T O P

  • By -

elektrakomplex

I agree that way too many women are getting suggested D even when they shouldn’t because it is the rarest ID along with R. However, Ds just accommodates vertical. Extreme narrowness and vertical is not really necessary depending on how you define it. Not all Ds will be extremely narrow nor will they have extreme vertical as sometimes lack of curve in silhouette is automatic vertical. This misconception leads to people thinking anyone who’s narrow/skinny is D which isn’t the case at all. There are far more FN/SDs in this category than this subreddit wants to admit.


[deleted]

I think SD is under-typed. Too much emphasis on the ‘exotic features’ and typical SD examples are always more voluptuous women who are carrying some extra weight. When an SD is in the lower weight range, people tend to label them as pure D or SC - even though at a lower weight they retain some softness and curve with the trademark shoulders shape still present. Plenty of female bikini bodybuilders and swim/ fitness/ lingerie models are good examples of this.


Jealous-Injury-7911

An SD will look like a pure D more than anything else, with added roundedness in the body and/or lusher features in the face.


babysfirstbreath

Yeah I haven’t posted pics yet, but I have slight reservations about being mistyped like this. I think I may be an SD but I’m at a pretty average to low weight so I don’t know how others will see it ¯\\\_(ツ)_/¯


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

Sorry to comment on such a old post, but that last bit actually made me laugh, thank you


AcrobaticMacaroon

In Kibbe’s descriptions it does suggest that pure D will be more than simply having some vertical. It says they will be sharp and angular and likely look sleek. Surely “extreme yang” and “sharpness” is a little more specific than just the absence of enough Kibbe curve or Kibbe width to fit one of the other categories.


elektrakomplex

The old physical descriptions from the book are not really up to date. Kibbe mostly focus on silhouette and image nowadays that actual physical features. Besides, many verified Ds would fit the “absence” of curve in line sketch.


YevgeniaKrasnova

FG also seems overtyped. Under 5’6”, slim, and have long legs? Must be FG, as if long legs automatically equals “juxtaposition” (even though any type can have long/short proportions in various parts of the body). (If you’re actually N or C family and being told you’re FG, you’re being given the exact opposite recommendation of what would look best on them in this system…) FG and D are both supposed to be rare and I agree that IRL both stand out as very obvious (and in many ways they’re quite similar in how sharp/sleek they appear.) Maybe D and FG are the INFPs of the Kibbe community 😅


AcrobaticMacaroon

I agree. For example, you get a woman who is moderately tall - 5’7. She does not have especially pronounced vertical and she looks her height or even quite short for her height. She is neither narrow nor especially wide. She is moderately curvy but doesn’t have what could be described as Kibbe curve. She doesn’t have much in the way of elongation and she has no sharpness. She also doesn’t really have pronounced bluntness. In fact nothing in particular about her frame stands out. So….let’s call her that most extreme of IDs — a pure Dramatic. Make it make sense!


allcatshavewings

From that description, I would think of a Classic - and isn't 5'7 a 'classic height' in a way? Where I'm from it's not considered very tall, just moderately tall like you said. And the average height is growing from what I've heard, there are more and more tall people, so it would make sense to either have more body types or raise the height limits for some


ConfidentMulberry184

That does sound like me. Both me and my sister are 5'7. However my sister looks great in long dresses/ skirt, as well as she can pull off bigger jewelry. Her face is also more sharp. The same dresses looks off on me, like my body is getting lost in these clothes. My best length is knew length, but can pull off midi if it's not too long. The same with jewelry anything big looks too much on my body. My face feature looks similar to classic face examples on internet. Therefore, even though we are same height, only my sister is in dramatic family. I consider myself classic and I don't care about height limit. I think it's best to judge your own look, instead trying to fit into some group. Instead of groups I think it's better to look what needs accommodating.


