Comments
Please wait...
and remember to be decent to everyone
all of the time.
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
More In Columns
Editors' Picks
Popular Articles
is a proud member of the
network
network
All contents © Noisy Creek, Inc.
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
There are medical reasons that could explain issues with a flat libido.
Also, I know a number of gals who grew up in very conservative families and somehow think that kinky stuff is great pre-marriage but marriage is only about missionary-style sex. (Kindof like how all the Catholic girls who think sticking a dick in every hole BUT their vagina makes them a virgin). There may be some unresolved guilt issues floating around.
I definitely think finding a sex positive therapist or even just trying to have very non-pressuring conversations about sex to try and explore her feelings on it (not explain your wants and needs for the 119th time) might yield something.
Seriously. If you want to walk a mile in someone's shoes, try LOST's. He's been with Mrs. LOST for his entire adult life. He loves her, wants her. But he is no longer having regular sex with Mrs. LOST. Mrs. LOST reveals that sex with him - at least some of the time - makes her uncomfortable. And LOST is confused, rejected, upset, probably a little humiliated by the fact that he has married this woman who may not actually feel the same way about him as he does about her.
What we forget, up here in the cheap seats, is that we can play advice columnist because the stakes are so low. It's easy to pronounce harsh judgement and make outrageous assumptions when you have no skin in the game, no name to protect or reputation to build. It's easy to be right all the time if nobody cares whether you are or not.
@95: That's why they deserve each other. Who better for a john than a prostitute?
I'm just surprised by these ads. Dan and a good majority of staff members of The Stranger would NEVER support garbage like that. Or at least, that's been the longtime impression I got.
OK, I should've used quotes around newlywed, but my premise was to point out what his attitude should be, about the most important relationship in his life. If it isn't close to my putative state, then the whole relationship is a drudge that should be recycled into something happier.
Sex isn't the only aspect of a successful relationship. This site tends to focus upon the question of one person's ability to get their partner to the orgasmic state, and not be concerned with other trivialities like making their day to day life fun and enjoyable. If you consider how memorable a day to day fuck is in comparison to a good shared meal, or a joke, there is a lot of room outside the bedroom to work on making improvements in a couple's shared life. Not surprisingly, making the outside the bedroom part better carries back into the bedroom as well.
Overstating the obvious,
Peace.
You are DEFINITELY going to be happier in gay mormonland, with a name like that.
You're welcome!
So what happens is most of us here fill in the blanks, usually projecting their own favorite takes (or pet peeves) on the relationship described by the LW.
I don't think this is bad in itself -- it means we're all talking about hypotheticals (and as Dan says all letters are hypotheticals to everybody except at most one person). We don't know for a fact that LOST's wife has been 'bad' to him -- we know what he wrote, but as the team defending LOST's wife above says, he didn't give her view on it and he didn't mention much about how she was feeling (and he didn't even say he loves her); maybe she's suffering and he's not caring. And we don't know for a fact that she hasn't been 'bad' to him -- he certainly is suffering and makes that clear in his letter, he does mention a number of talks about the topic with her that led to no changes, so apparently she isn't paying that much attention to his suffering either.
So you can take one viewpoint or the other (and, despite some comments above claiming that the other viewpoint is the favorite one here, I frankly see just as many comments defending/attacking one of the two parterns as I see defending/attacking the other; plus a few comments apparently against both). If the LW were to add a few comments and answer a few questions, we might (I stress: might) be able to eliminate one of the viewpoints, but this hasn't happened, so we can't. (Which is why my own comment above was that both are not really in touch with each other, and that, unless this changes, they should divorce.)
That people will project their own preferences in what the LW doesn't say is to be expected, and reveals more about what these people think (or don't think), about what they remember (or forget), and so gives us some insight into the views of other people. All in all, not a bad thing. It's good to learn more about how others think, what assumptions they make, what their gut feelings tell them. It's good to learn more about people. It's in itself even better than simply being right or wrong.
