To the Editor,
Did you feel that there was a dearth of publications that approach sex with a sensationalistic bent now that the Generations charter was suspended?
The article about WNYAmeriCorp's work with Extreme Home Makeover was interesting. And the sports section was well done. The opinion page featured a timely call to take illnesses seriously by Stephen Marth. I doubt too many people read those articles though. Judging by how many issues are still in the newsstands on this Tuesday, more than I've ever seen before.
Sexuality is a wonderful thing, and it's a fine attribute of humanity that the process to create more people starts with a pleasing act that can emotionally bond two people. Great. It is not news. It is perhaps the oldest aspect of humanity. I will grant that not everything that The Spectrum publishes needs to be news. But it was so inconsistent in quality and goal. There was the special
edition, and The Spectrum as usual, thrown together. The edition read like a disorganized joke. And it was not very funny.
For instance: the information given about sexuality at one point was indiscernible from a (poorly written) print ad for Trojan. The article on sex toys sounds as if the author had heard of Fleshlights for the first time. "Five senses, Five Pleasures" read like a column in Cosmopolitan. I don't consider any of those topics offensive, but there is something to be said for if you're going to do something, you might as well do it right. Fortunately you published Adrian Finch's section in the opinion page, because certainly such a gross exaggeration of gender norms cannot be taken seriously. And I cannot take the article on sex-related careers seriously. More thoughtful pieces of work, like Shane Fallon's article on gay relationships, were lost in the title (Legend of the gay relationship?
Really?) or, like Stephanie Cohen's article on STIs, were lost in the poor quality of the remaining issue.
Written at the top was, "Coming up with topics that matter to you in the world of sex was pretty difficult". I agree - you did it poorly. Perhaps some articles about sexual violence (which affects 1 in 3 women, and one in six men according to RAINN) would be timely given the recent Take Back the Night, or about birth control methods (which is a huge concern for any heterosexual partaking in
sexual intercourse), stigma related to sexual activity or about the scripts relating to sexual expectations that plague men and women ... instead of an opinion column that assumes these scripts are fact. Those arguments about sex may not be about innate differences between men and women but the sexual expectations levied on each of them. I could go on. But these are difficult topics to explore, whereas sex toys just take an internet search. Had The Spectrum attempted these topics, it would have been an impressive issue. The Spectrum took the easy way out.
The cover image was particularly awful. If I want pornography, I'll go to Google. That image is of sex at its most banal, and most clichéd. It is my suspicion that the cover is the reason for the aforementioned low readership this issue. Sure it grabbed attention of those who walked by. And I emphasize "walk by" - many people were simply too embarrassed to pick it up. I realize the models were wearing underwear – you can see it in the picture despite the efforts of the models to hide this. It's a fake designed to shock people. For what purpose?
Sexuality is a gift that humanity has, but it deserves consistent respect. At least if the organization that publishes it wishes to command the respect of its readership.
Sincerely,
Christine Slocum
Graduate Student
