The battle for ideological dominance in our nation’s capital’s collegiate sex columns continues. Are our local campus columnists on the forefront of radical sex writing, or are they bringing back the good old days of sticking rhinestones up our asses? Wait, what?

This week in college sex columns: In the future, we will bedazzle our butt cracks; Why your grandmother is wrong about staying single; why sex columnists should listento their LGBT peers.

TOWSON UNIVERSITY addresses the Vajazzling epidemic.

Sex Tip: In Towson University's Towerlight, writer Chiquita Young takes on vajazzling. She is skeptical. In a story entitled "Rhinestones are a vagina's best friend," Young writes, "I saw this I would laugh and stare. Plus when the jewels start falling off the sex factor is instantly erased, because then you’ll be too busy picking loose jewels out of your panties. . . . There is nothing fashionable about putting rhinestones on your vagina."

Life Lesson: Vajazzling is a slippery slope. "[A]ll I have to say is when will the madness stop? What’s next, bedazzling our butt cracks? Bedazzled bikinis?"

Progressive Meter: Oh, you know I cannot resist. 10.

—

GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY tells students to start dating already.

Sex Tip: Listen to your elders. This time around, Georgetown Hoya relationship columnist Colleen Leahey learns some relationship tips from her grandmother. Grammy, who dispenses advice while lounging in her trademark red knit suit in Palm Beach, tells a single Leahey, "Good for you, darling. There is nothing wrong with being young and single."

Life Lesson: Well, don't listen to them too much. After hearing Granny's advice to stay single, Leahey goads her classmates into pairing up. "As the weather warms and winter depression disappears, prove my Grammy wrong. Go out on a limb and ask someone out. Girls, if you are comfortable ignoring all the silly rules your mother taught you as a young girl, then ask a boy out. Just be aware they will be far less excited about seeing the pretty cherry blossoms than you," she writes. "And guys, ask your crush on a date (weekday dates are usual preferable if you are scared she’ll say no). Seriously, you have nothing to lose. For better or worse, you will have a story to tell."

Progressive Meter: Sentiment that women should take the romantic lead is swiftly followed by the claim that boys don't like flowers. So, it's kind of a wash as far as gender stereotyping is concerned.

—

THE UNIVERSITY OF MARY WASHINGTON listens to the school's LGBT set.

Sex Tips: In this edition of The Bullet's "Sexclamations" column, Erin Hill opens up her column space for her LGBT classmates to answer the question: “What is one thing you want straight people to know about your sexuality or gender expression?” Among the responses: “Sexuality is a beautiful thing, and essentially, it is about falling in love. Bisexuality just means you can fall in love with twice the people.” “Lesbians aren’t just flannel-wearing butch women. Lesbians are a community of diverse women who have a variety of interests, appearances, gender expressions and ways of loving.” "I am not a ‘label’… no matter how you describe me, it doesn’t encompass all that I am."

Life Lesson: Above all, Hill's column provides a lesson for sex columnists everywhere: Write outside your own experience.

Progressive Meter: Another 10!

Photo via Oregon State University Archives

This year, the University of Mary Washington's student newspaper, The Bullet, crowned a new sex columnist for its long-running sex column, "Sexclamations." Since taking the helm, 19-year-old freshman Erin Hill has tackled such campus-ready topics as female masturbation, representation in pornography, and pubic hair choices (an area of particular Sexist interest).

Over the past couple of months, Hill has heard from the haters ("Can you tell me how talking about masturbating is 'progress' in female journalism?"), lovers ("THIS ROCKS SO MUCH"), and one student who wrote in opposing Hill's column because her grandmother read it one time and became overwhelmed by the column's impolite subject matter. Seriously.

The detractor, Anne Elder, wrote:

My grandmother is an avid reader of the Bullet.

She reads the online edition every Thursday, looking forward to reading the happenings of her alma mater.

A few weeks ago, however, she received quite a shock when she tuned in.  She saw the first column of the new Sexclamations.

Needless to say, my inbox had an e-mail waiting from her regarding the column.

Her overall opinion was that it was “tasteless” and “some things are best kept under wraps and are more interesting if shared with select folks.”

I can’t say I disagree.