On the one hand:
1) It appeals to my inner asshole.
2) Fuck the LDS!
But, on the other hand:
1) Using dead people's names is kind of a dick move.
I guess I'll have to stay away from that site. As funny as the idea of gayfying the entire Mormon afterlife is, the moral dissonance is a little too much for me.
The most positive aspect of the Savagean take on relationships is that we should be open about our desires and discuss them the same way we discuss our agreements and disagreements in other areas -- religious or political orientation, living arrangements, career prospects and expectations, etc. There still is an insidious tendency to think that 'the sex thing' will resolve itself without us having to do much about it -- LOST providing a good example of how such things can happen.
Which is why most of the (increasingly relationship) advice that is sent to Dan is about sexual problems, not religious incompatibility or different child-rearing philosophies.
Of course, the flip side is that Dan may well forget that relationships involve more than happy consensual sex. Which is what you quite correctly point out in your comment. I will only say that this is probably unavoidable given the focus he chose for his advice column -- the area of relationships in which negotiation is most often neglected.
Note the contradiction in LOST's letter. He says he actually enjoys being married, then asks if he's doomed to a bad marriage. I am a ridiculous romantic and optimist. When faced with that contradiction, I put all the emphasis on the idea that LOST likes being married. If I were LOST's marriage counselor, I'd encourage them both to consider their chances of finding someone else they get along with half so well. They're in their early 30s. They might divorce and find the perfect partner out there. Mr. LOST might find someone into the oral, toys, and masturbation he's into, and Mrs. LOST might find the guy who only wants traditional like she does. But then again, they might not. They might be better off where they are. If I were LOST's marriage counselor, I'd spend a lot of time on what's right with their marriage (they could have tons in common) before moving on to that single sexual point where they disagree.
Also note that a lot of people would say that LOST doesn't have it so bad. He's got a wife who's up for traditional sex whenever he initiates. A lot of guys would pant and drool for that sort of wife.
This brings me back to 88 above. Maybe if LOST put some attention and emphasis on making his wife happy, and do it seriously and without pressure, she'd respond in kind. Maybe if he gently suggested that hormones play a part, that would be an answer. (Not just birth control. Ask about testosterone.) Maybe if he suggested that a partner outside of the marriage for HER benefit, not jumping to his, she'd get the idea that sex can be a pleasurable thing.
Besides, the word has a lot of heterocentric baggage. It ought to be retired.
I don't see anything here that sounds like he wants to be with this woman, or be married to her - it sounds like what he wants is a reliable source of sex-on-demand. I think it sounds like he's the one for whom sex is a transaction.
This raises an interesting question. The one option Dan didn't mention was for LOST to learn to enjoy the marriage he has. Is that impossible? Being GGG mean being up for satisfying your partner's desires - why doesn't the desire for less sex count?
Good point about the term "newlywed" losing a good deal of its meaning when the recently-married couple in question has been together for close to 20 years! It also seems to suggest a level of "getting to know each other" that for many couples these days, happened long before the wedding, particularly if they lived together beforehand. Maybe it should be used sparingly.
But I don't agree that just because it has "heterocentric baggage" it should be thrown out. There are a lot of words with that same baggage ("marriage" is one of them), and the solutions to disentangling that baggage would either be to coin a new word and replace the old with something meaning essentially the same thing, but without old connotations, or to establish a sort of separate-but-equal vocabulary (as in "civil union"), which I think leads to a tiered or hierarchical concept of legitimacy or preferablity--something I want to avoid.
I see the point or value of throwing out the old and starting fresh, but I wonder if the subtle difference of attitude in the broadening of a long-established meaning to a word might not be in some ways even better.
