We Have a Crush on a Talented Lesbian Sex Blogger
We have a confession to make. We have a crush. Hint: she's a blogger. (No surprise there.) Double-hint: she's has a sex column. (Definitely no surprise.) But, sex blogging aside, she's been producing some of the most consistently hilarious, smart, playful, insightful, world-rocking, superlative-inducing (Jesus, look at us) articles we've seen among college publications. Ever. This stuff isn't just chuckle funny. It's slam-your-roommate's- head-through-a-window funny. It's not transcendental and it won't change your life. But it will make you want to jump in the air, e-mail all your friends, and dedicate the rest of your days to figuring out who the hell this anonymous wordsmith is.
OK, we're getting ahead of ourselves. The column is called The Belle Jar, and it runs on Columbia's peerless Bwog. (Disclosure: half of us used to work for Bwog's parent rag, The Blue and White.) So far the author -- female, gay, anonymous -- has written only three pieces, but they're each worth a close read. She tends toward the Linnaean (See? We feel like undergrads again), categorizing and sub-categorizing Columbia students. So far she's kept it simple: an introduction, a cross-section of Columbia's single scene, and, special for V-Day, a breakdown of relationships by type. You owe it to yourself to read them all. But for the attention-challenged, here are some snippets:
On herself:
You see, I don't have regular sex; I have head on, high-speed collisions. I get whiplash and there's usually broken glass. I take down insurance information, not phone numbers. And I've never slept with a guy, although I know many, many people who have, and who have reported back. I've thought about it the way I've thought about taking Econ-probably better for my financial future and legal rights but, at the moment, terribly tedious and likely soporific. It's something I've been meaning to get around to doing and just haven't had the time or willpower to accept or even correctly interpret an advance.
On "face-munchers":
Public displays of affection are endearing on a distant, detached, entirely impersonal level. You laugh when dogs sniff each others' behinds, and maybe, on a nice spring day, you smile at a kissing couple. (Unless they're both hideous.) But there are those who overstep these bounds, plunging you and your vision into a state of great turmoil. Perhaps, like Oedipus, you too reach for the dress pins. I like to go up to these people and gently ask them to part--leave room for Jesus.
On "piners":
Aww, poor babies can't stop reading their gchats. These people are the epitome of pathos. Every time they see a previous love interest, boyfriend, or girlfriend cross college walk, it's like the Furies have decided to play cats cradle with their heartstrings. If this is you, find a new idea, theory, person or art project to invest your time in. That said, celibacy is not a valid coping mechanism. Friends who have fallen out of love's favor have presented themselves before me, declared themselves celibate for college, and waited for me to clap. Being single on principle doesn't make you glacially aloof and above the hormonal turmoil--you're sewing your own habit with the word "desperate" stitched into all the lining.
There's a lot more where that came from, and after only a short life, the whole is already greater than the sum of its parts. Enough of the bloviating, though: With all the crappy, self-congratulatory, half-baked detritus in college publications, reading something this good is like walking through a car wash that sprays Febreeze instead of water.
The most promising sign: the Bwog comments section, second only to us for nastiness, has almost nothing but praise. (Although one astute commenter speaks the truth about sex columnists: "In the land of Eunuchs, the one-balled man is king.")
Above all, it's a reminder that intelligence is sexy. (Don't get us wrong -- she's out of our league. Shit, we're not even playing the same game.) And, of course, that bloggers can get nice, too.
31 Comments | 
| 
Print This Post
Read more: Columbia, gawker, Sex, sex columns
Email – 
Search
About
Follow us on Twitter
Report a bug
Archives
RSS Feed
February 16th, 2007 at 6:21 pm
It’s awful. Trite, cliched, awful, awful shit. I’m assuming you were involved with this cosmo-loving hack; bwog should drop it at once
February 16th, 2007 at 6:25 pm
I dare you to find a better sex columnist.
February 16th, 2007 at 7:10 pm
In all honesty, Miriam Dah…however the fuck you spell her last name, for one. The new spec sex writer is better than her too. My problem with this one is her listy, anonymous crap and her propensity for pointless overwriting. Belle = Cosmo Girl + Special Topics in Calamity Physics (which was crap BTW)
February 16th, 2007 at 7:34 pm
i don’t know how long this run can last if she’s never had a heterosexual experience. not that a lesbian sex columnist is a bad thing at all, but she she can’t keep writing this crap about “look at all these other losers.” and when she does diverge, i’m not sure how much people are gonna want to hear her dissect the female orgasm each week. if she’s gonna write about “sex” she’s only gonna be able to cover half of her bases. at least miriam knew the whole game, even if she was coy to admit it.
February 16th, 2007 at 7:37 pm
You’ll have to wait until after she graduates for those columns
February 16th, 2007 at 8:05 pm
henry miller?
February 16th, 2007 at 8:06 pm
poor man’s lesbian “”
February 16th, 2007 at 8:21 pm
Her writing reminds me of a quote from the movie Adaptation when Charlie Kaufman groaned, “it’s that sprawling New Yorker shit!” Pretty soon she will start to insert herself in other people’s heterosexual escapade.
February 16th, 2007 at 9:05 pm
When miss anonymous begins to spill the beans of a lesbian tryst with a faculty member, gains grades by injunction, out her in the cause, then this a-l-blogger will win some points, but until then, still a novice.
February 16th, 2007 at 11:37 pm
Wow… You guys REALLY over-hyped this poor broad.
She may be a sapphist, but she’s no Sappho.
That said, I anxiously await the cunnilingus post… with bated breath, as it were.
