Fire Miriam Datskovsky, worst sex columnist... EVER

Monday, November 13, 2006

RE: Bisexuality: More Than Marissa and Alex Making Out

As I'm sure you all know, the Marissa is Marissa Cooper, beloved teenage alcoholic from TV's The OC. Let us all bow our heads, as she is in a better TV place.

I don't want to tarnish poor Marissa's reputation by linking to the unfortunate piece written by my favorite sex columnist, but she's dead so I guess it doesn't matter.

Miriam is on fire!

I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t as excited as the next person to see the highly-anticipated, entirely overrated kiss on last week’s episode of The O.C.
And I'd be lying if I said that this didn't actually endear you to me, sweety.

there was no raunchiness, and it lasted for two seconds during the last minute of an hour-long episode.
I don't know what you were expecting, Miriam. Fox, for all its bluster, is a network. The government says things about how much hot girl-on-girl action is allowed on the public's air. Believe me, I would like to see nothing more than lesbian sex for a solid hour, but sometimes we have to use the internet for that stuff.

Just to make sure viewers were really turned on
Do you really think Fox wanted to turn us on that much? I mean, it's not like the straight kisses on the OC are marathon snog sessions that last for 20 minutes. Let's not crucify Fox for this one. At least they had a lesbian kiss.

Second, since when did the “L” word stop being “love” and become “lesbian?”
Since a show about lesbians came out called "The L Word." That sort of changed the meaning, even though the producers intended for there to be ambiguity over the lesbian/love question. Since lesbians don't have a lot of tv shows and love does, people associated the L Word with lesbians as a point of accessibility. I'm really good at this game.

I’ve definitely seen better real-life action than The O.C., though whether or not I’ve participated in it I’m going to have to leave up to your imagination.
I find it odd that Miriam, usually so forthcoming with details about her love life, declines to mention any experience she has. Especially since the whole column is about not being labled and not worrying about what society thinks. It's a little hypocritical. Two things are possible: One, she hasn't done anything, but wants us to think she has (probably). Two, she has done things, but she liked it and doesn't want to admit that because it would hurt her thesis that sex is crap (probably not, but, hey, who knows?).

It’s gotten to the point where it’s just not all that exciting anymore for a guy to see two girls make out.
I have never read anything more wrong before in my life. I am "a guy." I like to see two girls making out. I know it's not a scholarly source, but visit and check out some of the pictures and videos. I'm pretty sure they aren't putting those up to bore people. In fact, I bet the people at those parties aren't taking the pictures to show how boring the party was.

Seriously, though, how is it possible that Miriam can speak for all guys on this one? She's a straight girl who is only impressed by full-on lesbian sex (apparently). I'm pretty sure her one guy friend who told her he wasn't interested was not a representative sample. Once again, we show the need for a large sample size.

It may seem funny to claim that bisexuality is bullshit—it’s just an excuse to get twice as much ass—and leave it at that, but let’s be honest: sexual identity is about much more than that.
Well, here's the thing about that. I'm not a bisexual. If I wanted to double my output of ass, I would do it by having sex with twice as many girls. Because I'm not a bisexual. Bisexuals feel differently than I do. Saying it's bullshit is, oh what's the word? Retarded, right. This is so obvious that I'm upset you brought it up. At least you got this one right in the end.

As a diehard Eagles fan, I was admittedly turned off by the author’s reverence for Tom Brady.
Miriam has obviously never seen Tom Brady, he of godlike poise and heroic stubble. If she had, she would have said this:

"So Tom Brady supposedly had a bad game Sunday and the Patriots lost? I don't know if I agree. At the end of the game he was soaking wet, covered in mud and in soft focus because of fog condensing on the camera lens. In my book that makes us all winners. Rawrrr." -DJ Gallo

Sorry, I got a little sidetracked. It just irks me when anyone insinuates they aren't irrepressibly attracted to Tom Brady. We all know that's impossible.

Is sexual identity, as Tapley’s column suggests, a reflection of cultural and societal interests? Do we define our sexual identity based on our ability to speak “Manglish” or how much we act like the characters in Chasing Amy or In and Out?
Thank God. I was worried I might have to learn something interesting that another writer wrote without being subjected to a DLRQ along the way. Let's answer these questions, shall we?

