I don't get USA Today (take that in all its meanings). So I shouldn't be surprised that I hadn't heard about the sexuality insert in the newspaper that went out to readers this past weekend, until I was sent a copy of the pdf in an email from Petra Boynton. The insert (which you can access here) was produced by a company called Mediaplanet in collaboration with Laura Berman, sexual self-help author and host of her own television show on Oprah's new network.
Petra sent the link suggesting it would be interesting to consider what they chose to include and not include in a publication that would be for many, an introduction to the idea of sexual and reproductive health. Which is what I did, and where things got depressing.
Based on what they choose to cover, you'd think that the greatest challenge American women have in terms of sexual and reproductive health is low desire and infertility. As opposed to, say, lack of access to birth control options, honest and safe abortion counseling and services, lack of support around domestic violence, or the disparities in sexual and reproductive health that run along race and class lines that are literally KILLING women. I know it would be hard to sit in a chair and smile while talking about most of those topics, but isn't that what Photoshop is for?
It's not that low desire and infertility aren't important topics, ones that have a huge impact on women's experience of sexual and reproductive health. It's just that if you're given an opportunity to address such a broad audience, and this is how you choose to begin the conversation, well, it becomes clear where your priorities are and who you're really interested in talking to. Suggesting that you are starting a national dialogue (as the cover promises) when in fact you're delivering just another piece of advertising nestled into familiar tales about female sexuality, is, to use a word I'm at risk of overusing, disingenuous.
Each piece reads like a press release. Viagra, we're told, is a panacea for men (if that's true, how come almost half of them never use it after the first prescription?). Women, we're told, are in control of how much sex happens in the bedroom. Men, we're told, always want sex. Sex, we're told, happens in the bedroom. I could go on, except why waste your time. Just pick up any women's magazine and you'll find the same content, except it might be better written, depending on the writer and editor. Speaking of which, and adding to the waste, there are plenty of great journalists writing about sexual and reproductive health. And most of them could use the work. Couldn't they at least have paid them?
My first response to all of this was to think, well, at least they're providing some information to the audience their advertisers want, rich white women. But it's hardly doing them any good either, and rich white women deserve access to sexual and reproductive health as much as any of us.
I can't decide if my New Years resolution should be to never pick up USA Today, or just to stop opening emails from Petra Boynton.
It sounds like Corey has some anger issues, little to write about and some unresolved sexual issues himself. He just seems so angry over an insert……
Corey, I hope you don’t take Sam’s comment as typical of those of us who read your columns regularly.
I agree that catering to the female audience shutters sexual health information for men entirely (I won’t get into the reproductive aspect of this, for reasons I’ll make clear soon. Men have as much desire to be sexually healthy as women, and there are sufficient enough reasons for them to be concerned as well.
Now as for me, I’d like to see a lot more mainstream media coverage of this ilk (they’ll put it out anyway!!) for LGBT folk like myself. If there are ways to ward off STDs for those of us who enjoy – yea, relish – our manly cohorts, then they ought to be publicized!
Anyway…keep up the good work, Corey. I enjoy USA Today for a number of reasons, and I didn’t get this insert anyway, but I feel what you’re saying all the way.