If you are looking for the cutting edge, you won't find it in Boink. The photography is of pretty people in a tropical setting in various combinations. It's fun and sexy and softcore, but it's not breaking any boundaries.
The "real college kids" angle is not fully realized. It doesn't convey the reality of college sex - at least in appearances. The writing is more successful, but hard to navigate. The table of contents does not tell you whether a piece of writing is fiction or non-fiction. On one hand, that means that it all COULD be real. On the other, you have no way of knowing what is real or not, which is an essential part of the appeal. The colleges are NOT named, as has been stated in some of the press coverage, and the authors are also not given their full bylines.
Another problem is the illustrations, which violate an essential rule of publishing - to not previsualize for the audience what they are supposed to imagine. The illustrations are often literal depictions of story content, rather than (like The New Yorker's presentation of short fiction) evocative pieces of artwork that underscore and accentuate what the audience is supposed to be feeling.
Boink is an admirable attempt to champion sex-positive expression in young adults, and has achieved a fun, tame, mainstream appeal. But they miss the essential aspect of their mission - to portray people as they really are, in the environments they really live in, doing the things they really do. And that means unflinching honesty and grit. Which is not found here.