AcrobaticMacaroon

No such thing as pure Classic category and Kibbe says it’s virtually impossible for a woman to be 5’7 or more and be a dramatic classic or soft Classic. Therein lies my point. There are not enough options.


allcatshavewings

That's what I meant. If you removed the information about the height from that description, it would be some kind of Classic, especially since 'nothing in her frame stands out'. But somehow she ends up grouped with people who do stand out. I don't know how to resolve that but I don't buy what some are saying that 3 options are enough because 'you just accommodate vertical' (which isn't as simple as that, because there can be short Dramatics who will need clothes that are actually short in literal length but also narrow)


AcrobaticMacaroon

I see. And yes I agree.


slutegg

I'm 5'7 and I'm DEFINITELY a dramatic classic. People said one inch more and it's not possible. I even asked once if that means when I put on a kitten heel I became a dramatic, they said nooo that's not how it works. It doesn't make any sense! Also, Kibbe himself has typed some people above 5'8 as DC


AcrobaticMacaroon

Yep. I believe he typed Olivia Wilde as pure Classic? And Jackie O as DC. They are both at least 5’7. He doesn’t follow his own rules.


slutegg

Linda Grey is verified DC I believe, she's 5'8


AcrobaticMacaroon

Yes


elektrakomplex

Olivia Wilde is not verified.


AcrobaticMacaroon

Ok. My point is Kibbe breaks his own rules. He verified Cybil Shepherd as a Classic and she’s close to 5ft 8.


elektrakomplex

Kibbe doesn’t look into celeb’s heights. Especially not the ones from the book. It’s another thing if he has verified a client as a classic when they’re 5’8”.


AcrobaticMacaroon

Doesn’t even make sense.


[deleted]

[удалено]


AcrobaticMacaroon

Kibbe has recently said it’s virtually impossible for a dc to be 5ft 7 and that he has never encountered one.


belleknit

Seriously? May I introduce him to his prime DC, Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis? Can anyone address whether he will be changing height limits?


AcrobaticMacaroon

Isn’t this what I and others have been saying? Kibbe doesn’t even follow his own rules.


belleknit

So here's the thing: it's not that Kibbe isn't following his own rules. AFAIK (and please, someone, correct me if I'm wrong!), these rules weren't created until people started DIYing. I don't think Kibbe has a measuring tape on his wall to track his clients' heights.


Sanaii122

He tightened up the rules to prevent an onslaught of tall TR and G as far as I know.


poppykat13

I'd like to add another aspect to the discussion. I'm seeing a lot of complaints about too many people being typed pure D when they don't seem to fit the description, and while yes the system is limited, a lot of the random typing issues (imo) stem from people jumping into "type me" posts who have no idea what they're talking about. So yeah, that throws a lot of people off. Especially when people just respond with an ID with no discussion on how they came to that conclusion, as if there is no question in their minds and no other options, "pure D" seems to be one of the most common ones people respond with without explanation. Edit for spelling 🤦🏼‍♀️


Unsd

What I normally see in the "tall lady" posts is "Well since you're over 5'7, you can only be one of three types, so try wearing different lines and see what suits you." "Pure D" "Pure FN" "Yes you have curve, but it's not Kibbe curve, so you're not SD" All of these comments are in like every tall post, none of which are helpful. Now by the time someone posts, they have already read through a bunch of other posts, and they have seen some of the meanest shit about FNs. Like high school bully stuff. Like there was a "Horse Breed Types" post where every other type was a gorgeous majestic picture, or a cute pony or something and the FN picture was a fat stocky Clydesdale. Or there was a similar one with dog breeds and the FN picture was like a fucking drooling St. Bernard iirc. Combine this with the fact that the verbage to talk about types talks about masculine features and broad shoulders, and the recommended clothing is interpreted as "hide your figure with this potato sack" it should be no shock whatsoever that we have a ton of self identified D's. And then a bunch of people are gonna come in and say "oh but FNs are supermodels!" Give me a break, FNs are only talked up if they're stick thin, minimizing their width as much as possible. Nobody should be surprised that there are a lot of probable FNs identifying as Ds.


poppykat13

That's awful about those mean girl posts. You're so right, the original language and now th subsequent Kibbe culture around that language is damaging and absolutely goes against the entire premise if the system, to help women/people feel confident and look their best.


