Hating the compliment "unconventionally attractive"

[TrenterPercenter]

Composed of dark matter. It doesn't interact with electromagnetic radiation so it's not "visible", but it is massive. I have intercourse/congress with the wife on the reg, so I call it my weekly-interacting massive part.

I think this what is referred to as a Chode in the Hole

[The Ombudsman]

I don't understand why anyone would say this to someone. If they thought you were attractive, even if un-conventionally, why not just say I find you attractive?

[JamesTC]

I don't understand why anyone would say this to someone. If they thought you were attractive, even if un-conventionally, why not just say I find you attractive?

I think this is it, really. I would think it but I wouldn't say it. Not that I would ever even think it in anything but complimentary terms.

The prettiest woman I ever knew is what I would probably describe as unconventionally attractive. She looked a bit like Lauren Lapkus mixed with Jessica Knappett.

[touchingcloth]

It's definitely a neggy phrase. It's like when people say to me "I like your penis; does it comprise baryonic matter, or..." and I'm just left thinking "are we banging or not?" We can do it through the force of gravity, so it's fucking irrelevant to bring the nitty gritty into things.

[Sebastian Cobb]

So long as they're not likening it to a lion bar I reckon you can take the W

[Jockice]

PS - I have more to say here about severely disabled and disfigured populations who are nearly always forgotten in these discussions in favour of sexuality but I've written too much already in that post.

Tell me about it! Actually you don't have to because I already know. But I'm not getting into that discussion on here again.

[TrenterPercenter]

I don't understand why anyone would say this to someone. If they thought you were attractive, even if un-conventionally, why not just say I find you attractive?

I feel like this is deliberately being misinterpreted.

It is something to do with the word structure I think, because it has "un" at the front all people hear is "un......attractive", I'll bet because unattractive is an common word, if we change it to beautiful (there is no unbeautiful) "unconventionally beautiful" it sounds a bit better.

And it means this...

Conventionally we consider beauty in this manner, yet you are still beautiful beyond this convention.

People keep saying it simple means not attractive, ignoring the part where it is clearly saying you are attractive.

I like fact that your coat is different from the other typically boring idea of coats
"WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU SAYING ABOUT MY COAT!"

Meh, I dunno seems to be a lot speculating about why people are saying this which is verging into micro-aggression paranoia, perhaps people shouldn't say this to peoples faces as it is personal and as has been proved by this thread some people (not all) see it as offensive.  So best keep it locked away then and only said about people behind their back.

[TrenterPercenter]

Tell me about it! Actually you don't have to because I already know. But I'm not getting into that discussion on here again.

You should (if you haven't already) read Erving Goffman - Stigma: Notes on a Spoilt Identity.  He covers a lot of what is going on regarding this topic.

[The Ombudsman]

I feel like this is deliberately being misinterpreted.

For me, admitting there is such as thing as conventional attractiveness and explicitly saying someone falls short of it's standards is an unnecessary comment to make.

On some occasions I'm sure it's said with well meaning sincerity, other times I'm sure it's a back handed compliment and in some occasions an attempt at a micro-aggression.

Either way, for me it's unnecessary and too much akin to "You don't sweat much for a fat girl". Objectively the lass might be a porker and the inclusion merely a step in acknowledging the facts. The end result is still overall an unflattering comment.

I would like to say I know you didn't equate the two phrases, I did, just then to make a point.

[TrenterPercenter]

For me, admitting there is such as thing as conventional attractiveness and explicitly saying someone falls short of it's standards is an unnecessary comment to make.

A good reply but two things I would argue here.  Firstly the admitting of conventional attractiveness (I know it is related to the second point but this is also important imo) is a problem here.  We are surrounded by this all the time, we are a society obsessed with looks and have created societal hierarchies based on this, we've made gameshows about it and created technology in order for us present and grade each other on our visual aesthetic.  Alongside this we know that attractive people occupy a whole range of socio-economic and health benefits. 

Still we have to pretend that it doesn't exist.  That isn't dealing with it, it's sweeping it conveniently under the carpet which is highly convenient for a lot of people.