February 17th, 2007 at 2:11 am
If you think Miriam wrote a good sex column, your opinion carries no weight. Whatsoever. No, really. Did you not have enough brain cells to register how bad it was? http://firemiriam.blogspot.com/ That should say enough.
Thanks for the props on the Eunuch observation. I aim to please. But seriously guys, I think you may have, uh, blown it, with this one. Overhyped? That’s an understatement.
February 17th, 2007 at 5:07 am
I actually think she is rather refreshing. Also, considering that she has elicited the derision from someone who quotes charlie kaufmann and from other nobodies with a grimly limited vocabulary (poster number one check) she must be doing something right. always trust a writer who can piss off losers.
February 17th, 2007 at 12:51 pm
NO. the belle jar is not good, yet. her intro article was great, and then she wrote two shitty articles that were not about sex. just like miriam.
February 17th, 2007 at 1:44 pm
You can always tell when the subject of derision hops on board and tries to comment incognito.
As for “always trust a writer who can piss off losers,”
Ann Coulter and Bill O’Reilly piss a lot of people off as well. Not that I’m equating a blogger to the aforementioned personalities, but I think that statement is too sweeping to hold any real meaning nowdays.
February 17th, 2007 at 1:46 pm
I actually thought the first one was really cliched, especially the part quoted there with the “i don’t have sex, I have [ ]” collisions, whiplash, insurance numbers.
She does does have talent, but right now it’s covered up by a trite style.
February 17th, 2007 at 1:56 pm
You know what would be a good topic for her? Lesbians who have sex with transexual women. Heterosexual sex between a lesbian and a transgender woman with a penis. That’s hot.
February 17th, 2007 at 3:01 pm
no, i’m not the belle jar, but I do go to columbia and I am a woman (and from what I gather, the belle jar is quite probably a first year boy). The Ann Coulter analogy does not hold as she generally pisses off anyone with any fiber of human dignity, and I believe it was losers I was talking about.
In any case, I think the belle jar’s introduction was brilliant and chatty. She does need to veer off the list style formula, and it isn’t really a sex column, but more about relationships.
February 17th, 2007 at 11:48 pm
You dudes have the worst fucking taste and sense of humor. A homely Carrie Bradshaw in some wacky costume on YouTube ironically and self-consciously holding forth on her Ivy League status seems like your supreme good. I vomit on your web site.
This site was much funnier when it was entirely negative. That is because it is much easier to find foolish self-promoters than it is to find things of quality.
Go back to becoming to cowardly Page Six of the overpriced northeast private schools. It’s your talent.
February 18th, 2007 at 1:36 am
Bwog is second to no one in terms of nastiness except old-school Bored At Butler. IvyGate is a nice blog, I read it, I enjoy it, but Bwog is the real deal.
Furthermore, the Belle Jar is the best thing to happen to sex writing in college since sex was invented. Sure, the second two columns weren’t as good as the first, but they were so much better than any other sex columnist ever (except maybe Dan Savage) that it’s stupid even to compare them.
Anyone who mentions Sex in the City or Miriam D. is beyond help. I think that they should each take a year of quiet reflection to think about what they’ve said on this blog and how wrong it is.
February 18th, 2007 at 4:08 am
Which Columbia sex writer who never actually writes about sex do ya’ll like more? Belle Jar’s the better writer, but Gropkoff’s like, 30 and therefore has experience on his side…
February 18th, 2007 at 4:37 pm
i was reminded of marisha pessl too, awful. the first post was ok, if not precocious. but the second two just smack of trying too hard. the painfully extended verbal metaphors don’t really do much for me.
February 19th, 2007 at 10:39 am
I don’t know what people are getting so angry about. I thought the cross section of singles was pretty hilarious, especially because the descriptions were so true. Is she a little heavy on the metaphors? Yeah, but who cares? It’s better than Miriam’s shit.
February 19th, 2007 at 12:23 pm
In response to G v BJ, it’s weird how many GS dudes are gay. I think a lot of ‘em are here just so they can frolic without crystal meth and AIDS. Maybe that’s why G won’t spill the dirt….
February 19th, 2007 at 6:31 pm
Gropkoff is a PhD candidate at Teachers College, and therefore isn’t in Genearl Studies
February 20th, 2007 at 1:32 am
Hmm… does that make him more or less likely to be a meth-addled chicken-hawk?
February 20th, 2007 at 11:27 am
So sick of you guys sporting a huge one for any Columbianette who mentions sex in your general vicinity. Also, pretty sure I know who this is.
February 20th, 2007 at 3:23 pm
What an original, refreshing view of material that generally seems stale!
Wait…
February 20th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
man, lady throws down a couple of zingers, a gram of wit, and everybody wets themselves. ivygate, you guys better chiggity-chiggity-check-yo’selves.
February 20th, 2007 at 4:54 pm
Whenever they say something is terrible, they get slammed.
Whenever they say something is awesome, they get slammed.
Perhaps all these haters should post thing that they enjoy so we can all tell them how stupid and lame those things are?
PS – Belle Jar was worth a chuckle or two for me. Not bad, not super-amazing-awesome. Much better than Miriam.
October 24th, 2007 at 11:58 pm
That care is definitely video-taped. Brave room is one accurate site. That unaware day sank some eye expressly. It’s sudden to be met! Wall dropped the casino. That casino is longingly agricultural.
apprendre a jouer blackjack en ligne – http://www.jeux-de-blackjack.fr/
June 26th, 2009 at 10:31 am
J’adore mon Nintendo Wii, mais j’ai vraiment besoin de nouveaux jeux.