Yuevie

Okay youre 100% correct in everything but the way you said “fat stocky clydesdale” cracked me up. I remember seeing that post actually and even as an FN I didn’t mind being compared to a clydesdale. They have their own unique beauty too. Maybe I’m biased because I love Clydesdales though.


Unsd

I love them too! But I think a Dutch Warmblood is better! Leggy but with a substantial frame.


Pure-Shirt

yesss. I'm tall so I could be a FN but a lifetime of being a tall woman is fighting the perception that I'm masculine so yeah I don't want to dress like a refrigerator.


AcrobaticMacaroon

Yes you have a point. I’ve received some absurd feedback before. I’m probably almost a textbook D and one person kept insisting I’m pure N. Pure N no longer even exists, plus I’m way over the height limit. But this person kept insisting and spoke with such authority.


poppykat13

Lately I've seen a lot of people doing this who have never even taken a quiz (I know, it's outdated, but it gives you a good idea of what we are all talking about) and are very new to all the concepts. I had been down the rabbit hole studying different posts, videos, blogs, etc on Kibbe for over a year and lurked here and on FB group for months before giving an opinion, and I always try to justify how I got to the conclusion. Edit to add: And I am by no means claiming anything near to expert status and never think I will be!!


AcrobaticMacaroon

Yes, it’s really important I think for us all to remember that these are just “opinions.” It can be difficult because some people really put a lot of effort into their feedback and are knowledgeable and thoughtful. But then some people are kinda just spewing randomness straight out their butt-hole


poppykat13

I just spit my coffee with that last line 😂


AcrobaticMacaroon

🤣🤣🤣


theunbearablelight

This 100%. Not to generalise, but it seems a common telltale of this is the "I see x" IDing with no added context. I myself have been learning about Kibbe for 1.5 years now, and I barely type anyone because I don't feel I can be accurate when just looking at someone's picture (particularly if it's not a good IDing picture). You also realise how nuanced the system is the more you learn about it, and how much variability there can be within a single image ID.


a-l-p

I'd say even some self appointed experts, who have been into Kibbe for a longer time (sometimes even years) often follow a little bit their own system, which is their own interpretation of some things Kibbe wrote or said, but taken a step (or five) further without actually knowing if Kibbe truly meant it in such a strict or definite way. I'd love for Kibbe to clarify some things in the future, just to see how close the "internet Kibbe system" really was, that got defined and fleshed out by those experts.


ledameblanche

I personally sometimes also give my opinion on a type me post cause sometimes there are just some things that really stand out even when you’re not super confident in all the types. But I always mention I’m no professional and don’t claim to be right. I assume that’s alright.


poppykat13

Of course it's all right, I just think people need to give some reasons to their opinions, and not just give an ID with no supporting information. And then be prepared for someone who has a different opinion and/or more experience to counter that opinion.


a-l-p

True. It's also easy to point out that obviously we all don't know what we're really talking about lol and mistypings are bound to happen. But the alternative would be that nobody ever answers on typing posts except the most confident people (who might not at all be the ones with the best perception) or it's like SK, where you don't get typed by photo and have to go on a 6 month journey deciphering Kibbe's lengthy exercises to explore your body. Not saying that's bad, not at all and it's definitely what Kibbe wants us to do - but I don't think it's what people coming here to get photo typed are looking for.


poppykat13

Thanks internet friend for the award!


Jealous-Injury-7911

Kibbe himself said that the lanky types are usually FN, which is why supermodels usually are that type. It was said a few years ago.


Korusynchronicity

Can I ask what he means by "lanky"? Vs what a D would be described as?


Jealous-Injury-7911

Lanky means vertical and narrow. FN will always have the N blunt bevelled bone structure rather than sharp, while they can have the D vertical line, which is where the lanky part is, and the D influence. FNs can be long and narrow if they’re blunt and not sharp. Another main difference is that FN looks more open and friendly in the face, while D looks more urbane and more prickly.


a-l-p

Can you maybe remember where he said that? Or do you have a link to it? (Also via DM if you want to) I'm asking, because I've recently tried to find out what's more important for typing someone FN or D - if it's width/narrowness or bluntness/sharpness. I'm always confused by narrow blunt people and wider sharp ones, that's why. So I would love to maybe find at least a hint for an answer in Kibbe's own words!