Elder went on to note that "Sex is an incredibly intimate expression of love, and that’s how it should stay," that "No one wants to know how many times a day you masturbate, how many people you’ve had sex with or what your favorite positions are," and that "If you take the passion out of sex and degrade it by putting it in print, it becomes less of an act of love and more like watching promiscuous college students get it on."

Putting aside the obvious question of why a grandmother is reading a publication for college kids and becoming offended that the content is not tailored to her sensibilities, I'd like to address Elder's complaint that sex columnists "degrade [sex] by putting it in print." According to this theory, sex isn't inherently bad—but people who admit to doing it are. Fucking is understandable as long as you deny, deny, deny, because talking about sex just about the sluttiest thing a person can do—even sluttier than doing it in the first place. This theory all but guarantees an unhealthy sexual environment. On a campus where you're shamed for opening your mouth about anything sexual, bad shit happens—students will be less likely to verbalize their consent—or lack of consent—with their partners, less likely to feel comfortable reporting a sexual assault if it occurs, and a lot more likely to silently agonize over whether their bodies, sex lives, sexual orientations, and most intimate expressions of love make them bad people.

All reasons why Erin Hill is providing a valuable service to the students of Fredericksburg, Va.'s University of Mary Washington. The proof is in the comments section: No matter what grandma thinks, students are talking about these issues. I asked Hill to talk a little bit about life as a college sex columnist:

Sexist: What sort of response have you gotten from classmates, friends, anonymous commenters, etc. since writing the column?

EH: Face to face with readers and friends, I have received nothing but praise since I became the new writer for Sexclamations. I have had several people tell me that the primary reason they pick up a copy of The Bullet is to read Sexclamations. According to upperclassmen, the column used to be less about sex and more about the relationship aspect of sex. They said that they didn’t enjoy the column in the past because it was not as interesting. Supposedly, previous articles provided commentary on lighter issues, such as the “romance and meaning of holding hands.” Everyone has applauded my efforts to be more raw, real, open, and honest. I try to not to censor myself too much. Sex is a brazen act and I feel my articles should be just as forthright.

Thank goodness I have an awesome editor who fully supports my writing. I managed to use the term “money shot” in a school newspaper- I thought that was a pretty big deal! I didn’t think my editor would allow it (originally, I used the term cumshot), but she did! It is important to remember that I don’t use vulgar language just for the sake of creating shock value, rather I use it to illustrate my point. Sometimes stronger language conveys my message in a better, more realistic fashion.

I suppose the most surprising response was from my mom. My mom fully supports the column, despite the awkwardness of reading about my perspective on porn. Out of all the compliments I receive, the best are from my mom- who simply stated in a facebook message yesterday, “Loved your article! <3”

A lot of college sex columnists use pseudonyms. What are the advantages and challenges of putting your real name out there?

EH: I think putting my name out there shows an unabashed support for women’s reproductive rights and women’s sexuality. I can’t be afraid to talk about topics like masturbation and attach my name to it if I expect and encourage other women to open a dialogue about their sexuality and exploration. I hope that my articles can make people more comfortable and knowledgeable about things related to sexual matters. I would like to lessen the taboo surrounding sexual issues. For that to happen, I must be fully confident, comfortable, and knowledgeable about sexual matters. Attaching my name to what I write is a part of achieving that goal. Perhaps some of my peers may stereotype me as the no boundaries, sex-obsessed girl or the liberal, feminist girl who writes Sexclamations. Hyperbolic labels don’t really bother me that much, as long as I’m able to convey interesting, informative ideas regarding sexual issues through my articles.

Why do you think it's important to write about stuff like representation in porn, female masturbation, and women's health?

EH: I think it is important to write about these things because it is important to talk about them. If my articles can provoke a conversation among a few girls in a college dorm about their sexual experiences, then I will consider my articles to be a success. I think it is important for people, especially young women, to have an open dialogue about sexuality. Because of conservative social norms and a prominent abstinence only message in schools, I think many women are shamed into not fully appreciating and celebrating their bodies. Personally, I don’t think sexual exploration is a bad thing; however, sexually exploring oneself and others can be a poor notion if not done safely. I hope my articles open the door to “sex positive” conversations.