Yes, and they're all spinning the same transparent thread of Jabberwocky theology. Disagree with it? Try calling "Bullshit." This is the sort of foundational creed one rejects for the conniving illogical distortions it tries to pass off as merely paradoxical. Bull. Shit. As stated, it's messy semantics at best that uses Solomon efficiency to reconcile the sinner and the sinnin'. Followed to it's unnatural conclusion, I call "Bullshit," because, in order for you to have your theological druthers, I'd really rather you didn't receive a pass that requires parsing my dick.
http://unicornbooty.com/blog/2012/02/21/…
I do get that you're not necessarily defending their stance, yet, to paraphrase, "But y'are, Blanche, y'are."
Maybe if that went alright, she could let her boyfriend have the tape? With the condition that she doesn't have to watch it with him, but is waiting in the other room to have super hot sex and experience his enthusiasm, thereby easing her comfort level with future pooping?
"But in my opinion, what I'm asking for is not "kinky," certainly when compared to some of the things I could be into." Newsflash to LOST: it doesn't matter what everyone else thinks is kinky, it matters what SHE enjoys because you're having sex with HER.
LOST's wife should be ashamed of herself for being such a stereotype - bobbing for diamonds, in this day and age? LOST on the other hand is going to end up, if he already isn't, a twisted embittered member of the Men's Rights movement, and another one of those arseholes is the last thing we need. I know, I was in a similar position and it was way too easy to generalise to all women are frigid bitches etc etc. Fortunately I realised I was being a leotard about the same time as I met a wonderful sex-positive girl.
I didn't read all the comments but your wife clearly has resentment towards you for not marrying her sooner. I don't blame her (though she could have left you). You should consider going to counseling so you can communicate clearly about these things. I know Dan always says the answer he gave you and maybe he's right but it sounds like things were good once. Perhaps if you stop thinking about how you're getting off and start thinking about her a bit more and why she's shut you out you may have more success than Dan's bleak options. Maybe.
Really?
Rick Santorum goes into a bar hosting a Republican caucus and starts talking to a clean cut, well dressed guy who appears to be a big supporter. Turns out the "supporter" was actually a progressive planted among the crowd, deliberately trying to freak the right-wing whackos and woman-haters the fuck out. He succeeds--a little too well when asking for Rick's phone number while fluttering his eyelashes, and POW!!!!---Santorum punches the poor guy in the face, resulting in an ugly bar-room brawl.
Headline in the next morning's paper? "All Hell Breaks Loose When Santorum Hits the Fan".
As for what people will and won't do there are always some things people don't feel comfortable doing. Unless that's your main fetish you've got to consider if it's a deal breaker or not. However, oral is pretty standard so thats a no brainier.
However, I am bothered by the fact that Lost finds it unacceptable that his wife wants to "be awake enough to have sex". Everyone should be awake enough to have sex when they have sex. Otherwise they can't give real consent. I hope that one of Lost's kinks isn't making love to unconscious women, unless he can find a woman who wants to have sex while she is asleep and is unaware of having it. There may be someone out there who shares that kink, I really don't know, but unless it is mutually agreed upon, having sex with someone who isn't awake is creepy and possibly illegal.
Yeah, that would be rape. Which is illegal. Glad you pointed out that that was disturbing, but I read the "not awake enough" bit as "she's always giving me the 'Honey I'm Too Tired' brush-off." Hopefully that's what he meant.
The gay dead Mormon site is pretty funny. Mormon baptism-by-proxy, though, is not as simple as clicking a button. They actually have volunteers who are dunked in a pool of water on behalf of the baptizee. The equivalent, I think, would involve having volunteers to convert them by having gay sex on their behalf. So, next time you're in the throes of ecstasy with a same-sex partner, try screaming "Brigham! Brigham! Brigham!" That should do it. ;)
Oh come on, I'm dying to use "newlyweds" on my retiring congressman and his fiancee. Sometime in the not too distant future Barnett Frank and Jim Ready will be getting married, and earn the right to be called newlyweds. I'd really like to see a closeup of the custom ring Mr. Ready made for Rep. Frank.
