My boyfriend goes to K-State (I know, I know, boo on him) and as such, reads the K-State newspaper, the Collegian, regularly. He told me about this article that appeared in Monday, February 4's edition of the paper on page 7. Headline: Pleasures of anal sex outweigh potential health risk.
Basically, the writer, Matt Combes, goes into great detail about the safety issues involved with anal, and then talks about the best methods to act this out. He doesn't hesitate to admit that he is gay, and is a sexual-health educator. He is also very candid in his description of the safest way to go about doing this. My favorite line reads: "...buy a large stock in a lube company because you are going to be using a lot. I suggest brands with numbing agents to help your partner along." So, how is this stepping outside the box for him, or pushing the envelope as a journalist might say? Actually, it would probably be going farther in his envelope.
I was personally shocked that an article like this got put into the Kansas State University newspaper, or any collegiate newspaper for that matter. Manhattan residents are known to be quite conservative, so I don't see this article being very popular among the masses. But beyond that, I don't think this article would be very popular anywhere. Even though one may not be fully knowledgeable about what makes a good news story in college, most people have a general idea, and this is not it. How the editors of this paper thought that a story educating the public about anal sex was a worthy, let alone acceptable, topic is truly beyond me. It seems to me that an article promoting safe sex is still promoting sex, and if I'm not mistaken, most people still think that sex is a private matter, whether or not one is engaging in it.
My big issue with this article is this: why do we need to read about something that most people consider a personal issue in a journalism venue that is supposed to be for "youth" aged 18-24 when most people already know the information that was written anyway and choose rarely to talk and never to write about? Is this really appropriate? Is it "good journalism"?