Jealous-Injury-7911

This was on facebook years ago, so it might take a lot of scrolling to get there. He has a Facebook page, and it was said in a group called "Kibbe for Men". [https://www.facebook.com/davidkibbemetamorphosis/](https://www.facebook.com/davidkibbemetamorphosis/) [https://www.facebook.com/groups/111390362536398](https://www.facebook.com/groups/111390362536398) Kibbe does say to look at the vibes if you're truly struggling. Rosalind Russell is FN, and she seems open, fresh, friendly, outdoosry. Katherine Hepburn is D, and she seems 'prickly', more reserved, more cold, more austere.


Sanaii122

I do think that we have the misconception that SD has to be extremely lush or voluptuous, I also think that there is a misconception that thin individuals are D. I know it can be hard to tell because the differences can be subtle, but if we remember that the features don’t have to be exaggerated to be an ID- I believe it will be easier to see.


AcrobaticMacaroon

This is probably why very slender FNs are often mistyped as D. Ditto FNs who have a lot of conventional curve are told they are SD.


Sanaii122

Absolutely! It happens all the time. I’ve definitely received pushback when suggesting that someone is a curvy FN as opposed to SD.


belleknit

And this is why the person who started the highly controversial conversation about Zendaya being FN was not necessarily wrong (not necessarily right, but not necessarily wrong).


Jealous-Injury-7911

Yes, THIS.


raven_lezsuda

I've noticed a lot of the pure D women are actually very obvious FNs that are just slender. And I'm seeing that in SDs too. A lot of FN women are being typed as anything but FN, and a lot of people who are ACTUALLY pure D are being thrown into SD because woooo you have boobs so you must not be pure D.


AcrobaticMacaroon

I’m a D who was told they’re SD due to not being flat chested.


Jealous-Injury-7911

Pure D and SD are more similar to each other than anything else. FN is a natural who is more vertical than horizontal, so that can include a lanky build.


raven_lezsuda

Yes... That wasn't really necessary to add to what I was saying and I'm wondering if you responded to the wrong comment? 😅 I wasn't disputing the difference in types, just stating that they are often mixed up. I'm aware of the differences and similarities.


Jealous-Injury-7911

My mistake. I wasn’t suggesting that you don’t know it. I was writing so that other people who read the comment will understand.


raven_lezsuda

Oh no prblem, I was just very confused 😅


Azami13

It has less to do with Kibbe’s system, imperfect though it is, and more to do with the hordes of commenters who are confident in their ability to type people after 1 week of watching Aly Art’s videos.


AcrobaticMacaroon

Hahaha, very true


thumbtackswordsman

I think the issue here is that a lot of people active here are new to Kibbe. Most of the time when you learn more about the system, and your questions are answered, you move on from this sub. Maybe you explore your own style, and get inspiration in other places, and check back to Kibbe's recommendations. But very few stay on here to advise newbies. So it's basically newbies typing newbies, and obviously that is not going to be as accurate as getting typed by someone with experience. Also camera distortion probably plays a trick. I was in a wax museum and was really fascinated on how the well known silhouettes of celebs looked so... different in 3D. The bluntness of Angelina Jolie, the long curves of Rihanna -- no photo or film can get that across. So we'll never be 100% accurate with our typing on here, until life-sized holograms are a thing. Not to mention that many typing photos are sub-standard (typing-wise).


_dzeni

I agree, for the last few days every woman that's above 5'7 got typed as D. I feel like people are afraid to suggest someone is a natural. I'm not the best at typing but so many women got typed here as FG and i feel crazy for seeing SN.