If newlywed seems heterocentric to you, then it is time to redefine the word to your liking.
Peace.
Honestly - "give compliments, make your compliments specific" is probably some of the most useful relationship advice you can give to a man in a relationship with a woman.
Personally, I'm an absolute sucker for compliments.
But thank you for providing such a splashable example.
I would never even begin to pretend that I don't enjoy quite a few traditional gender roles. Traditional roles are lovely and wonderful (except the ones I don't like). :P
I have a friend who identifies as a feminist (I typically don't, although twist my arm and I'll admit that I technically am) and we chat about this a lot. I'm not threatened by the existence of traditional gender roles (this applies equally to the ones that I do and do not conform to) while she is. I think taking the power from gender roles is a better goal than focusing on their arbitrariness in hopes of removing them.
Given a major caveat: Verbal acceptance given first, some people like to be woken up by their partners having sex with them. Sometimes that isn't more involved than a mumbled "OK". Personally, "I wanna sleep" is a pretty easy message to understand.
Peace.
By all means choose your choice. While I cannot speak with authority, I'm sure it would indicate more involvement with TGRs to avoid them all than to follow some and not others. But why universalize one and thereby impose it on others (which was what recalled to mind He Who Must Be Shunned)?
Then again, as a natural giver of specific compliments, I'll take a brief to oppose the advice on the merits. People who need that advice won't be any good in the implementation of it. They will be reminiscent of Mr Collins assiduously flattering Lady Catherine de Bourgh. Were the advice changed to telling people to cultivate the art to the best of their abilities, I'd be fine with it. I just don't like the inference that people think anybody can just become a Master Complimenter at will.
It's similar to the self-knowledge that I am not really a good person. I know how good people act, and I can impersonate one, but I know I'm not seriously fooling anybody of discernment.
European gangs pimping foreign women in sexual trafficking? Abhorrent. Boy Scouts? Not abhorrent.
LAME - Dan is 100% correct. "Thanks, but no thanks".
LOST - Dan is 110% right. You were duped by a classic marriage bait-and-switch. She got what she wanted (a husband) and you didn't get what she promised you (the taste of pussy). DTMFA and be done with it. And take Dan's hint to heart next time around - people don't change once they get a wedding ring on their finger.
Those things need not be a "fix" but rather can be a delightful end in themselves, especially if they don't result in anything being fixed.
I am weel into 30+ yrs with my H.S. bride and can tell you that ANY compliment from Hubby is viewed as sexually motivated, and used as evidence of an over -active male libido.
He will hear "act your age" "men are pigs" etc. etc.
The only remedy is to sneak and become a CPOS in this columns vernacular.
T.
It is interesting that a subset of those fighting against gender roles seem to inflate said gender roles into boogeyman-proportions rather than actually weaken them with all their 'fighting'. Like those who fight against words instead of fighting against people: the final result is often the opposite of what they wanted.
Laughing and gender roles, or better yet: not really caring about them (which includes not caring to make sure you're the exact opposite of them) seems to me the best way to weaken their grip.
I actually didn't recognize the name drop.
A few weeks ago I explained my opinion of "TGR" as you said (comparing them to left and right handedness or sexual orientation) and if you like I could maybe go back and find my little speech and copy-paste. It wasn't that riviting, just a personal opinion.
The boy scout analogy doesn't fit with how I view it, but I'd have trouble explaining why without giving the whole speech.
Finally - though I typically balk at men tailoring their behaviour to fit what women want (such a turnoff for a TGR person such as myself :P) a small adjustment in compliment format is hardly analagous to simulating the behaviour of a completely different person.
EricaP's advice above is, I think, very good: if you make her understand that this implicit accusation actually hurts your feelings without any reason for that (since sex is not in itself offensive), and if you try to make her feel sexual with welcome touch, things may get better.
