Some of my style is pretty unconventional, and yet I'm the first to say that I really value convention in fashion. I spent my teens and 20s working to decode how 'normal' worked. What should I wear to look appropriate? How do I express myself within those conventions? I think this is an important part of growing up. I might have been starting from more of a deficit than some, but I think we almost all go through that process of figuring out how to exist within society.

Ironically, I think we YLF folks started saying "conventionally flattering" exactly because we didn't want to imply that unconventional things weren't flattering in their own ways, recognizing that different people have different ideas of flattery and how important it is. I think it was an attempt to be open minded and inclusive, and that's the way I always hear it: a great example of YLF's kindness in discussing what people wear. Not a criticism of something as boring or basic.

I've only read a few of the posts upstream, but I don't find "conventionally flattering" a negative term. Personally, I do dress in ways that are conventionally flattering. Although I don't necessarily aim to create a perfect hourglass shape, I always like to define my waist, which is a big part of being conventionally flattering. And I do try to wear clothes that are at least fluid fit so as to show the basic outline of a female body.

I always felt that the term "conventionally flattering" was used to define a style that might not be traditionally flattering but was valued artistically nonetheless by a significant segment of the population.

No, I do not think "conventional" or "conventionally flattering" are pejoratives at all. I like conventionally flattering outfits and don't think of myself as particularly unconventional. My style is a little quirky and creative (I hope!) but I am not too far out there.

At work I just dress to get through the day. Practical is my buzz word there. I get to play dress-up doing my hobby and while I certainly stand out I do not completely flaunt convention. I do tend to bump up against the boundaries, however with perhaps the occasional toe going across.

Also, hi guys! I still check in even if I don't really post any more. And I see Kari on a regular basis!

It occurs to me 'unconventional' is used as a negative as much as 'conventional.'

I like Angie's take on it.
All words can at some point be used as "damning with faint praise" as the word is twisted on its original meaning.
Oh, that looks.....pretty.....!
I often want to look conventional with just s bit of " personality".

Also I like returning to Rachy's comment in COS-- Many days I want to be able to look in my closet or get dressed and not be consumed with, am I in style ? Am I ( edgy, original, modern. flattering, whatever!) enough?

It certainly felt like a bad word yesterday, in the light of some of the comments on Gaylene's thread. On that thread, I related very much to Anon's reply, when she asked what was wrong with simply looking "reasonably put-together and approachable". That's very much my attitude, too. My wardrobe exists to provide me with appropriate, considered outfits which allow me get on with my life with minimum fuss. I have no need nor desire to appear wacky or different, but neither do I wish to be invisible. So, yes, I'd say that puts me firmly on middle ground, and that's fine. I am comfortable enough in my own skin to continue to follow my own instincts in all aspects of my life.

I am Anonymous from yesterday, de-lurking and re-signing in to thank Summer and a few others for understanding where I was coming from.

Yes, I ultimately felt on the COS thread that the equivalent of "conventional" is "boring" and that if one dresses in a boring manner one must therefore be a boring person.

I'm sure Rachylou is a lovely person, but the comment that hit the hardest in this regard was the one of hers I quoted on the other thread: "I have to admit, when people stop with sexy/flattering/attractive - I find this beyond boring. It says to me: Breed, Buy a Beamer, Die... What's the point of that? Why bother? I could replace you with a cardboard cutout and it would be the same difference. I don't get it."

I'm sure no harm was meant, but this quote came across as the epitome of snobbishness. So I, as one who wears lots of mid-range off-the-rack very commonly obtained retail pieces would be utterly overlooked as not worth someone's time simply because I'm not interesting-looking enough to even approach? Then the reverse must be true, too -- that someone who dresses in a weird/quirky/"interesting"/avant garde way *must* therefore be an interesting person.... I'm certain there are examples to the contrary somewhere out there. (And for the record, I chose not to 'breed' and I drive a Jeep, not a "Beamer" ;).

So a resounding YES and high-five to Summer, above, who says it best: "My wardrobe exists to provide me with appropriate, considered outfits which allow me get on with my life with minimum fuss. I have no need nor desire to appear wacky or different, but neither do I wish to be invisible. So, yes, I'd say that puts me firmly on middle ground, and that's fine. I am comfortable enough in my own skin to continue to follow my own instincts in all aspects of my life."

Exactly how I feel. I joined this forum really, honestly, to learn new ways to style certain pant styles or booties or asymmetric hems. The deep analyses of the more -- I'll say it -- unconventional modes of dress are interesting, but I'll stay out of there and focus on Angie's advice on hemlines. Thanks for reading.

High-five back, Andrea. Glad you're staying with us.

Andrea, I'm glad to see you've signed back on. I have to say I understand where you're coming from, even though I also think that some of the very in depth discussions are interesting. When I was searching for my style and didn't know how to dress I overanalyzed everything to death. I don't need that anymore. At the same time I'm a bit removed from the shopping threads of the forum (because of my location, budget and goals to shop less and/or ethically made). To me theoretical discussions like this are one way to take part without needing to shop. And you can only talk about or show the same few looks you're repeatedly wearing so often before it gets boring. So I like that there are different topics to pick from. There's no need to do any in depth analysis or navel gazing if we don't want to.