A gay friend of mine
Can speak for every gay man ever.

A family friend
Can speak for every bisexual ever.

A girlfriend of mine
Once again, Miriam's patented "Three people = all the data you need" theorem allows us to answer complex questions without thinking too hard.

A gay man’s choice to get into a relationship with a woman or a straight woman’s decision to kiss her best friend is almost always based on some form of emotional investment.
Miriam always does this. She uses these phrases like "almost always" to cover her ass if there's any question she's wrong about something. Back in the closet days, a gay man's choice to get married had little to do with emotions. And if has taught me anything, it's that a girl's decision to kiss her best friend is often based on some form of alcohol investment. But since I only have time to list two counterexamples, she must be right, since she said "almost always." I hate my life.

Bisexuality has a lot more to do with love and a lot less to do with months of media hype and a two-second kiss than FOX would like to think.
Besides the fact that Miriam hasn't really proven bisexuality has anything to do with love, it's a strawman argument to say that FOX thinks that media hype = bisexuality. I'm pretty sure even Bill-o knows that TV doesn't make bisexuals.

In a world where popular culture plays such a large role in our lives, it’s undeniably difficult to define and be comfortable with your sexual identity.
For some people, yes. For other people, it's actually very easy. I know you like to generalize, Miriam, but come on. You seem like you're pretty comfortable with your sexual identity.

When it comes to society’s drawing boxes around what is gay, lesbian, straight, or bisexual, the media is often to blame.
Good point, Miriam. It would actually be interesting to write a whole column about this. Oh, wait, that's what you were trying to do, but you got sidetracked and wrote something that is only peripherally related.

But it doesn’t stop there: these lines are drawn in the most minute aspects of our lives, from the way we talk to the clothes we wear.
Not a necessary line. We know you're sensitive to media influence, Miriam. You just told us. We already gave you that round of applause. Now you're just grubbing for it.

In the end there is no one way to be gay, lesbian, straight, or bisexual; who you are and what you do are entirely up to you.
Once again, a conclusion that serves to invalidate everything that came before it. It's like Miriam panics at the end of every article and decides to hedge her bets. "Hey, maybe people will think the advice I hinted at was bad, so I'd better put in some generic, feel-good advice at the end so everyone will love me!"

No matter what, it’s sexy.
Just so you know the template was used in this one too. A stinger. How creative. I feel happy inside. I don't know what's sexy, but whatever it is, it gives me delight.

By the by, Mischa Barton was in a lesbian movie before she was on "The OC." I'm a little surprised that Miriam didn't mention "Lost and Delirious" once in the whole column. Oh, wait, no I'm not. That would have lent an air of continuity to the thing, and lord knows we don't want that.


Thursday, November 09, 2006

RE: Roller-Coaster Romance: Let's Get Rid of the Loops

Well, now that Miriam has filled her talking-about-sex quota for the month with her previous column on masturbation, we've got to go back and analyze "social norms" and woefully complicated and awkward mating rituals that we apparently are all the victims of.

Strap Yourself In It's Going to be a Bumpy Ride

We waste too much time on sex. It would be one thing if we were spending all our time and energy on achieving increasingly higher levels of orgasmic ecstasy—I have absolutely no objection to that
No, you waste too much time on this "sex" column. Please, spend some energy on helping us achieve higher levels of orgasmic ecstasy and prove me wrong.

In the good old days, and by that I mean the prehistoric good old days, sex was simple. You had sex, you enjoyed it, and you didn’t worry about what anyone else thought or what something someone said meant.
Ah, yes. "Sex so easy even a cave man could do it." I'm pretty sure even cavemen worried about what someone else - namely their partner - thought about their performance in the bedrock.

But is it really empowering for a woman to ask a man out? Can a woman have any power in a sexual relationship if she isn’t making the guy crawl to her? Do prescribed gender roles in a relationship necessarily make the relationship unequal?

And, with the return of horrendous column topics comes the return of the DLRQ!