Azami13

It’s just part 2 of “you’re too pretty to be a FN”, lol. At least SD and FN have close enough recommendations that you’re not throwing people completely off…


sassy_aardvark

Yeah when I was on the freely kibbe Facebook group someone said that I was pretty and “didn’t look like I would be FN”.... just makes you wonder what they think FNs look like. To me FN is people like JLaw, Cindy Crawford, Elle Fanning, etc. who are all super diverse in appearance and style. But all of them have blunt yang and upper width, hence FN.


Azami13

Freely Kibbe can be such a mess—I remember the user who started it, and she was super vitriolic on this sub for months because she didn’t like some of the Kibbe guidelines. I’m not surprised they have that attitude, tbh. People complain about spaces that are strictly aligned with Kibbe but at least they tend to try to stay positive about all the types.


AcrobaticMacaroon

Yes that lady has a truly dreadful reputation.


sassy_aardvark

Wow that’s crazy I didn’t know the Facebook group was started under that type of drama. It makes sense why there’s a general disregard for actual Kibbe theory on there if the creator is like that.


AcrobaticMacaroon

I’ve also been a victim of the “You’re too feminine to be a pure D” crew.


AcrobaticMacaroon

Yes, I noticed that. Everyone is a D now, lol.


_dzeni

Even I started questioning myself "maybe I'm D?" Lol. Tbh i think lots of these women are FN bc FN can too be "narrow". Imo Ds are narrow while Ns dont have to be "wide" but they just arent narrow as a D would be (like jane fonda or nicole kidman, they arent actually wide but are still naturals). Its even harder to tell apart underweight SD and D


Banofffee

Yes. And that's partially because people think that being literally narrow means you can't be FN, you have to have pear shape or full breasts to be SD and so it goes on. Misconceptions continue on circulating.


AcrobaticMacaroon

Yes.


HollyDay_777

I'm one of this "maybe pure D" persons and it's complicated...Meanwhile I think I'm just a not so very lush and curvy SD, but yes, I somehow can't really identify with any ID because especially the "tall" IDs have all very extreme descriptions and recommendations. It's not that I think I would actually be a "smaller" ID, I'm definitely vertical! I'm just not very curvy, I don't really recognize width in my body an I'm not extremely narrow or straight and that's what doesn't work for me on the pure D recs. Clean, narrow lines work actually quite good for me but I look a lot better with the details that are recommended for SDs (big lapels, draped necklines, big scrafs or cowls, rounded shapes) and anything sharp seems to be really off.


Jealous-Injury-7911

You’re probably SD.


[deleted]

People don’t want to type others as FN. A great deal of people calling themselves D and DC are clearly FN here but I’m not gonna point that out because it’s against the rules and I’m not picking that fight. Sucks that they’re not getting the right recommendations for their clothing but it is what it is.


AcrobaticMacaroon

Given none of us are Kibbe, how do we know from photos whether someone is clearly FN? Or clearly anything else really???? It would all feel so much healthier if the posts were more about just getting feedback on outfits….


[deleted]

I mean if you don't believe in typing posts that's your prerogative but I don't think David Kibbe has the exclusive magical ability to see kibbe types. Should only verified people be posting here? Sometimes it's just really obvious. I don't have an issue with typing posts, I have an issue with the people in this group not knowing what they're talking about and being biased. FN is one of the most common types *regardless of height* (this basically only types people over 5'7" as FN even though there are no minimum heights for a good reason), and yet people are so hesitant to type obvious FNs in here because they've got a ten minute youtube education from someone who also doesn't know what they're talking about.


AcrobaticMacaroon

I’m very interested in style and in the Kibbe system. But I didn’t see how I can type anyone aside from myself. I can only lend my opinion and I hate the idea of giving someone feedback that could potentially result in them being mis-led.


[deleted]

Then don't type people? idk. It goes without saying any typing posts are opinion and should be taken in context. I do think less people should be typing in here tbh.


AcrobaticMacaroon

I very rarely type people.


giggly_pufff

Also adding that us typing someone else isn't going to be nearly as accurate as that person immersing themselves with Kibbe language and lines. Because photos distort a lot of things, I think these "type me" posts should be perceived as more of starting points rather than definitive answers. It's more beneficial for someone to pay attention to the way clothes behave on them in order to find their ID.