Secondly you are adding in the term "falling short" which is basically proving my point about misinterpretation.  It hierarchies conventional and unconventional into an ordinal scale when it isn't, it is nominal.  This is a prejudice that you are adding to it (this is what the convention and societal norms do!) you see unconventional as less than conventional and it suggests that attractiveness is a) not socially created (it is) and b) is an innate measurable quality in the world (as someone else said this "natural order" has sometimes been pinned to symmetry).

Another way of explaining this is someone being given an apple to eat everyday for a week, after that week they are given an orange to eat.  They enjoyed eating oranges more than the apple but the convention was apples.  The orange is not apple+1 or apple-1 it is different and the value is relative to the person eating them, this is what shoulders was rightly pointing to and is called a "frame of reference".  Our frame of reference is influenced by convention, we might well develop a taste for apples because we habitualise to them, but that does not mean that the apple convention is "better" in our frame of reference. 

An illogical argument could be made on quantity, that because apples are more numerous than oranges, then they are better and this is the seat of a lot of prejudices, differences are feared and not celebrated.  That isn't what unconventionally attractive means, it is celebrating the difference as long as the person saying it isn't doing quite paradoxically, what you are doing by thinking about convention and it's relation to unconventionally in this manner (that relationship does not exist between the words unconventionally does not mean convention-1).

[The Ombudsman]

A good reply but two things I would argue here.  Firstly the admitting of conventional attractiveness (I know it is related to the second point but this is also important imo) is a problem here.  We are surrounded by this all the time, we are a society obsessed with looks and have created societal hierarchies based on this, we've made gameshows about it and created technology in order for us present and grade each other on our visual aesthetic.  Alongside this we know that attractive people occupy a whole range of socio-economic and health benefits. 

Still we have to pretend that it doesn't exist.  That isn't dealing with it, it's sweeping it conveniently under the carpet which is highly convenient for a lot of people.

Secondly you are adding in the term "falling short" which is basically proving my point about misinterpretation.  It hierarchies conventional and unconventional into an ordinal scale when it isn't, it is nominal.  This is a prejudice that you are adding to it (this is what the convention and societal norms do!) you see unconventional as less than conventional and it suggests that attractiveness is a) not socially created (it is) and b) is an innate measurable quality in the world (as someone else said this "natural order" has sometimes been pinned to symmetry).

Another way of explaining this is someone being given an apple to eat everyday for a week, after that week they are given an orange to eat.  They enjoyed eating oranges more than the apple but the convention was apples.  The orange is not apple+1 or apple-1 it is different and the value is relative to the person eating them, this is what shoulders was rightly pointing to and is called a "frame of reference".  Our frame of reference is influenced by convention, we might well develop a taste for apples because we habitualise to them, but that does not mean that the apple convention is "better" in our frame of reference. 

An illogical argument could be made on quantity, that because apples are more numerous than oranges, then they are better and this is the seat of a lot of prejudices, differences are feared and not celebrated.  That isn't what unconventionally attractive means, it is celebrating the difference as long as the person saying it isn't doing quite paradoxically, what you are doing by thinking about convention and it's relation to unconventionally in this manner (that relationship does not exist between the words unconventionally does not mean convention-1).

I don't think it matters about a general consensus of whatever conventional attractiveness is. To me, the person saying this is referring to their own view of conventional attractiveness, be it the stereotypical view they perhaps subscribe to. Whoever's definition of the term is irrelevant, it's the fact a construct has been made by someone and you are being explicitly told you don't fit it (whatever it may be) is the shitty part. It boils down to "I'm surprised (maybe mildly) I find you attractive".

I don't really know what I'm trying to say.

We can no doubt agree however that oranges aren't apples.

[TrenterPercenter]

I don't think it matters about a general consensus of whatever conventional attractiveness is. To me, the person saying this is referring to their own view of conventional attractiveness

I've just explained that conventions have an influence on subjective views (that is what social norms are).  This is akin to saying I'm colour blind in the face of racism, to point out all the people are white in the boardroom is to engage in my own construction of racism, so I'll just ignore it.

Which like I said the impact of social norms of attractiveness are by and large ignored because it is convenient, not because they don't exist or impact on the world.  It's what we do.

The convention exists subjectively for people (everything does), but it simple isn't true that someone addressing the convention have to be upholding it or creating it.

it's the fact a construct has been made by someone and you are being explicitly told you don't fit it (whatever it may be) is the shitty part. It boils down to "I'm surprised (maybe mildly) I find you attractive".

