Fire Miriam Datskovsky, worst sex columnist... EVER

Monday, October 23, 2006

RE: Defining and Defeating the "Hook Up"

Third time's the charm, right? Miriam has to hit it on the nose this time. There's no way she could write three terrible columns in a row and not be let go like a summertime drama on Fox.

Miriam Wants to Defeat Sex

Of all the things that typically go hand-in-hand with sex—intoxication, bed-sharing, morning-after awkwardness—romance is by far the most complicated.
Perfect start. A good sex columnist must always approach sex from a negative point of view. Can you imagine a world where people who write about sex were to tell us that sex is enjoyable, mutually-affirming and just plain fun? The horror.

Do we need good sex to have good romance? Do we need good romance to have good sex? In a day and age when casual sex is condoned and often encouraged, when and where do the individual spectra of sex and romance collide?
Ah, it wouldn't be a Miriam Datskovsky column without a Datskovsky-line-of-rhetorical-questioning. At least she decided to put it at the beginning of the column this time. Maybe she'll actually use these questions to guide her argument this time.

While good sex may not result in good romance, bad sex often results in bad romance. Is it better to ensure sexual compatibility by having sex right off the bat?
Nope, she's going to open up yet another topic through her questioning. I really hope she answers at least one of these questions.

Putting off having sex for the first time only threatens a relationship: no amount of scented candles and dimmed lighting can make up for bad sex.
Okay, putting off sex = bad sex? Even her individual sentences are starting to get muddled and confused with multiple points.

A note to the more chaste out there, a good sex columnist would have realized that it isn't true that sex defines relationships. It is perfectly alright to want to save yourself or wait for the right moment. You still can have a full and vibrant physical relationship if you want. There are all sorts of things that two people can do to enjoy physical intimacy without sexual intercourse. A list might include: baking cookies, staring deeply into each others eyes, feeding each other, playful wrestling, holding each other, dirty talk/role playing, deep kissing, frottage over or under the clothes, manual manipulation, mutual masturbation, axillary intercourse, intercrural intercourse, mammary intercourse. If you have access to a computer, you could even try cybersex or vidsex.

If being in love is supposed to enhance the sexual experience, why do the relationships we have fluctuate so much based on sex?
After a paragraph of meandering in the vague vincinity of answering the questions she posed earlier, she's decided that her column needs yet another direction. Does this girl have an editor?

The New York Times Magazine recently ran a piece on the changing face of youth sex, titled “Friends, Friends with Benefits, and the Benefits of the Local Mall.” Much of the article centered on the ambiguity of the term “hook-up, pondering the decisive way in which young people have chosen to separate sexual relations from romance. The author defines the term as “vague—covering everything from making out to sexual intercourse ... [other times] a euphemism for oral sex.”
So, for the first time in three columns, Miriam cites a legitimate source that is not some vague group of misquoted friends. Oh, and she's mentioned the "hook-up" for the first time in this column even though it's 2/3 of the way through and the article was supposed to be on the hook -up.


So as to save you all the trouble, I'll just give a short synopsis of the rest of the article. Several more paragraphs providing vague, non-committal descriptions/definitions of hooking up. A few presumptuous statements about how "we" all feel about hooking up. A scathing attack on "multiple levels of sexual and romantic collissions" and warnings against the potential for sex (especially hook-up based sex) to ruin your relationships. Then she tells us to stop hooking up but to have more sex. Great. Thanks.

So, for those of you keeping count at home, that's three columns and this is the first one where she's almost kind of approached sex (or hooking up). But, just the idea of sex. Not really the act of it, how to do it, or how to make it better. And, she's three-for-three on columns mentioning that sex is confusing, awkward, and potentially ruinous. Just what the doctor ordered for fostering healthy and constructive attitudes towards sex.

~CS

2 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home