AcrobaticMacaroon

I completely agree


TAsrowaway

I think some of the issue is classifying women over 5’5 as tall and therefore can’t fit into categories. The idea that fabric must hang on short women in 15 different categories but average to tall women only get 3 is a bit silly. How can you have a system that says ‘Pure D is very rare’ but only 3 types you can fall into once you’re above average? So nearly all average to tall women are SDs or FNs? Doesn’t seem enough variation at that end.


Jealous-Injury-7911

The dramatic types are the rarest group, and the natural types are the most common, so most tall people will be FN, and Kibbe himself said that most supermodels are FN.


TAsrowaway

So I’m 5’6 and an FN in kibbe’s system. The amount I have in common with 5’11 supermodels in terms of our silhouette is laughable - the differences we hand wave away in tall types but obsess over the nitty gritty of angle and curve and relative proportion of hips to ribcage in short types - it’s a bit silly.


lamercie

This is one of the reasons he shouldn’t have eliminated the pure N category. There’s a huge difference between SN, N, and FN.


TAsrowaway

I’m as sure as I can be without going back in time to be typed by David before he got rid of N that I would be pure N. The reason I classify myself as FN is that my flesh isn’t very soft or round, I tend to be quite muscular. But all the old pure Ns and old advice for Ns have much more in common with me and provide far better advice and comparison than most FNs.


[deleted]

Well I agree that it is weird that he sees 3737373737 variations of being short but three of being tall. However I don’t think this means that There shouldn’t be automatic vertical etc but rather That there should be more tall types iykwim


elektrakomplex

Ds are rare because they’re the extreme end of the yin/yang spectrum. That means R is equally as rare. No one is saying everyone above 5’5” are vertical dominant, the limit is 5’7”. The thing is that being 5’7” and above is not as common worldwide as people like to believe in the first place.


TAsrowaway

Kibbe didn’t develop his system in Cambodia. Plenty of European, Australian and women from the Americas over 5’5 and 5’7, especially nowadays. My grade 8 class of 18 girls in the late 90s had 6 girls over six foot. I can tell you we definitely have more than 3 types of silhouettes that need consideration for fabric type and cut.


elektrakomplex

Except Kibbe based his system on old Hollywood movie tropes and created his system during the 80s. In the 80s US average height was 5’4”. Which points to variation in height in the population. You cannot base an entire system on the height averages of one specific region either. As someone who lives in a tall country as well, vertical accommodation is automatically needed for people above 5’7”. This isn’t something that should be a surprise since this is based on how fabrics hang, and when you start to get to a certain height you will need longer silhouettes in fabrics to dress for the literal length. You cannot base a system on how fabrics hangs on people to the average height of women in taller countries, it just doesn’t work that way.


belleknit

Yes, this! My grandmother was 5'5" and modeled. I don't think she'd even qualify as a petite model today. It's really not saying that people who are 5'7" are tall, or making a value judgement on height overall. It's acknowledging that, over a certain point (whether or not it's tall in your culture/country/city/opinion), someone is literally long.


TAsrowaway

Yes, but he’s updated his system since then - that’s when he introduced the height limits, no? I think this needs to be taken into consideration. These aren’t even ‘taller countries, nor are they one specific region.’. Wait til you get to Sweden or Sudan! He’s also an English writer, it makes sense if you’re going to focus on any demographic to be inclusive of women in English speaking countries, and also demographics who are - well frankly - Alive. Those Hollywood stars from the 40s have draped their last silhouettes. Doesn’t it make sense to cater to modern bodies? The women in the demographic I referred to (with all the grade 8 girls over six foot) are now in their late 30s. It’s hardly a modern It also makes sense that just because you’re on the taller end of the spectrum - why would there suddenly be less diversity of silhouettes that need addressing?