Guys are supposed to want to have sex right off the bat, but girls who feel the same way are branded sluts. I can think of at least three close guy friends who always wait to have sex with girls they like, and I can think of the same number of girl friends who are totally comfortable with sex on a first date.
Wow, you dug deep for that bit of research. I can think of a situation where at least five of my most attractive female friends can't help but want to fondle my testicles. Therefore, the theory that I'm an unattractive loner is debunked.

*Note: Not saying that Miriam isn't right in saying that gender stereotypes are unfair and unnecessary. Just saying that she picked about the least cogent way to prove it.*

With so many stereotypes swarming around, people are bound to have double standards. What about the raging feminist who demands equality between men and women but then holds men, but not women, accountable for their actions when they’re drunk?
What about you stereotyping feminists as raging and having double standards?

Of course we’re addicted to thinking and analyzing all things sexual: how else would we deal with society’s telling us one thing and someone’s doing another?
So, with the topic sentence of the previous paragraph being about stereotypes and double standards, you've decided to immediately switch gears and ponder on why we analyze sex all the time. Can you just not decide whether or not to write about stereotypes and social norms again?

It’s a fucking roller coaster ride with six different kind of loops that doesn’t feel good because it bangs your head around too much.
So... eloquent...

Half of the time our thinking and re-thinking, analyzing and re-analyzing is over something petty that means absolutely nothing.
Presumptuous alert. I've been analyzing and re-analyzing why my girlfriend isn't comfortable letting me cum in her ear. I dare you to tell me that that means absolutely nothing. You can't because you know what? It's important to me! Okay? *sob*

So find something else to talk to about. I’m tired of getting a headache every time I walk into 212.
Ah, textbook conclusion. Pithy remark having little to do with your article. It took me like four minutes to realize what you were alluding to. I think it's that throwaway line about having the same conversation everywhere, but you didn't single out 212 then. Why are you doing it now? Just because 212 smells funny sometimes doesn't mean you have to call it out. 212 tries its best.

So, after an almost acceptable column, Miriam dives back into her cess pool of reusable material. Has anyone noticed that "social norms" and gender stereotypes seem to dominate virtually every column? (That and her incessant need to throw in a sentence based on the column's title despite the fact that it is out of place and completely unnecessary for making her point.) Gee, a column titled, "Roller Coaster Romance: Let's Get Rid of the Loops," has nothing to do with events that might make for a roller coaster romance. Nope, it's about how social norms keep us from having positive romantic relationships. Well, I guess we're just fucked then. Society doesn't want us to have sex, be romantic, or enjoy the company of other humans. Thanks, sex columnist.

Wednesday, November 08, 2006

Nice Work

A new blog called "She's Such a Geek" gets it right in denouncing The Female Brain.

Smart women like sex

The part about vibrators is a keeper.


Thursday, November 02, 2006

RE: Masturbation: Different Strokes for Different Folks

Finally, a post that directly addresses a sexual act and how we do it. Great. I'm excited. Masturbation is a topic that I'm sure is near and dear to all of our hearts. Even Miriam can't get this one wrong...

Autoeroticism: The Dirty Deed

Let’s face it: “dirty” is the reason you started to masturbate.
I don't recall exactly what I was thinking the first time I masturbated, but I'm pretty sure that it wasn't, "Oh yeah you dirty son of bitch. Stroke that cock. Stroke it good. Oh... yea, yea, use the other hand. That's right. You dirty rascal you." Actually, I'm pretty sure I just did it because it felt good... moving on...

And yet, “dirty” never fails to make us uncomfortable. No matter how much we joke about it, how, when and where we masturbate is everyone’s biggest secret.
If your goal is to tell us that masturbating shouldn't be a dirty little secret and that it's something that's safe, enjoyable and relaxing for all of us to do, I commend you. I'm not sure that coming out and accusing it of being "dirty" is the way to go, though.

Few people know it, but masturbation is good for your health. Not only is it a great source of stress relief, but it also acts as a natural sleeping pill and can even relieve menstrual cramps. Recent sex research shows that eighty-five percent of women and ninety-nine percent of men masturbate. Although single people masturbate more frequently, attached and married people don’t shy away from the art of self-loving. So why are so many of us so uneasy about it?
Great! I'm always happy when others support masturbation. I have always maintained that I do it for my health. Props for this.