What was your reaction to the letter to the editor which stated that the topics in your column are too vulgar to even be spoken about?

EH: Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. I respect Miss Elder’s comments and can understand why she might feel that way about my column; however, I was disappointed that she made false claims about my articles. She stated that I had written about “how many times a day [I] masturbate, how many people [I’ve] had sex with, or what [my] favorite positions are.” This could not be farther from the truth. In fact, I agree with Anne in that writing about such personal details would be “tasteless.” Perhaps Miss Elder misunderstood my intentions of the articles. My intentions were not to expose details of my sexual life, degrade the meaning of sex, or make crude/vulgar statements. My intentions were to creatively educate, provoke curiosity/inquiry, and encourage sexual conversation- in hopes that people become more comfortable with sex and sexuality. All in all, Miss Elder and I fundamentally disagree. I wish to promote conversation and education about sex while she wishes to keep sex a completely private, intimate institution. I’m glad we each have the freedom to express our differing perspectives in the “Viewpoints” section of The Bullet.

What do you think of the idea of writing a college sex column with the goal of pleasing students' grandmothers?

EH: The Bullet is a paper primarily read by current students and I feel the topics discussed in The Bullet should cater to that readership base. I understand that faculty, parents, and alumni read The Bullet, too. On the other hand, it is important to note that there are plenty of articles other than Sexclamations that are exclusively pertinent to current students. I don’t think it would be tremendously troublesome for the older readers to simply skip articles like Sexclamations. In general, I don’t see a major problem with skipping articles that do not appeal to you. If you don’t like it, don’t read it! It’s an elementary concept. Until I am given restrictions, I hope to continue to write a column with relatable and interesting information regarding sex and sexuality.

The battle for ideological dominance in our nation’s capital’s collegiate sex columns continues. Are our local campus columnists on the forefront of radical sex writing, or are they bringing back the good old days of romantically forward women being dismissed as aggressive bitches?

This week, our college sex columnists get romantic: Why you should go down on your significant other this Sunday; who's allowed to date 18-year-olds; girls asking boys out is scary!

GWU: Say it with a blow job.

Sex Tip: In a Very Special Valentine's Day edition of her GW Hatchet sex column, Layla offers up some specialized advice: If you don't know how to say it, just say it in your GW Hatchet sex column. "With the guy I've been seeing recently, Red, we tend to skip foreplay and move straight to having sex. Which is totally fine, because as soon as I get him naked, that's all I want. But at the same time, there is something to be said for prolonging that anticipation just a bit longer. I'm still working on a way to say, 'Babe, let's slow down a bit and just touch each other.'"

Life Lesson: That, or say it with a blow job. "I think there's something incredibly hot about going down on a guy and hearing him moan with pleasure just from the way you're moving your mouth. Giving head can often be a lot more intimate than having sex—you can really focus on your partner and what gets him off. And that's what I think Valentine's Day is all about."

Progressive Meter: If preferring oral sex has any political implications, I'm not aware of them. EVEN.

—

UMD: Dating out of your age range.

Sex Tips: UMD Diamondback advice columnist Esti Frischling informs co-eds that Aaliyah was wrong.To a 23-year-old super senior dude looking to hook up with an 18-year-old freshman girl, Frishcling writes: "Let’s not fool ourselves with the ol’ 'age-is-just-a-number' bullshit. People who say that are 15-year-olds with daddy issues who like to date their professors or are statutory rapists with conscience issues."

Life Lesson: 23-year-olds can date 18-year-olds. But they don't have to. "As long as you don’t lie about your age, you are transgressing no moral issues that I’m aware of, which are most of them. If you’re still feeling concerned and you think these chicks are too young, try hitting up the downtown bars. Then you can be sure all the girls are at least 21."

Progressive Meter: I appreciate the super senior considering issues of maturity and experience when choosing his sex partners. EIGHT.

—

GWU Extra: When girls ask the boys.