Welcome, Andrea! I started this thread because of your post. I don't want anyone to feel put down or excluded here, and the best way to clear the air is usually an honest discussion of the issue. That's not always the case with an online forum, but this is a group of exceptionally thoughtful considerate people.

Regardless of what our style aspirations are, I would venture a guess that we all have days when we feel as you and Summer and others have expressed. Today is one of those days for me, and I am about to ask for forum help on what to wear for a day of many roles.

I'm so glad you delurked and are sticking around.

Coming at this very tangentially, That COS post got me to log back into the forum after many many motnths, years even since my last comment.

So unconventional definitely has its attractions.

Does that perforce render 'conventional' unattractive or uninteresting? Yes and no. It's the bread or potatoes of the meal. Sometimes bland but indispensable. Like you would MISS it sorely if it disappeared overnight. Just imagine waking up one morning to NO skinnies, tights, shoulder seams or darts... But also, sometimes potatoes or bread can be exquisite or exotic. And so also conventional dressing can be stunning, arrestingly done.

Avant-garde is not the only way to stand out, after all!

waving hi to ManidipaM! I hope you are doing well!

Yay, Manidipa! Hope you're doing well.

Andrea, I'm also glad you decided to sign back on. My interest in starting the COS thread was because I've been a such conventional dresser all my life. My clothes were all about being able to dress appropriately with a minimum of fuss so I could send the right messages and accomplish my goals in a very structured environment. Fashion, to me, was about hemlines and figure flattery. That's why I was dumfounded by my fascination with those COS outfits--by the thought that someone was saying "hey, fashion isn't just about following the rules to flatter and re-shape your body so you look pleasing to those around you".

Which brings me to Una's question about "conventional dressing". I think others have defined the issues around this term very well, so I'm not going to dip my toes into those waters. BUT (and those of you who know me on the forum were expecting that ), I think it's worthwhile to occasionally think about how dressing to external pressures and standards affects our ability to see beyond self-imposed boundries.

I'm not going to adopt a COS look because it is outside of what is "normal" for me and my situation, which is really what conventional dressing is all about. If everyone around me dressed like a COS advertisement, then that would be "normal" and I'd have permission, as it were, to start wearing boxy, voluminous clothing. Fitted clothing would become my "yuk--so ugly and tasteless". That's what being a conventional dresser is all about--assessing the norm and adhering to its forms and rules, with brief flirtings with JFE to show my "edge" and snowflakeness. As long as I follow the conventions established for my environment, my social circle, my role, my age, and my gender, I'll be protected from frowns and well-meaning attempts at intervention.

It was interesting, though, for at least a few minutes to contemplate the consternation I'd see around me if I walked out in one of those unmodified COS outfits having tossed all notions of flattery aside. Scary, but fun.

Oh, I'm definitely snitty.

But I disagree here re. "one who wears lots of mid-range off-the-rack very commonly obtained retail pieces would be utterly overlooked as not worth someone's time simply because I'm not interesting-looking enough."

That is, I don't think mid range off the rack = not interesting.

Someone will surely come up with an example of something that's both flattering and unconventional, and I'll stretch my mind a bit.

April, shaving your head bald as a cue ball is unconventional but on the right woman can be fantastically flattering.

I think there are a lot of fashions that start out to our eyes as unflattering, but as they become more the convention, our eyes adjust and we find them flattering. I've seen it happen time and time again on this very forum. Or maybe that's just me: initially I'll find a new style to be unflattering but over time it grows on me and next thing you know I'm trying it out myself.....

We all have our preferences. I can only say that my lifestyle and occupation, as well as my DH's occupation, calls for very conventional dressing. I try to add uniqueness to my outfits without going outside the dress code. Mercifully, my body type is ideal for the clothing I'm expected to wear. If people think I'm not interesting or worth getting to know, then so be it. I don't get that vibe from this forum, though, and I appreciate the feedback from Rachylou. She gives me things to think about.

I don't understand rachylou's comment at all, but I will say that some of the most interesting people I know wear attire that is "sexy/flattering/attractive." I think a couple of them have children and there might be a Beamer or two in the mix, too. That comment seemed harsh to me -- perhaps I don't understand the reasoning or logic behind it.

I think there are a lot of fashions that start out to our eyes as unflattering, but as they become more the convention, our eyes adjust and we find them flattering.

Shiny, I totally agree. And I think there's a pendulum swing when it comes to *what* is considered flattering, and what is conventional.

A whole generation of girls has grown up with jeggings and skinny jeans as a convention -- I'm sure that part of the sudden appeal of wide, boxy, figure-hiding garments is that this youngest demographic is looking to break out of the mold that has been cast for them, as young adults always do. Hence, gauchos, culottes, and palazzos on the upswing, with fitted/skinny feeling tired and stale.