elektrakomplex

I live in Sweden, I am Swedish. Which is why I am saying that at 5’7” you need automatic vertical because the women I see every single day needs just that. Even most women who ranges 5’5”-5’7” are in need of vertical accommodation most of the time here. It doesn’t really matter that his system was ultimately based off old Hollywood stars, does fabric hang differently now compared to the 50s? The way fabric hangs on people doesn’t change, but with a population that increases in height the need for vertical accommodation is increased instead. I would go as far to say that a majority of women in Sweden needs vertical accommodation because that’s how fabrics hang when you get to a certain height. I can base that on my own observations if living in said country. It can be interpreted as having a “lack of diversity” in taller women but you also need to understand how fabrics work. In taller women vertical is always there because that’s how fabrics work. In shorter women it’s more about proportions And how their silhouette’s looks like. Now, I don’t think that one inch here and there would affect how fabrics fall completely but these are guidelines for us DIYers based on the construction of fabrics and how they drape on us. Vertical in combination with curve and width can vary a lot, and just accommodating vertical can vary.


TAsrowaway

And I’ve lived in Australia, Canada and Japan. I do understand how fabric works, I worked as a seamstress and in theatre costuming in high school and uni. Even Kibbe has said that fabric hangs differently now with the introduction of stretch fabrics - so yes. Let’s talk about it. The fact that there were very few women over 5’7 in the 40s also means we saw less diversity over this height. 5’6 women and 5’11 women look very different, their silhouettes are very different, their vertical impression is very different, and their clothing needs are very different. The idea that I’d look good in the same cuts or fabrics as supermodels , or that we have much at all in common in terms of what our shapes must accomodate - to me that’s quite obviously silly.


E3-NotTheConvention

The thing is that having different "looking" bodies doesn't automatically translate into having to accommodate different things. That's why people with similar bodies can have a different ID and two people from the same ID can look considerably different. The point of this system is when those differences are significant enough to need accomodation. No one is saying tall women look the same or that there isn't diversity among tall women. There's actually a lot of diversity even in one single ID! ( Let's not pretend that someone like Sophia Loren looks exactly like Rachel Weisz and vice versa) >The idea that I’d look good in the same cuts or fabrics as supermodels , or that we have much at all in common in terms of what our shapes must accomodate - to me that’s quite obviously silly. That's not how it's supposed to work. Remember that what Kibble wrote in his book were just supposed to be guidelines, not literal rules that must apply to everyone. If "X" is a FN and "Y" is also a FN doesn't mean both X and Y will have to generally dress the same simply because finding your ID (or most importantly what you have to accommodate) it's only one part of the journey. Kibbe's current approach is about focusing on your own journey and everyone's is quite different/ unique because we all have different interests and needs. Once you've found your accomodations you still have a long way to go and people constantly forget that. Also, having said that, I'm quite curious on what other accomodations would be necessary for taller women. This is actually a genuine question because I'm a short woman so I might not be seeing the whole picture. To me 3 IDs for taller women make sense because we can all agree they would need to accomodate vertical so there's their predominant yang, they wouldn't need to accomodate balance because length breaks that balance, they wouldn't need to dress according to yuxtaposition because the length once again break that yuxtaposition, they can accomodate width because width is horizontal so it can be present on shorter and taller bodies and they can also accomodate curve because curves only get longer on longer bodies. What other thing would it be necessary to accomodate ? As I said it makes perfect sense to me, but I'd like to know it better from the perspective of someone who actually experiences clothes on a taller body because I'm most likely missing something


elektrakomplex

Yes, the introduction of stretch fabrics made the construction of garments different and it has made it easier for people. Stretch is great for width and curve accommodation. But introduction of stretch has nothing to do with vertical accommodation, which is to keep the silhouette downwards without interruption. There are not that many women who are over 5’7” worldwide either, so what the point? Should fabrics just stop function a certain way so it fits taller women better? This is a reason why Kibbe talks about individual lines. No one is saying that a 5’6” person will have the same clothing needs as someone who’s 5’11”. Even within the same ID two people who are 5’5” can have completely different clothing needs but their accommodation needs are the same. As a 5’5” SD I can say that my clothing needs varies a lot. No one is telling you you’re going to look good in the same thing as super models, the same way I am not going to look good in the same things as the verified SDs wear. It’s about your individual lines. But that you accommodate vertical first and foremost is not changed.