Perhaps the 'fear of objectification' is, for some women, more a fear of not being good at sex. Maybe she fears how you'd judge her. Or maybe it's because she doesn't want sex, either in general or with you. Either way, a sincere and open conversation about what she wants, what you want, and how to satisfy both might help.
Many people are quick to change their attitudes regarding sex, gender roles, etc. but to me as a never-been-married person it seems even progressives are slow to relax their grip on the traditional institution of marriage.
In my opinion Mrs. LOST shouldn't be criticized for false advertising or a low libido, but for objectifying the marriage thing.
Sometimes people need to be hit in the face with a bucket of cold logic.
I just had been thinking that if she is silly enough to think that getting compliments is bad, she ought to find out just how bad _not_ getting them is.
It's a green grass end to a cruel cold day. Say Goodbye.
Is loving somebody that much in the first place and having them walk right over the top of you time and time again ever even worth it? My experience with this has taught me 'no'. Some people can give, some people just take.
I don't think it is the issue of being outed as much as this guy seems to want to have his cake and eat it too.
For all you know, he is married to a woman, has children but is not happy and would like to have a relationship with a man. Those are really difficult decisions to make in our society. They can be made if the person has the strength, commitment and honesty to make them.
Don't let this person do this to you. Get out and find somebody worthy of loving you and receiving love from you in return.
Good Luck.
All I ever had was the integrity and courage of the ability to be honest. I never have had a way through life like you have. It tugs at my heart because --even though I can't help but to care on a human level-- I also know that you are divorced from that on account of your need for cover.
I care, and I want to see you happy, and healthy.
I hope you are. Sadly, I am not happy right now.
I don't think it's healthy for either of us to reach out to the other in any way anymore. The chasm is too wide and cannot be bridged as long as one of the two decides to remain closeted.
I need to go now. Please take care, William.....
gge
From his perspective it's more like she's the one who wanted a transaction, and even though he's given her the transaction that she wanted, she still isn't happy.
Not to rag entirely on one side, though. Personally, I've never understood wanting to be with someone for all intents and purposes permanently (17 years? SEVENTEEN YEARS?!?) and still be unwilling to marry them. There comes a point where you realize that this isn't just casual, that you have built a life together, and you frankly owe each other the legal protections that come with solemnizing the commitment. Example: you die suddenly and your legal next-of-kin decide to try to take your estate, doing her out of what should be joint property. Doesn't one's life partner deserve protection against that sort of thing?
She's probably pretty mad that it took ten years for her to get fed up enough to start getting passive-aggressive with the sex, then two more years to complain about it, then five more years after that (!) to remedy the situation.
Seventeen years is a long time, but it's worse to never figure it out at all.
Best To All.
I love your column. But alldeadmormonsarenowgay.com?! Really? I get the humor, I get the sarcasm, I get the shocking juxtaposition. But you're better than that, and so are we! Your readers, I flatter myself to believe, are people who believe in choice. I don't care who's gay, who's mormon, or who likes mayonnaise (ew!). Not my life. And even when we're joking, the people we're joking about have families and loved ones just like holocaust victims. Rise above! Keep naming excretions, and be the bigger man.
Peace,
ams
I shall spare the assembled company a lecture on Pride and Prejudice.
"We've had this discussion consistently throughout our short marriage, with no sign of her even trying" They never had these discussions for the 17 years they were together before getting married? He expects her to change? He feels like he was hoodwinked into marriage? I'm totally dumbfounded by his attitude. Why should she? She knows he's obviously doesn't have the nerve to leave. Normally when I hear these stories when men have relationships with women who play bait and switch with sex/marriage I sympathize with the man, however, since they were together for such a long time prior to the wedding he knew what he was getting. Sorry, no sympathy from me. IMHO, no one is a victim in this marriage and it sounds like they deserve each other.
If he's that unhappy not getting enough sex, he needs to get out of that marriage now before they have kids and is trapped.
1-800-SUICIDE (1-800-784-2433)
1-800-273-TALK (1-800-273-8255)
Thinking about you...