You are saying the person says;

I have constructed an idea of what is conventionally attractive on my own (they haven't it is a social norm), and this is good (they haven't said that either), you don't "fit it" (one word has changed and it isn't attractive), I'm surprised I find you attractive (that is just completely made up).

The paradox is that there is one person making value judgements about whether conventionally attractive is better than unconventionally attractive. You also are asserting that the only possible interpretation is that conventional is a group everyone wants to be in, or the individual values this more than unconventionally.  As I said I think conventional attractiveness is dull, it is very common and ubiquitous in the media, has been quite obviously commercialised and runs contrary to idea of individual notions of attractiveness or real depictions of human populations (now there are two people making value judgements but at least mine is against the status quo here).

It is a comment on the convention not the individual, the individual is attractive despite the convention.

It is noticeable that people have to keep adding words and interpretations to this  in order to make arguments, you can do that with virtually anything, but in its unadulterated form if anything it is saying you disagree with the convention of what is attractive.

[TrenterPercenter]

Also...

Come on this is CAB

[Johnny Yesno]

Another way of explaining this is someone being given an apple to eat everyday for a week, after that week they are given an orange to eat.  They enjoyed eating oranges more than the apple but the convention was apples.  The orange is not apple+1 or apple-1 it is different and the value is relative to the person eating them, this is what shoulders was rightly pointing to and is called a "frame of reference".  Our frame of reference is influenced by convention, we might well develop a taste for apples because we habitualise to them, but that does not mean that the apple convention is "better" in our frame of reference.

B-but... you're comparing apples and oranges.

[Johnny Yesno]

The convention exists subjectively for people (everything does), but it simple isn't true that someone addressing the convention have to be upholding it or creating it.

Indeed.

[TrenterPercenter]

B-but... you're comparing apples and oranges.

That is point.

[Johnny Yesno]

That is point.

I just wanted to say it, with hilarious results.

[TrenterPercenter]

I just wanted to say it, with hilarious results.

Conventionally a GSOH

[The Ombudsman]

I've just explained that conventions have an influence on subjective views (that is what social norms are).  This is akin to saying I'm colour blind in the face of racism, to point out all the people are white in the boardroom is to engage in my own construction of racism, so I'll just ignore it.

Which like I said the impact of social norms of attractiveness are by and large ignored because it is convenient, not because they don't exist or impact on the world.  It's what we do.

The convention exists subjectively for people (everything does), but it simple isn't true that someone addressing the convention have to be upholding it or creating it.

You are saying the person says;

I have constructed an idea of what is conventionally attractive on my own (they haven't it is a social norm), and this is good (they haven't said that either), you don't "fit it" (one word has changed and it isn't attractive), I'm surprised I find you attractive (that is just completely made up).

The paradox is that there is one person making value judgements about whether conventionally attractive is better than unconventionally attractive. You also are asserting that the only possible interpretation is that conventional is a group everyone wants to be in, or the individual values this more than unconventionally.  As I said I think conventional attractiveness is dull, it is very common and ubiquitous in the media, has been quite obviously commercialised and runs contrary to idea of individual notions of attractiveness or real depictions of human populations (now there are two people making value judgements but at least mine is against the status quo here).

It is a comment on the convention not the individual, the individual is attractive despite the convention.

It is noticeable that people have to keep adding words and interpretations to this  in order to make arguments, you can do that with virtually anything, but in its unadulterated form if anything it is saying you disagree with the convention of what is attractive.

I think you are missing the crux of my point, but that's fine. Let's move on.

[Jockice]

You should (if you haven't already) read Erving Goffman - Stigma: Notes on a Spoilt Identity.  He covers a lot of what is going on regarding this topic.

Cheers Trenter. As it happens I have read it back in my academic days but may revisit it now.

Maybe others should read it too then maybe might see why I found it so objectionable to be described as having a 'temper tantrum,' told to 'get over myself' and called some very abusive names for pointing out that disabled people often get treated like shit when it comes to dating.

Sorry Barry, I know I said I'd try not to bring this up again but I'm still fucking angry about it. Just imagine anyone getting away with saying the same things to someone complaining about racism, sexism, homophobia or transphobia. Wouldn't happen, at least not on this site. But we're still seen as lesser people so it's all okay.