Didn't the same thing happen during the transition from the 80s to the 90s? I know that when I was in elementary/middle school in the 90s no one would be caught dead wearing tapered, fitted pants. It was baggy all the way, thanks to the explosion of hip hop and grunge. When I see those COS silhouettes, they immediately remind me of early Eileen Fisher, when EF really emphasized oversized, not just fluid, fits. It doesn't surprise me at all that oversized is coming back in as a chic look (just think of those wonderful loose menswear inspired trousers that Katherine Hepburn made famous). Our eyes will adjust, just as they did to the skinny look (just about everyone I know was saying, "I wouldn't be caught dead wearing skintight jeans!" a decade ago, and look at us now...)

The COS silhouettes look Asian inspired to me. My first impression was that if you added a wrap belt you'd be properly attired for karate class. And I think karate outfits are fiercely adorable.

Would I wear it? Maybe. I bet such an outfit would totally hide my squishy midsection (see I do care about flattery). But they'd have to make it petite scaled, which isn't going to happen until it's hit the mass market anyway, and is peaking or past peak. So this is all not worth my thinking about just yet, and if this goes mainstream, it'll be conventional by the time I could acquire such an outfit for myself.

Conventions, conventionally flattering, environmental norms, having a 'uniform' all are shortcuts to doing what's generally expected for your audience. And it's not a bad thing to work within them, and to fit your norm, if that's what makes you happy.

It's also not a bad thing to consider where your edge is on any given day; and what your comfort level is with people noticing how much you choose to fit in or not. What do you want to be noticed for?

But if you choose something conventionally flattering, and then someone else thinks it lacks edge, whose opinion matters more to you?

There is room for Dorotheas and Ladislaws. I submit we could exterminate the stifling Casaubons, though.

UmmLila and Rachylou, you two are why I love YLF. What other fashion website offers up insights from Middlemarch!

Oh I mean exactly what I say, having been raised by Jesuitical people who parse every comma. Which is not to say 'ugly is better,' but that I don't find nice things enough personally. A base of generic nice is good, encompasses the obviously important things in life, but when you stop with JUST that... It makes me think of 1984: We're raising your egg allowance from three eggs to two.

I haven't had a chance to fully read both threads yet, but what rachylou says here is something I think about with regards to my personal preferences for the way I think about dressing myself (which isn't to say I feel the same way about how others dress, I really admire clothing that seems to resonate in harmony with the person wearing it across a whole range of style choices):

Which is not to say 'ugly is better,' but that I don't find nice things enough personally. A base of generic nice is good, encompasses the obviously important things in life, but when you stop with JUST that..



For me it comes down to the idea of risk and my changing relationship to it. Creative risk is super valuable to me as it allows for discovery and expansion, so I also tend to be intrigued by it in others and want to look at them when how they present visually with clothing and hair makes me think.

But there are times when I want to minimize risk in one area, perhaps to support taking risks in another? Like wearing a comfy uniform in the art studio when I basically don't want to focus on anything other than what I'm making. There are also times when I'm just not for risk at all, and want the zen of a well-oiled classic outfit to glide through the day and blend into my surroundings. Talking to a friend once and she said, 'what a great red coat, you look energized'. I said actually I'm going through a really rough time, the coat is armor and a kick-start, part of fake it until you make it. I'm looking particularly pulled together because I don't feel that way right now.

I'm a conventional dresser and there is definitely a tug to be less so, because I find that conventional sort of blends in a little too much.
I'm hoping that by wearing a few trendier pieces, like footwear for example, that this will make me slightly more remarkable, in a good way, like a snowflake

Oh, another meaty thread to chomp. Ok, to get back to the original question, I definitely use the term 'conventionally flattering', and I use it very consciously when I want to indicate an outfit makes the wearer look taller, thinner, hourglassyer, or otherwise more similar to the prevailing western norm of beauty as I see it. I am distinguishing it from other outfits that I, and probably others, find very flattering but not necessarily making the wearer look as tall, thin, etc. as possible. So it might be a waist surrendering look, or culottes or whatever that make the wearer look vibrant but not necessarily their tallest, slimmest, etc.

Saying that an outfit or dresser is conventional or unconventional is a whole other can of beans. Both can be a put down or a compliment depending on the context and has nothing to do with flattery and everything to do with social expectations. So a bikini might be super conventionally flattering but very unconventional in a bad way at a PTA meeting. Or a design by Rei Kawakubo might be not particularly flattering in any sense but admired for its uncoventionality and given high praise at the aforementioned gallery opening.

Andrea I am glad you delurked, and your point of view represents many others, and as Una suggests, perhaps all of us some of the time. Most of the conversations here are actually more down to earth. There is no question that lots of people choose to express themselves in ways other than their personal style and are super interesting people.

Great thread Una and everyone!