That's not how I understand the components of GGG. For me:
Game = Give it a try AND don't be judgmental.
Good = Learn how to perform the sex acts your partner enjoys with skill and enthusiasm. And keep trying to improve - don't settle for halfway decent.
Giving = Be generous with your partner and don't keep score of how often you each get your favorite sex act.
Is tendancy to give compliments like eye colour now? When did that happen?
I give compliments constantly. I don't consider it 'unnatural' to do so...
Umberto Eco once created the concept of "semiological guerrilla", which he defined as the (deliberate or not) re-interpretation of the message to mean something other than what its sender had intended.
One is also reminded of the famous army logo "no one can make you feel inferior without your consent," which I translate as "you don't have to buy into the meaning someone wants to transmit with a certain word."
All in all it's always about concrete situations, isn't it? What I do now, when someone is trying to offend me (and make me feel inferior) with some word? Do I laugh? Do I throw other offensive words back at the person? Do I dissect the person's intention in front of him? Do I stay silent? Do I attempt physical aggression? Do I ignore them? Do I call the police?
What is the correct course of action when one is being offended? What will work? What has any chance of changing something? What will feel more cathartic?
Anger is a powerful source of motivation.
Weird, isn't it?
EricaP, I'm in love with you!
Why is this issue so hard to understand? We have a history of oppressing women that many of us are trying to rise above. The compliment used as a power-nullifying putdown is a well established phenomenon. Stick to complimenting women with whom you have an established, non-professional relationship who you are certain will receive a compliment from you (you specifically) as a welcome gesture.
You're pathetic.
@Mr. J
See, this is why women like me can't stand feminists most of the time.
No, I don't see. Will you please elaborate?
I never understand why a woman wouldn't consider herself a feminist. Don't you believe that women should have the same opportunities as men, get equal pay for the same work, not be discriminated against because of gender?
I'm not sure why you're asking me that. Of course I believe all those things. I'm just surprised when people don't get how compliments are and have been used to belittle. People are more than their sex. There's a right time, place, and audience for compliments.
And welcomed, I think, when they're not being used as an opening gambit for something that the complimentor wants from the complimentee. If the person being complimented sense that the compliment is either a bargaining chip or a precursor to a favor (which is what I think Mr. Ven, with his reference to "Pride and Prejudice" was referring to), the compliment is not welcomed. And if a compliment seems to imply a limitation, like a woman in the workplace being complimented by her male colleague on her hairstyle, if she feels that that is all he thinks is valuable about her or that he only regards her in terms of her attractiveness (which might be what Mr. J meant), that is likewise not appreciated. And it does seem to be true that unless you're really close with someone, the compliments tend often to be appearance- based.
But, like mydriasis, I hand out sincere compliments every day, and often to total strangers ("I love your shoes"), and I get compliments all the time (again, often from strangers) and it's dang nice.
When my former bf used to see me and say in this sincere, enthusiastic voice, "you look great!" I'd love it.
I think that frequently, compliments tend to fade away except for special occasions over the course of long-term relationships, and no doubt, many men use them as a precursor to initiating sex--though the compliment might be genuine and heartfelt, and spark the desire to have sex or stem from the desire to have sex with a woman the man thinks is attractive (kind of a loop here).
I suppose it is the woman who feels generally unappreciated by her partner, who sees the compliment as an insincere and basically cheap way to "buy" her favor so he can get what he wants (sex) and which she is reluctant to "give" (sex) who has a problem with compliments in the personal realm. But that dynamic seems to stem from a much larger interpersonal problem that would need to be addressed.
If I wanted to get really precise: I don't go out of my way to call myself a feminist but when pressed, the expression I use is "third world feminist". I care a great deal about feminist issues in "third world" countries (I include the US in that catagory because although they are a wealthy country, their human rights politics are abysmal) but not so much those that get brought up here (compliments are objectification! beer ads are sexist! I make slightly less money!).
