Kaiser: Keeping it real: Media should set realistic expectations

In case you were too busy following the government shutdown or examining the intricacies of Obamacare this past fall, you might have missed the latest pornography news: In November, a ballot stating that porn stars had to wear condoms in films made in Los Angeles County passed with a 56 percent majority, and just last week, an administrative law judge ruled that condoms are mandatory for all adult films made in California.

Obviously, the porn industry is upset. They are complaining that this new law adds unnecessary expenses to an already financially precarious field and that the law infringes on their First Amendment right to free speech, to express fantasies in any facet they see fit. As a result, many adult studios have moved to Las Vegas to circumvent the law, but there is already concern that the law will spread to Sin City, as well, which is fine by me.

Aside from the fact that adult performers are eight to 15 times more likely to contract a sexually transmitted disease than your average person and all the other social, humanitarian and feminist issues surrounding porn stars, I find it problematic that condoms are considered unsexy, that a pornographic escapist fantasy could never be successful because you added a piece of rubber into the mix. We have to realize that adult films oftentimes are not watched by adults, but by teens holed up in their bedrooms with chairs wedged under their doorknobs. What we’re showing them is that the only cool way to have sex is without protection — not true.

Our country could use a good dose of realism in its media. Sex isn’t always sexy. It’s not always full of candles, rose petals and black lace. It can be messy and awkward and just flat-out weird. We romanticize sex and it distorts our expectations.

Realism isn’t always bad for entertainment. Look at MTV’s “Teen Mom,” which is the follow-up show to “16 and Pregnant” and shows the girls’ struggles to balance both the roles of teenager and mother. A study recently released by the University of Maryland and Wellesley College found that the two MTV shows were partly behind plummeting teen birth rates in the United States. MTV makes money, teens learn how stressful life is with a child and everyone walks away happy. Score one for reality TV.

So if you’re going to show people, specifically teens, excessive amounts of unprotected sex, at least show them the consequences, as well. What’s happening off-camera is that porn stars are contracting STDs and then losing their jobs because of it, but producers are too busy marketing sex as carefree to bother with any of that.

I’m not saying that everything in the media has to be moralistic and preachy and show the worst-case scenario for every poor decision. What I am saying is that we need to set more realistic expectations in the media because we’re creating unattainable standards that benefit nobody except for the companies that are padding their pockets at our expense. Adding condoms to porn is a great way to start with these realistic ideals.

Some companies are going out of their way to stay grounded. Take Aerie’s new modeling campaign, for example. The campaign, called Aerie Real, features a cast of totally un-photoshopped models with the tagline “the real you is sexy.” American Eagle, the parent company of the underwear line, noticed that there was something fundamentally wrong with the expectations we were setting for girls and wanted to show more realistic representations. Not everyone’s stomach is perfectly flat, and cellulite isn’t just something you see on overweight people. Aerie’s campaign isn’t a new idea — Dove launched their Campaign for Real Beauty back in 2004 — but this unfiltered realism is something we need to see more of, especially when targeting teens.

These poor representations of reality affect all demographics, however — not just teenagers. HBO’s show “Girls,” starring Lena Dunham and produced by Judd Apatow, is controversial for several reasons, one of which is the amount of skin and lack of clothes that Dunham often flaunts. When a reporter said to Dunham, “I don’t get the purpose of all of the nudity on the show. … Your character is often naked just at random times for no reason,” she smartly responded, “It’s because it’s a realistic expression of what it’s like to be alive, I think, and I totally get it.” Dunham is not the most fit or beautiful starlet in Hollywood, but it is her uncut rawness that brings a new edge to TV. Most of us are a whole lot more similar to Dunham than we are to Blake Lively and her Serena van der Woodsen “Gossip Girl” persona, so why are we afraid and repulsed of this honest representation of humanity when it’s on TV? Why does it make us so uncomfortable?

There’s something very problematic about the way we portray reality in the media. It’s warped and twisted, melted down and sculpted into something that only vaguely resembles what we know as reality. Reality can be just as fun and sexy as all this fakeness implies, but we’re blinded to it because we’re so used to things that aren’t real, that don’t exist.

It’s not going to change overnight, but I applaud every step in the right direction. Bring on the crying babies of teenage families, the muffin tops, girls showing up to parties in sneakers and, of course, condoms in the porn industry. Life doesn’t get much more real than all that.

Write to Channing at clk87@pitt.edu.