Sex Tips: For the Hatchet's special Valentine's Day Issue, Lauren Hoenemeyer brings the New York Times "shortage of men" treatment to Foggy Bottom. GW's gender breakdown is 43 percent male, 57 percent female, leading some women on campus to commit what some students consider a "crime against nature." (The crime is asking a boy out, on a date). Hot tip: Some boys like it! "It's really romantic when a girl asks a guy out," freshman Jacob Zachs told Hoenemeyer. "Guys like it but girls don't like it. It takes the pressure off of us."

Life Lesson: But beware, ladies: Some college-aged men still hate women. "Sophomore Blake Eisenberg said that girls who ask guys out are 'too aggressive and too demanding.' He said, 'They should just let things happen, because they will happen if it's meant to be. They shouldn't force it. For it to work out in the end, for it to be a positive relationship, you need the guy to also like the girl.' Aaaand end trend piece!

Progressive Meter: Hoenemeyer balances her piece with two students in favor of the Sadie Hawkins tactic, and two against. But is that really a fair representation of attitudes on this subject? The two guys quoted in the article who oppose the practice actually think that a girl asking a boy if he would like to do something with her constitutes a "demand" that does not take into consideration that boy's feelings. If half of the GW campus really thinks this way, we're fucked. THREE.

Photo via George Eastman House

The battle for ideological dominance in our nation’s capital’s collegiate sex columns continues. Are our local campus columnists on the forefront of radical sex writing, or are they bringing back the good-old-days of referring to all former sex partners as  "trash"?

This week: How to "recycle" last week's "human trash," in the bedroom; how getting waaaaaasted will help you get into her pants; why you should never approach the person you're fucking in public.

GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY:

Sex Tip: Georgetown Hoya relationship columnist Colleen Leahey goes green this week by applying the three R's to drunken GW hook-ups. In short: Your previous sex partners are "trash." Having sex with a casual hook-up twice means you're "recycling." "Human recycling is rather different from rocking your older sibling’s hand-me-downs," Leahey writes. "It typically involves alcohol, bad judgment and a late-night phone call. However, it happens on college campuses—all the time. So, is there some sort of benefit to this practice, or should an old hook-up be thrown in the trash, never to be touched again?"

Life Lesson: Sex makes everybody feel worthless. "Next time you see your random hook-up out, think about the repercussions of what you’re about to do," Leahey writes. "Weigh the pros and cons of your situation; if it seems worth it, then feel free to recycle one more time. But do remember, you could wake up the next morning feeling like a piece of trash yourself."

Progressive Meter: Even environmentalists are vulnerable to the conservative idea that having sex destroys every boy and girl's precious reserve of purity. ZERO.

—

THE UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND:

Sex Tip: Seal the deal while she's drunk. UMD Diamondback advice columnist Esti Frischling returns from winter break to dole out advice on how to hook up with the girl you had your eye on last semester. Whatever you do, make sure she's not sober: "You didn’t man up and have your way with her when you had the chance, and now you’re just a loser with some number in your phone," Frischling writes. "The next time this happens, you have to capitalize on her tipsy advances."

Life Lesson: COLLLLEEEEGGGGGE! "I wouldn’t go straight to the sober, daytime date just yet. That’s a serious recipe for disaster. . .  you might not be drunk at that time during the day, meaning you’ll be less confident and she’ll be less attractive," Frischling writes. "I think you should meet her where you’re both most comfortable: drunk at a bar. You also don’t want to be stuck alone with her when everything goes to shit, you realize you have nothing to talk about, and you’re both terrible dancers."

Progressive Meter: Buhh. DRUNK.

—

HOWARD UNIVERSITY:

Sex Tip: This time in the Howard University Hilltop's "He Said . . . She Said" column, the He and She team up to warn undergrads against becoming somebody's "boo." According to the Hilltop, "boo" really stands for "Boy Other Option" or "Broad Other Option," depending upon the gender of the "side jawn" in question. How to be a good boo: "Don’t spend all your money, don’t ask a bunch of questions, don’t expect to meet their friends, don’t go physically farther than your emotions will allow, and never try to come up to them when they’re with another person."

Life Lesson: Boos can graduate to boyfriends and girlfriends—if they know their role. "We’re young and many of us have lots of options to choose from when it comes to being in a relationship—especially the guys on campus—so I can’t blame them for testing the waters before jumping into commitment," they write. "But the key to being a good boyfriend/girlfriend is first being a good B.O.O. Play by the rules folks, and you will win."