[flotemysost]

It's not one to deploy carelessly, for sure, but there could be instances. Maybe the person is viewing themselves negatively against what they see in the media and simply telling them they're beautiful sounds like bullshit.

_{This post has been brought to you by team I'llTakeAnyComplimentsICanGet.}

I just feel like even just acknowledging the existence of that convention in the form of a compliment - even if it's done with entirely well-meaning, genuine intent - still upholds what is essentially an oppressive system that "others" already marginalised groups. It can be a microaggression, even unintentionally, because for me it's actually not a million miles away from someone benevolently but thoughtlessly saying "You're so eloquent/well spoken!" to a Black person - i.e. the implication being that the expected norm is for them not to be eloquent (or beautiful, if that's what's being remarked on).

It's not ignoring the fact that this oppression and marginalisation exists; but there are far better, more supportive and constructive ways of recognising that fact than couching it in a way that means the recipient is meant to be flattered by acknowledgement of their minority status, if that makes any sense at all.

Obviously the ethnicity one is a specific (although very, very real) example, but as a few people have mentioned, the whole idea of a convention even existing is created by and serves those who are in the privileged demographics (not necessarily the majority), and the whole concept is really harmful, whether it's being said to someone's face, in a discussion on Mumsnet, or an article in Marie Claire. If you're intending to be nice to someone by acknowledging that they're attractive despite what the mainstream might think, I'd say: don't. Normalise just saying "you/they look great", without the implied caveat.

(As has been rightly pointed out, ableism is a massive massive part of this problem too, and I'm sorry for missing that out of my previous post. I also didn't mention fatphobia - it seems almost too obvious to bring up, but I reckon that's precisely because we have this deeply culturally ingrained idea that fat people simply can't be hot - which is obviously bollocks - or if they are then it has to be a big deal and empowering and groundbreaking and all that shit, not just a completely normal thing.)

Having said all this... I'm very aware that I'm from a generation where a lot of truly convention-breaking stuff has already happened before me (Grace Jones being an example mentioned earlier, but obviously countless queer/POC/otherwise marginalised groups and individuals who took great risks to merely exist and look a certain way), so perhaps it's a bit disingenuous for me to call for normalising these things; I can appreciate that for some people, there may well be something empowering about remaining an outlier to what's considered the norm, and I don't want to erase those rich histories. However obviously it goes without saying that discrimination is very much NOT a thing of the past, and I just don't see how trying to flatter someone by saying "they're hot, even though society tells me they aren't" helps to progress things.

TL;DR - referring to people's attractiveness as "unconventional" like you're giving them a lovely compliment is a bit like the ending of the film Shallow Hal, imho (i.e shit, and only serving to reinforce those harmful conventions)

[Sebastian Cobb]

An acquaintance of some guy I was in uni with once told me 'you have very piercing eyes' when we were out for a smoke (with acquaintance too) and when I told my friends that some woman in the smoking area told me that they all told me I'd missed a hint rather than my assumption that I'd just been called a staring bastard despite actually not doing that.

It might've been 'possessive' rather than prominent, which I reckon it's worse. It was a long time ago and whichever word it was I recalled it correctly.

[JaDanketies]

My fiancee told her friend that she looks like Lucy Worsley and her friend took offence. Lucy Worsley is 🔥

[TrenterPercenter]

I just feel like even just acknowledging the existence of that convention in the form of a compliment - even if it's done with entirely well-meaning, genuine intent - still upholds what is essentially an oppressive system that "others" already marginalised groups.

I feel this has now been moved into a knowingly or unknowingly oppressive act of othering marginalised groups (reminds me we need to go back in time and retrospectively kill Offspring).  I agree with you in this case.   Where someone is purposely doing this (or unconciously ignorantly) then there isn't any debate, it's just an ism of some sort.

The vast majority of times I've heard this being said it hasn't been people using it in this context, but I appreciate this is not the individual experience others might have had.  I've never said it myself and I've only ever heard people using it mainly to discuss celebrities or people positively, and if I'm honest I'm not convinced they were using it to knowingly or unknowingly marginalise others, a search of "unconventionally attractive people" brings up typical lists of celebrities, on that list, in order are Benedict Cumberbatch, Adam Driver, Maggie Glynehall, James Spader, Matt Smith, Tilda Swinton, Russell Brand, Sarah Jessica Parker....these are hardly what people would describe as from marginalised groups.

