What is SEX For?

Subscribe: RSS

SEX! What is it for? Brad asks this simple yet complex question on this week’s episode of ‘Brad Stine Has Issues’.

Today were going to talk about sex! Why, because the vast majority of people that have had sex, don’t know what it’s for! Intrigued???? You’re welcome!

Hey, have you ever wondered what sex was for? Of course not, that’s why God invented me.. to answer the questions you’ve never asked!! Do you know what has become the epitome in recreation for post-truth America? Going to the beach, camping, cornhole?

Nope, it appears to be sex!

Conservatives and progressives see sex differently. The purpose of sex from the progressive POV is simply for pleasure! So have you ever considered the fact that humans are the only beings in existence that separate purpose from pleasure? You see the sex for pleasure 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 itself. For example humans find pleasure in eating, yet we never consider the purpose of eating to keep Krispy Kremes doughnuts in business! No the purpose of eating is so you don’t DIE! Some people find pleasure in running which is sick and twisted but who am I to judge? The purpose of running is apparently either for exercise, to catch a train or to flee from someone chasing you with a hammer. Parents find pleasure in watching our kids in a pre-school play even though the PURPOSE of attending the play is to avoid being the target of their therapy sessions when they reach adulthood 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.

But conservatives and progressives see humans differently as well. The progressive sees humans as glorified animals that got too big for their britches and became self -aware. You see animals have sex, by instinct, for one reason only…to make more animals! We have never observed Rhinos in the wild using condoms. This is a problem for neo-darwinists BTW, though they usually have a hard time grasping this, that if evolution was about survival of the species, why are humans constantly trying to have sex W/O HAVING CHILDREN? We want cake w/o the calories. Animal’s instinct is to pro-create whereas humans have a similar desire but can choose to indulge in the act, without the ramifications. Why would we do that? If we were evolved to further the species then why would we try not to, thereby circumventing the evolutionary model?

Interestingly even progressives call this birth-control or reproductive rights so they are admitting that sex makes babies which kind of throws a monkey wrench in the abortion isn’t killing a human debate because even though it is pleasurable even if it hurt we would still do it. It’s the only way babies are made. Otherwise we would run out of new people that could teach us that sex is for pleasure until babies get in the way.

To the sex driven human, babies are the ultimate buzz kill. This is why for time immemorial humans have put restraints on sex yet the progressive’s inability to rank restraint over desire renders them unable to articulate and justify their reasons outside the superficial “it feels right”. What makes the idea of individual desire defining morality is that it becomes problematic when it begins to become mainstream.

Ok, so what differentiates progressive definition of sex with the conservative? The conservative mind, borrowing from Christianity, sees sex as…take a deep breath…holy. It is to be engaged in with much gusto, completely uninhibited and yet it is so important that the only limit to its indulgence God puts on it is that it is designed for only one man and one woman who have promised it to each other for the rest of their lives! But wait, I’m a guy, shouldn’t the rule be as many women as often as possible until I no longer desire it which occurs only when I’m in a coma And even then I’m not positive. Yes my brothers suddenly under those specific 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 creating a child. That’s why you hear metaphorical terms for the act. You have heard of making love but it’s not of course because the love is supposed to be there in the first place so it should be called giving love. How about we slept together. That never made sense because sleeping is the last thing I want to do when sex is a possibility. Maybe it should have been awakening together? The sleeping will come directly afterwards though I promise. The holiness aspect is lost of course on this new secular America that has forgotten our Judeo/Christian ethics that taught us we are made in the image of God so pro-creation is our duty in being fruitful and multiplying more of God’s creation through an act of our own will. It’s supposed to be 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 seek another.

Not quite what the progressive had in mind in his motto “a self absorbed life is not worth living”.

To pretend the temptation for pure hedonism isn’t there for all of us would be un-true but having recreational sex is kinda like making a sled out of a Rembrandt. Sure it’s a thrilling ride down the hill but in the act you’re destroying a masterpiece.

Progressives tell their children that conservatives are repressed when it comes to sex as even Freud considered pretty much every human act motivated by repressed sexuality. But as CS Lewis pointed out, repression is subconscious and there is a difference between repression and suppression, which is the conscience control of ones impulses. The progressive has made an art form out of unlimited behavioral choices and then used their judges to anoint its constitutionality. The Judeo/Christian ethic that our forbearers tried to subscribe to, admittedly if only in theory was this. Either marriage with complete fidelity to your partner or total abstinence. Again Lewis 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 now is, is wrong.

Trust me I am a conservative Christian and yet if suddenly given the go ahead by God for sex anytime, anywhere with anybody I would be first in line at the Caligula interactive display. But I suppress for what I consider a noble commitment to my wife and to provide my daughter what she should expect from a husband. So to the sexually liberated progressive where you will cry MORE CONDOMS, ME AND MINE WILL CRY MORE CHARACTER!! Both notions are protected speech but at least ours doesn’t come with the complimentary vial of penicillin. This is God’s comic join the movement of free speech. PCFree is Liberty!!

Welcome to the New America. Dubbed ‘God’s Comic’ by the New Yorker, for 16-years, Brad Stine has been the comedic trailblazer of politically incorrect, Christian and Conservative comedy. His new show, ‘Brad Stine Has Issues’, covers cultural issues with his signature brand of comedic sarcasm and satire with insight that will be appreciated by everyone who loves laughter, liberty, and the freedom to tell the truth without fear.

Be sure to subscribe to Brad Stine Has Issues’ YouTube Channel so that you don’t miss a moment of Brad’s shenanigans both in front of and behind the scenes!