Progressive Meter: Some aspects of boo behavior show a respect for your sex partner's autonomy—a willingness to allow some physical and emotional distance "before jumping into commitment." Other characteristics of the boo appear to be an entrée into an abusive relationship. Never try to come up to them when they're with another person! THREE.

Photo by Darrow Montgomery

The fight for ideological dominance of D.C.'s college sex column "movement" rages on. Are our local campus columnists on the forefront of radical sex writing, or are they bringing back the good old days of borrowed class rings and shoulder-draped letter jackets? This week: A two-timing columnist receives a smackdown; college kids tell you not to have casual sex; the "MRS degree" makes a comeback.

GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY:

Sex Tips: No new sex columns have been printed over at the Hatchet since female columnist Layla confessed she was fucking her best friend and male columnist Mr. Darcy outed his little virgin/whore complex. There has, however, been a bit of community push-back to Darcy's double-timing the "nice girl" and the "freaky girl" while he waited for the "nice freaky girl" of his dreams to show up on his doorstep. "Bravo to this studly, virile man, who has so many girls drooling after him," wrote Kristen McCarthy, a senior. "There is nothing we females like more than a complete tool who jerks us around, jumping from one girl to the next, and then decides to 'have [his] cake and eat it too.' . . . . The worst part? The author's audacity to call himself Mr. Darcy. I can assure you that Miss Austen would never have stood for that behavior in a Darcy."

Life Lesson: Choose your pseudonym wisely. Good luck: Buster Darkhole is already taken.

Progressive Meter: Calling a tool a tool is a treasured feminist pastime, and reclaiming Austen was a necessary move. But no woman can speak for all females: Some girls like jumping around, too. 7

—

AMERICAN UNIVERSITY:

Sex Tips: The latest gem mined from the AU Eagle's Amber Sparkles, Buster Darkhole, and Maxwell Hillcrest reveals an ideological rift between the trio of sex columnists. Each columnist took turns answering the question, "How long to wait to have sex?" Hillcrest took the philosophical route: "But by asking, you are halfway on the road to your answer," he writes. Darkhole is short on specifics: "I would say try not to have it too soon." And Sparkles sidelines 'em all with her requisite conservative bent. "If you like someone enough to be interested in dating her or him or already are dating them, having sex could be a good experience. . . . As long as you are having sex because you like the person and would be interested in building your relationship, there isn’t a time that is too early or too late. But if your reasons are otherwise, then maybe you should think again."

Life lesson: Don't hit it unless you plan on hitting it for the rest of the semester.

Progressive Meter: Hillcrest hits the nail on the head when he tells students the only way to figure out if they're ready to do it is to "talk to your partner." Sparkles' advice to only sex someone you're "interested in dating," not so much. Why not try having sex with someone you're interested in having sex with? 5

—

GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY

Sex Tips: Columnist Colleen Leahey's latest informs students about why people you are hooking up with lie to you. The column, typically, includes some strange ideas about men (from Mars) and women (Venus). Among them:

• "Men and women have forever had difficulties communicating with one another."
• "Guys seem to be puzzled by the complex and utterly confusing mind games of women; females can’t seem to cope with the simplistic, one-track male thought-process."
• "Guys are notoriously stereotyped by society as players. After several beers, they’re only after 'one thing.'"
• "Not every college female is interested in graduating with her M.R.S. degree; some only want to have fun."

The column also includes one extremely strange imagined scenario about what hooking up in college is like: "Perhaps their beer goggles were a bit too tight that night. Seeing as you two never made specific rules concerning exclusivity, the hot bro or chick smiling across the bar may seem extraordinarily appealing under the glow of Thirds’ neon totem pole. However, the morning light reveals a pudgy, acne-covered mistake with really bad breath. How mortifying!"

Life lesson: The "M.R.S. degree" reference was enough to tip us off that we're dealing with an old, old soul here. The scare quotes around "one thing" and the exclamation point following "mortifying" seal the deal. Grandmother? Is that you in there?

Progressive Meter: Well, at least not "every" woman only went to college to get married. Zero.

Photo by riptheskull