I think we are talking about two fundamentally different things here (and this is my fault as I shouldn't have expanded it beyond the OP experience) and I'm conscious that personal experience around these kind of things you are talking about might make this topic uncomfortable to discuss for people, which i'm not at all interested in provoking and certainly don't want to risk giving any succour to those that might use this term to harm others.

I gave it shot trying to explain what I was talking about but I have failed, I think sometimes these things are less of a logical rational dispute but, yes, a frame of reference in how things are approached, my mind tends to be a bit eclectic here so apologies (no doubt it will come in handy one day). 

My friend once got told he looked like Pat Sharp (he did) so he kicked a hole in our flat wall which at risk of marginalising Pat Sharp lookalikes seemed a bit of an over reaction (it certainly wasn't a funhouse to be in at the time..............................as I said, it was a flat)

[Video Game Fan 2000]

isn't every experience of beauty or attraction an experience of the "other" in something? or unexpectedly experiencing otherness in something or someone you might usually see as banal or boring. thats what a crush is innit "this totally normal, regular person is suddenly exceptional to me for no apparent reason"

i submit to the court that there is no such thing as a conventionally attractive person, if attractive means real attraction between people and not just the kind of face modelling agencies choose for the hot singles in my area

[Video Game Fan 2000]

also the notion that beauty and attraction are social constructs or instituted by social norms is an all time, top 10, own goal. its the saddest thing. nominalists put your clipboards away and look at the horizon for once you spotty herberts

[Johnny Yesno]

the kind of face modelling agencies choose for the hot singles in my area

That's exactly the kind of thing people mean by 'conventionally attractive'.

also the notion that beauty and attraction are social constructs or instituted by social norms is an all time, top 10, own goal. its the saddest thing. nominalists put your clipboards away and look at the horizon for once you spotty herberts

Oh, christ. No screeds on aesthetics, please.

Refer back to here: https://www.cookdandbombd.co.uk/forums/index.php?topic=95111.msg4959087#msg4959087

[Video Game Fan 2000]

absolutely comfortable putting the entire, global history of aesthetics and thought about beauty in its full manifold against four or five counter-enlightenment dingdongs

That's exactly the kind of thing people mean by 'conventionally attractive'.

is it though, does it really work like this:

Mr Cholmonderly Warner: Grayson, regard that woman in the Pilchard advertisement.

Grayson: She is rather attractive

Mr Cholmonderly Warner: No, look again Grayson

Grayson: On second glance I see that my experience of attraction was mediated by a complex chain of social forces stretching back into the mists of time. I was unaware that my position was ruddy implicit my own ruddy gaze, like a painter who paints himself painting in his own painting. I shan't be fooled by such biases again. Sex is a political evil and women have no place in the pilchard industry.

Mr Cholmonderly Warner: Very good. Be sure you don't taint yourself again in future or your membership of the Rotary Club will be in jeopardy.

SCRIPT BY JOHN BURGER, AGED 9 1/2

Oh, christ. No screeds on aesthetics, please.

but its my only line

[TrenterPercenter]

also the notion that beauty and attraction are social constructs or instituted by social norms is an all time, top 10, own goal. its the saddest thing. nominalists put your clipboards away and look at the horizon for once you spotty herberts

Sorry mate someone else will have to talk you down from this mess.

actually just read your Cholmonderly Warner skit(?).  Jesus, that is quite something to commit to a public forum, especially from someone that was bemoaning YouTubers for their amateur philosophy.

[Buelligan]

Speaking as a woman, I remember being accused here.  My silent black letters printed on the snow seemed like everyone elses.  Different patterns, of course.  But I was accused, pretty forcefully, of probably being ugly. Like how would that nullify my footprints, ffs?  Would you track me down and kill me?

Anyway, I replied, I was foolish and young in those days and my dander was up, I answered that I was viewed, by most who volunteered an opinion, as more than averagely attractive by Western standards (or some such bollocks).  Which trigged years of bullying.  Whatevs, for me, being considered unconventionally attractive would be a far, far, greater accolade.

Conventionally attractive, like conventionally minded, conventionally furnished, conventionally dressed, offers little in the way of actual attraction.  That's just what I think.