That being said, what about the guys who masturbate? Masturbation isn't going to relieve their menstrual cramps. Why do you always ignore male needs!? WHY!? Also, not that I'm disputing your numbers, but care to take like three seconds to cite a source? Tell ya what, I'll tell Masters to do it.

On many levels, you men have it much simpler than women. All you have to do is reach down and unzip your pants—it’s hanging right there in front of you. Society has traditionally characterized men as endlessly horny; no one’s going to call you out on masturbating.
People who masturbate are endlessly horny. Got it.

On the other hand, there’s only so much you can do with two hands and a penis, and finding different means of pleasuring yourself can prove difficult. It doesn’t help when the woman you are with is hand-job challenged—you might as well be working with your own limited resources. You’re always wondering how many of your friends are busy self-indulging and if they’re masturbating as frequently as you are.
What in the world is going on? I thought we were talking about masturbating. Where did the woman come from? Why am I worrying about my friends masturbating while she has her hands down my pants?

Society traditionally characterizes women as wholesome, reinforcing apprehensions a woman might have about masturbation’s being too “dirty.”
Just because you blame society doesn't mean you aren't reinforcing gender and sex stereotypes with statements like this. That, and maybe calling masturbation dirty at the beginning of the column. I'm pretty sure that didn't help.

These apprehensions are further complicated by the more recent development of men turning themselves on by watching women get themselves off.
That's a recent development?

One friend of mine confessed that she would feel like a “dirty whore” if she used one (though she calls me, all excited, every time she sleeps with somebody new).
So, you think your friend is a dirty whore anyways because she calls you excited about sleeping with someone new. Nice. Keep going with the value statements.

Alfred Kinsey found that it takes women less than four minutes to have an orgasm from masturbation—something partners rarely achieve for us.
Yet another jab at male sex partners. This seems like something you're very concerned about. As a sex columnist, have you thought about maybe helping your male readers learn to give a girl an orgasm or helping your female readers to have more orgasms? No, just going to keep blaming the male race.

There is absolutely no reason why anyone should be secretive or feel guilty about masturbating. It may be different strokes for different folks, but there is no denying that we all do it. Know your comfort line and push it to the limit. Orgasm away.

780 words and this is what we learn. After Miriam tells us that masturbating is dirty, that just using our hands is boring, and that we masturbate only because we're gross, endlessly horny individuals, she leaves us with her trademark abrupt one-line conclusion (does anyone think she copied this idea from Natalie Krinsky? more on that later...), "different strokes for different folks... orgasm away." Thanks Miriam. I so want to take Captain Picard up to warp speed after this one.

(Yes, I, Captain Subtext, do have a nick name for my penis. I've also nicknamed my testes. The left one is James Westfall and the right one is Dr. Kenneth Noisewater. You ladies play your cards right and you might get to meet the whole gang.)

~ CS

Tuesday, October 31, 2006

The Bwog Links to Us...

The university system as we know it totally collapses.

Seriously, though, the Bwog posted an item about us around 10 PM. At this time, there are 48 comments, which is a lot. We feel as though we need to clarify some stuff:

1) We do not know Miriam. She may be a saint in real life, but that doesn't matter. We attack the persona she creates in her articles and the content of those articles. We don't do ad hominem attacks. This is an ad hominem attack:
"Captain Subtext has an ugly face and is stupid."
Note that we have never said anything like it. Miriam has a right to write her column. We have a right to make fun of it, and perhaps offer some of our own opinions on her topics. People on Bwog have a right to say FM (Fire Miriam) is mean. Ok, so once in awhile we might accidentally call her an idiot. But we're only talking about her column. We don't hate anyone. FM is all about the love.

2) It's not fair to call this site a "hatchet job." If anyone actually read through this site (and we don't blame you if you don't. It's way too long.), you would actually see that we try to be fair and give credit where credit is due. We think Miriam is a bad writer. Our goal is to prove it, using only the content of her articles and our razor sharp wits. We don't want to cut down Miriam. If we see other bad sex advice, we'll cut that down too. This isn't really about Miriam. It's about sex. Fire Miriam is just a cute name that people could remember. She's also the only person for whom we have access to her archives, so we naturally focus on her.