I just can't bring myself to care about a couple less cents on the dollar when there are women that can't vote, women that aren't allowed to go to school, women that are legally bound to marry their rapists. How could anyone?
By the dictionary definition of feminism, I am a feminist, yes. But there are a lot of feminist ideas I really don't support and unfortunately those are the ones I hear about constantly. Such as the suggestion that men shouldn't compliment women for fear of offending them for some ridiculous contrived reason.
I just don't feel that the current state of 'feminism' represents me or my opinions at all. It's similar to how before if you were religious you would say 'I'm religious' but now some people insist on identifying as 'spiritual, not religious' because they don't feel 'religious' represents them correctly anymore based on other people who identify that way.
Does that make sense?
But: our ability to change third world cultures is very limited.
Workplace compliments like "great job!" can and should be given to women as well as men. The problem comes from sexualized compliments, and Mr. J. is wise to suggest limiting them to women with whom you have an "established, non-professional relationship."
I love when my husband tells me "nice ass" -- but if a colleague said that, he'd be out of line. Make sense?
But I get irked when all feminism is conflated to mean "uptight bitch with no sense of humor, offended far too easily," which is what many people seem to do. If enough people who aren't that extreme self identified as feminists (and publicly), then there would be a much broader and more truly representative view of what feminism means and who feminists are.
There is a word, "disinterested," which is being misused a lot today as a synonym for "uninterested," but which actually means that the disinterested person has nothing to gain, and wants nothing (from someone or some situation). There is no self-interest.
So a disinterested compliment is one that stems from the giver's honest and genuine appreciation of someone or something, without any sense that giving said compliment is an act of ass-kissing. There is nothing to be gained for him when a stranger tells me that he likes my earrings, or I compliment someone on her shoes, nor is there when I tell a colleague that I thought her presentation was wonderful, or a friend that his homemade tonic made the best gin and tonic I've ever tasted. I don't want to get anything as a result of those compliments; I just want to express my admiration.
Contrast this to Mr. Ven's example of Mr. Collins' toadying to Lady Catherine de Bourgh by paying her compliments which are the opposite of disinterested. Every sycophantic compliment he issues is intended to butter her up and to result (hopefully) in her preferment--and in reaping the financial and social rewards of that preferment.
This is one kind of compliment people may object to, as it doesn't feel genuine, or as they sense self-interest behind it.
And the other kind of unappreciated compliment is the kind that is inappropriate, as Mr. J and EricaP pointed out: "nice ass" in the workplace, though I can't believe that would actually be uttered much these days with people's awareness of the consequences of sexual harassment. It's probably more like, "you look hot today" (which, in the funniest example of the inappropriate compliment, was exactly what my cousin said to me--on my wedding day!).
If a wife (or husband, or boyfriend or girlfriend) gets upset at a personal compliment from an intimate partner, it seems that the objection comes from assuming it was payed out of self-interest; if a person gets offended at a compliment from someone with whom he or she isn't intimate, it is likely that it's of the inappropriate variety.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-…
I've had a lot worse than 'nice ass' in the workplace and it pretty much rolled off my back. I assume I'll have a different attitude once I get a real job (I'm a student) but for the time being I guess that argument doesn't really jive with my real life experience.
Look, though 'feminist' itself is a diverse and all inclusive term - in practice it's still essentially a movement in that there are people actively engaged in it (bloggers and writers, etc) and people watching (me). And I do watch. One of my closest friends cares a lot about these things and she's a bright, reasonable person (not an uptight bitch). It's just that a lot of the issues that come up in the context of Canada (not America*, like I said, you guys have some serious problems) are either petty/trivial or I legitimately don't even agree with the feminist viewpoint on that issue.
That's why I don't typically identify as feminist.
*If you look at what I posted, I actually did suggest that legitimate feminist struggles are alive and well in America. My condolences.