Is the media portraying sex in the right way?

STAFF EDITORIAL

Sex. These three little letters cover a whole lot of ground.

It seems as if no matter where you go in the world of media, sex follows you. It’s prevalent in everything in media, from sideline reporters to suddenly-desperate housewives, from commercials to the race for president.

And we’re lusting for more.

You read right, we’re calling for more sex in media. For the sake of the children.

That’s not to say that we favor more of the current depictions of sex rampant in the  media today. Icons like Erin Andrews, Wisteria Lane, Amp Energy Drink’s “Walk of No Shame” and “Naylin’ Palin” have invaded crevices of media once thought uncorruptable. Like the more egregious forms of pre-packaged sex they present a pure, emotional, spiritual act as plastic and formulaic, worthy of being bought and sold by an all-too-eager public.

These trite, banal symbols of sex used as a marketing tool have clouded the morals of college students at an alarming rate. How many teenage girls took Stacy Hamilton’s views on virginity seriously during “Fast Times at Ridgemont High”? How many teenage boys wrote off “the girl next door” because she didn’t act like Danielle from “The Girl Next Door”?

Real sex rarely reaches the silver screen and that is damaging to our society. Nobody seems to have to bother with birth control or controlling their orgasm. The sheets are never messed up, nor are their feelings. As for the kids, well, we all know that married couples don’t have sex anyway.

The version of sex that you see in the media revolves around hard bodies and careful scripts.

The orgasms are timely, clean and marked only by a sudden end to motion. They are supposed to signify either the high-water mark or the powerful finish to any relationship and never a wasted effort.

This is, obviously, rarely the case. When sex is amazing, it’s usually spontaneous, unrestrained and filthy. When sex is bad, it’s weird, awkward and painful. Usually, it’s somewhere between funny, humbling and amazing.

With such pitiful symbols in media, it’s no wonder that sex has been deprived of its meaning in society. How can we fault 69 percent of the men who took our survey for not being tested for STDs when men in the media never seem to have to bother with a condom, much less a pee-cup? How can we question the confusion over what constitutes “second base” when television characters seem to hit home runs every time they come up to bat?

Let’s get sex on television and movies the way that we know it, the way that our surveys show it. Let’s show the pull-out method, lonely masturbation scenes, Adderall-poppers, confused feelings between friends-with-benefits and trust versus lust.

We want more sex on television that properly conveys the complexity behind the very natural act. Let’s see the glory of two responsible people in both love and lust clumsily tearing at each other after a hard day at work on the same channel as the bums replicating Paris Hilton, apparently trying out for “America’s Next Top Punchline.”

Sex is a word that means a lot of different things to different people. Some hold that sex is an entirely emotional idea that can only be shared by married couples. Others say that it should only be used to procreate. Still others take a completely different view, believing that sex is devoid of emotion.

Whatever your beliefs, it’s best that they come through your own personal experiences. Because of its role in our society as a teacher, we believe it is best for media to show more realistic depictions of sex.