3) We have nothing to do with Chris Kulawik. I don't know how half of the comments ended up about him. We only have time for one genre of critique, and it's sex.

4) Somebody commented "Why do you care so much?" on an earlier post. We feel strongly about sex and sex advice. We might be overly thorough in our critiques but it's only because we care. By and large, we feel that American attitudes towards sex are unhealthy, and Miriam, at the very best, does nothing to improve or change those attitudes. Sure, she writes about a lot of things, but that doesn't make her a good sex columnist. Maybe it's not her fault. Maybe it's the Ivy League.

5) It seems that there is a specific commenter who is not happy with the way that we or the Bwog have not acknowledged the existence of people who support Miriam. We would like to point out that this site has acknowledged a post by and even linked to said post in an earlier writing. So, we clearly do acknowledge that there are people out there who (for one reason or another) do like Miriam's column. We aren't sure why, but you have a right to your opinion.

In the spirit of open and honest discussion, we have done some further research (read: cursory searches on The Google) and here are two articles which praise Miriam's efforts - The Vagina Dialogues and The Gothamist. As far as we can tell these are the only two "legitimate" sources which have written about Miriam. There are some blogs which have posted some nice things about her, but it seems that they are from personal friends or people she met while interviewing (i.e. Lusty Lady) for "The Vagina Dialogues." The Gothamist, as some of you may know, is a blog as well, but given its reputation we are willing to concede it as a source more reputable than FM. (Though we challenge anyone to be as thorough as we are in the actual reading of Miriam's columns.)

To get the discussion started, we would like to point out that the New York Magazine article does not explicitly say that Miriam is a good writer. In fact, while it acknowledges Miriam's intelligence, it quickly states that "sex columns aren't always about about great sex or great writing." FM is fully willing to concede this point. Miriam may well be intelligent but her knowledge about sex and her writing definitely put "Sexplorations" in the category of sex columns that are not about great sex or great writing.

6) Is this a groundswell of support? Maybe, maybe not. But if we were Miriam, we might say something like this:

Many of my friends have told me that they think Miriam is a terrible writer. My guy friends agree she doesn't know anything about men. One girl I know even called her "an affront to sexually active adults." Does this mean a lot of people hate her column? How could we ever know for sure? Does it always have to be so awkward? What does it all mean, really? Why do people write blogs like this? Do they have too much time on their hands?

Of course we do. Heck, we don't know for sure that anyone but us hates her writing. Maybe we are the only people who hate it so vehemently. But I doubt it. This blog started because some people thought that Miriam and the Spectator were doing a disservice to the Columbia community, and that we needed to at least try to provide some sort of counterpoint. We obviously couldn't write it in the Spec, so we started a blog. We just want people to have a few laughs and maybe look at the sex advice they get in a different way. Is that so bad?

-MM + CS

Monday, October 30, 2006

New Writers

We at Fire Miriam would like to introduce our newest writers: Masters and Johnson. We realize that we spent an awful lot of time complaining about how Miriam's articles are both useless and misleading and we've decided to take it upon ourselves to try to right these wrongs.

Masters and Johnson are our new sex writers here to answer questions or post real clarifications of those topics muddled by Miriam. If you have any questions or comments, please e-mail: They will try their best to repond in a weekly mailbag post along with some upcoming posts uncovering the truth behind sexual myths and legends.

The most false thing ever written by anyone ever

Are you kidding me?

Well, if you search on Google Blogsearch for Miriam Datskovsky, that article pops up first. Ivygate is officially the worst thing ever to happen to the internet. EVER.

Of the Ivy League bunch, Miriam Datskovsky’s "Sexplorations" is the column most reminiscent of "Sex and the City"
In that it is not funny, uninformative, and promotes awkward and embarassing sex as the norm for everyone. Oh yes, and that it is embarassing if people find out you're a fan of either.

except this gal can actually write.
You must not have read anything by her. She's the "writer" who has absolutely no idea what grammar is. I don't know anything about Sarah Jessica Parker and her fictional writing ability, but if I were her, I would sue for libel. If fictional characters had any legal standing, I bet Carrie Bradshaw would have a shot.

