conservatives are repressed when it comes to sex and don't value it the way they do, yet even Freud considered pretty much every human act motivated by repressed sexuality. But as C.S. Lewis pointed out, repression is subconscious, and there is the conscious control of one's impulses. The liberal has made an art form out of unlimited behavioral choices and then used their judges to claim its constitutionality.

The Judeo-Christian ethic that our forebears tried to subscribe to, admittedly if only in theory, was this: "Either marriage with complete faithfulness to your partner or total abstinence." Again, Lewis's brilliant analysis was summed up by stating this type of disciplined expectation regarding our sexual urges is so "difficult and so contrary to our instinct that either the rule is wrong or our sexual instinct, as it is now is, has gone wrong."

I am a conservative Christian, and yet, if given the go-ahead by God for sex anytime, anywhere, with anybody, I would be first in line at the Caligula memorial interactive display. But I suppress for what I consider a noble commitment to my wife, and to provide my daughter with an example of what she should expect from a husband. So, I say to the sexually "liberated" liberal American, where you will cry, "More condoms," me and mine will cry, "More character." Both notions are protected speech, but at least ours comes without the complimentary vial of penicillin.

more from beliefnet and our partners
Close Ad