Part social commentary, part personal experience
.01% Social commentary, 99.99% Awkward personal experience

Miriam's musings are honest without being trite
Read the last line of any of her articles. "Trite" is the nicest thing you could say about them. "Face-numbingly annoying" might be more accurate.

She claims no sexual expertise but still tackles adventurous topics from anal sex to pornography.
Which makes her unable to accurately describe anything she talks about. It also means she attacks everything with a closed mind. I don't think you need to be an expert to talk about sex in any way, but it does help to have an open mind. If you think anal sex and porn are gross, it may bias your column just a smidge.

Her risky approach pays off in authenticity
Yes, we believe she is authentically awkward and authentically has backwards view of everything sexual.

"Hooking up with my favorite guy friend was a no-brainer-until an incredibly un-glamorous bedroom incident on the night of my 19th birthday left me lost and lonely. … Tomorrow will be exactly two years since my ill-fated fuck buddy incident. By all outsider and dating-book standards, I am still setting myself up for disaster. But I care too much about him to go back now. Logic says I should get myself out before I really get hurt. Logic is the last thing I care about."
They quote Miriam, not realizing that this must have been the only sentence that didn't have a question mark or a grammar error. I don't even know if she's going back to this guy or what. Has she been dating him for two years? What is she talking about? Look, we all go to Ivy League schools. We can all write flowery, meaningless prose that sounds nice but says nothing. Note that IvyGate obviously couldn't find something that didn't describe something awkward and embarassing.

Sex? Yes.
Nominally, yes. She does talk about sex. It is a sex column, so she has to, but she still gives the feeling she would rather be talking about somthing else

Dating/Relationships? Yes.
Yes, way more than sex.

Sexual Health? No.
Because she clearly knows nothing about anything technical/scientific/factual/anatomical (you pick).

Personal? Yes.
As if this is a good thing.

Shock factor? Yes.
False. Unless you mean how bad the writing is. Then it is true. Very, very true.

Inclusive/Non-heteronormative? Yes.
False in every way. She has gay friends. Whoop de do. She clearly writes as a straight female and everything she writes is biased as such, but with a hint of Bill O'Reilly thrown in for good measure. No one who isn't Miriam Datskovsky or like her in every way could get anything out of any of her columns.

Maybe the fact that IvyGate thinks Miriam is actually good says more about the Ivy League than about its sex columnists. Or maybe it means that people have never actually read good sex advice. I don't know. But I do know I've never been more embarassed to be a member of the Ivy League.


Thursday, October 26, 2006

RE: College Baserunning 101

I was actually beginning to feel bad about this little blog. I mean, Miriam sucks as a sex columnist, but maybe I don't need to be so mean about it, right? Actually, yes, yes I do. If you want to know why, just read this:

Miriam doesn't know anything about baseball either

There will forever exist those expectations that the logical side of our brains insist are false, but our desires hope to be true
Desires can't hope, Miriam.

we can expect that the Eagles will actually go to the Super Bowl this year
Obviously, the Eagles did go to the super bowl that year. They lost to Tom Brady's heroic and manly stubble.

What? I'm not talking about sex yet? Well, if you insist...

Apparently the good old days of a four-bases foreplay system are gone for good: I was regaled with tales of minor-league bases, major-league bases and a British-based, 10-step, “snogging scale”—the latter two ending in the “full monty.”
This comes from Miriam talking with her eigth grade sister about sex. Because she can't get any herself, apparently, so she needs tips from a twelve year old. I can't decide if this is funny or creepy. By the way, if you aren't absolutely sure that there's a question right after this, you must be reading the wrong blog.

If middle school has become so complicated it now includes three different base systems, where does that put us?
Bingo. Ok Miriam, since we don't really know if you'll actually answer this, let me do it for you: It puts us in college. You know, college? Where people can have physically intimate moments without resorting to sports metaphors? We're all mature adults here, Miriam. But since you really want to go back to the pre-sexual congress days, I'll indulge you.

The first play of our game, the “four-play,” is finding someone you might want to be with.
Miriam has suddenly switched sports on us, all to give herself a chance to use a stupid name she thought up in the shower. We aren't baserunning anymore. Now we're playing football.

Ok, find someone I might want to be with... why the heck not? Sex is generally more fun with another person, but as Miriam will attest to, not always.

Obstacles arise regardless of where you meet—class, a concert, a game, a bar. The most obvious obstacle is the cock-block
Miriam obviously assumes we have some experience with picking people up, since she jumps right into the stuff that stops us from picking people up. Some of us might want to know how to approach someone, how to strike up a conversation, how to sound witty and erudite. Miriam must be really self-confident to know that people would always sleep with her if not for outside factors.

Cock-blocking can be caused by a number of different factors: your hotter best friend swings an arm around your shoulder and suddenly no one is talking to you anymore
Ok, maybe not.

Then there is the age-old dilemma of beer goggles—do you step in and block your drunken friend flirting with a random nasty guy or girl? How do you know if they want to be cock-blocked?
In football, this is known as the counter play. You get the defense going in one direction and then cut back against the grain. Miriam has subtly switched away from being cock-blocked to cock-blocking someone else, which has no place in this article. I guess cock blocking someone else is the equivalent of going out to the mound to get the ball from a tired pitcher, which isn't really a base, now is it?

The next obstacle becomes the wingman
No, Miriam, the next obstacle is the wingman. It can't become something because it has to actually be something first. Please, please tell me you asked your sister about her english class. I bet she could give some useful pointers.

Thanks to, you don’t even need to get a number before you say goodbye. You can poke, you can message, you can even be brave and IM. The to-ask-home-or-not question no longer has to be debated that first night. You no longer have to be sleazy to get a piece of ass; you can get in touch with the other person the next day.
Let's review:
asking someone for her phone number in a bar = sleazy
stalking her on facebook = perfectly normal
Why do you make assertions like this Miriam?

The single room is key here. Doubles eschew a host of complications-—warning your roommate ahead of time, or making sure they don’t accidentally walk in.
I would like everyone to pull out his or her dictionary and read along. Eschew, v. - To abstain or keep away from. So actually, doubles avoid a host of complications. Also, there's a horrendous pronoun switch, as Miriam gains an extra roommate as she goes from... you know what? Forget it. I can't keep line editing Miriam's work. Somebody should do this for her. It's the Spectator's fault they hired someone who writes at a sixth grade level. I'm not doing their dirty work any more.

Bunk beds make the case worse: it’s flat-out obnoxious to have sex above someone who’s sleeping, but we stoop to that level anyway.
No, we don't. You might. But we don't. Stop calling me obnoxious, Miriam.

You definitely don’t anticipate a question like “Are you comfortable enough to blow me right now?” and then it’s asked, or at least it has been to me.
Of course it has. I think maybe you should go back and reread first base (or first level or first square or first first or first whatever the hell you're talking about). Remember, you said facebook stalking was a good way to learn about your potential hook-up. But now we find the facebook paradox: people who stalk people on facebook may lack the social skills that one would require to attract a potential mate. She is right, though. I wouldn't anticipate that question. Mostly beacuse I'm not Miriam and my sexual encounters aren't always awkward and embarassing.

Wait a minute... I feel something shivering... is it my DLRQ sense?

What do you do when someone says the wrong thing? What if someone uses baby talk in bed and you can’t stand it? Do you laugh or yell or just try to pretend it didn’t happen?
I think Miriam is actually a robot that writes articles according to a very specific code. That's why all of them sound exactly the same. It's also why she sounds like she hates sex. Robots hate sex and they want us to stop having sex so we'll be easier to conquer. At least that's what I saw when I was watching late-night Fox News. Or maybe it was Cinemax.

Never underestimate the importance of play three: foreplay.
Well, that's a very sensible statement. Do you mean oral play?

I’m not talking oral sex
Oh, I see. What are you talking about?

I’m talking good old fondling, rubbing, and pumping.
Pumping? Really? I don't get it. Are you having sex on a boat that's taking on water? Are you inflating a beach ball while having sex? Oh, no, I do get it. You're both wearing those Reebok pumps from, like, 1992 and you need to pump them up. Gotcha.

It goes without saying that men get the shit end of the stick here: you can get a better hand-job without the hassle of getting a girl into your bed. On the bright side, guys, the more effort you put into pleasing her, the quicker you’re going to get head.
This is just an embarassing thing for anyone to write, especially a sex columnist. I dare you to find one straight guy that really looks at digital-vaginal play as a sacrifice he has to make on the road to the almighty blow job. And besides, just because you have no idea how to give a hand job doesn't mean that it sucks for every guy ever. Honestly, how many guys do you know that sit on their bed with a girl's hand down their pants and think to themselves, "Well, this sucks. I could have my own hand on my penis right now."? Holy mother of mercy, this is terrible.

And to all you guys who think boobs are overrated, that’s bull.
Are you kidding me? What guy thinks breasts are overrated? I am speechless right now. In fact, I have just melted and am now a tiny puddle of goo under my desk. You must mean gay guys. They are the only group of men I know who think that playing with breasts is not one of the most rewarding activities to which one can devote one's life.

Play four is oral.
Oh, this won't be scarring and embarassing.

It’s a given that guys love to receive head, but most hate to give it
This is false in so many ways I can't even begin to comprehend it. My head has actually jumped off of my body and is now attempting to drown itself in the sink. Where do your get this information, Miriam? You can't throw out these "givens" without some sort of data. Get off your ass and conduct a freakin' survey if you're so damn sure. I bet you can find at least some guys who don't like getting head, and I guarentee that you will find a whole truckload that don't hate to give it. You are perpetuating so many stereotypes that it's embarassing for us and you.

To the girls’ credit, successfully going down on a guy is not as easy as it looks
Oh so are you going to teach them how, since you're obviously so good at it? That would be useful. We all want to spice up our sex lives, and any advice you could give us would be...

And then there’s the swallowing issue
...oh, ok, I guess you could just move right on to this...

should you avoid awkwardness but experience the disgusting taste, or do what you want and spit?
Ok, leaving aside the fact that not every girl wants to spit (or that all cum tastes disgusting), why must you couch everything in terms of awkwardness? If a girl doesn't want to swallow, she shouldn't swallow. Just have a towel or something nearby, and discretely spit into it when you're done. Not awkward at all. Problem solved. Stop writing.

Often girls are too embarrassed to enjoy receiving it.
READ: Miriam is too embarassed to enjoy receiving it.

Shaving and trimming are essential to good oral sex
False. Stop generalizing. You make me so angry. Here are Miriam's factors for good oral sex:

SHAVING AND TRIMMING: Essential! The most important thing there is!
SPITTING OR SWALLOWING: Causes awkwardness!
VAGINA: Causes awkwardness! Men hate being near it, women hate having people near it!

It would be awfully nice if our sex lives were as simple as a game of baseball, if every successful play ensured a win and good sex.
Miriam, every successful play in baseball guarentees nothing, especially not a win. In fact, you need several successful plays, often in a row, to even generate a run. You need multiple runs to win games, and you need successful plays on defense to prevent the opponent from generating runs. You just spent an entire column comparing sex to baseball (sort of), and now you're going to pretend that baseball is something totally different to make some point that contradicts the entire point of your column? I'm offended as a sex fan and as a baseball fan.

On the other hand, where would the excitement be if our sex lives were as predictable as the Yankees beating the Mets?
And if you didn't have enough reason to hate Miriam, she throws in a Yankees reference.

We can’t assume we will have sex with every person who makes it into our bed, but where would the fun be if we could expect the same from every guy or girl we meet?
This may be shocking, Miriam, but you could have sex with everyone that ended up in your bed, and I bet it would be damn fun. It would be different everytime, too. So once again, you say something and it's wrong. We can't assume that everything you say will be wrong, but where would the fun be if we could expect the same from every single sentence you write?

Final consensus? Well, Toto, we’re not in middle school anymore.
Great. I'm glad I just read that whole ludicrous column for this cute little zinger. A pithy remark at the end of a column does not a conclusion make. And who says it's a consensus anyway? You have to find a bunch of people to agree with you for that to happen. Actually, why don't you start looking now? And don't write any more columns while you're looking for that consensus. We'll muddle along without you.