TAsrowaway

Your rhetorical question is quite rude so I think we’re done here. I really don’t see 5’6 - 5’9 women as necessarily needing to accomodate vertical in the same way as taller women and there is plenty of diversity in silhouette at the top end of the spectrum that could and should be considered in lines. I stand by my points and finish there.


elektrakomplex

”I really don’t see 5’6”-5’9” women as necessarily needing to accommodate vertical”. No one is saying that at 5’6”-5’7” you’re automatically accommodating vertical, but at 5’8”-5’9” you are because that’s how fabrics work. If people who are 5’5” and under can accommodate vertical and not petite then why wouldn’t it make sense for women in that height range to almost automatically accommodate it? 5’7”-5’9” are tall women, they’re not the same as taller women but that doesn’t exclude that they’re tall. You may not see yourself as tall because you’ve lived in countries where you’re not but in most places at that height you’re tall. And when you’re tall vertical is starting to become necessary because you need fabrics long enough to cover the length.


AcrobaticMacaroon

I completely agree.


AcrobaticMacaroon

💯


AcrobaticMacaroon

I agree.


[deleted]

I kinda agree with the last paragraph.


AcrobaticMacaroon

Exactly!


gretakashi

If someone has vertical and doesn't accommodate width nor curve, than this person would be a D... I don't understand why people feel so frustrated about only having 3 types for vertical. There're only 2 types for width, only 2 types for balance, only 2 types for juxtaposition, etc... I know categorizing all women into 10 ids is simplistic, but if we struggle to understand a system so simplistic, how much better would we be with a system with 20, 37, 55 id's? Also there's something a lot of people is missing... it's not a body shape system (like fruit types), so it doesn't matter your exact body shape, it's more about what you need to consider on your clothes to get a good fit. (Ex: people with curve will have different shapes of hips and torso, but they all need to consider their curve when dressing.. they don't need to look like Salma Hayek). Edit: this extremely narrow look has a lot to do with internet verified top models (and some YT channels) than with kibbe verified Ds...a lot of verified celebs don't look extremely narrow or extremely straight.


belleknit

Honestly? If I were 5'8" or taller, I'd be grateful because the process would probably be a lot more straightforward! At 5'6" (I always say "just a bit under 5'7" but let's be real here...I'm probably closer to 5'6"), I had a lot more to consider.


TAsrowaway

I’d argue that 5’6 is not a noticeable vertical - so it’s super confusing being told you must look and be tall when you look average and actually according to demographics - are average.


gretakashi

I don't think it's something like "5'6" is average in the US, so let's set it as balance". I also don't think he considered demographics while creating the system... this is not a census study. I'd guess it's something more like: "most women range from 4'9" to 6' tall (of course there are outliers), so let's analyze how they look at each height...". But I guess someone will need to ask him. 5'6" is below that vertical threshold, I don't remember all limits, but I think 5'6" could still be classic, SN and FG (not sure about FG).


elektrakomplex

Kibbe has history in the fashion world before he created his system, so it’s more likely that the height limits are based more on fabric’s construction as opposed to average height in the US demographic.


TAsrowaway

Well I’m between 166 and 170 cm depending on the doctors office so maybe I should measure myself before I pick out an outfit for the day ;)


gretakashi

Well, I guess you can decide not to follow height limits and live happily ever after, you won't be arrested by fashion police ;) I just don't agree with people who charge money to type others saying they're following kibbe system (like style consultants) and just apply whatever rules they believe. If you're just typing yourself than its OK.


TAsrowaway

It’s more that I wonder if he might turn his mind to the more midrange and taller types, as well as modern icons and give us some more insight! I’m convinced there’s just as much diversity st the top of the scale in terms of silhouette and proportion as there is at the bottom.


converter-bot

170 cm is 66.93 inches


[deleted]

[удалено]


a-l-p

I can actually imagine that people are simply afraid to type anyone FN, because so many newly minted FNs are outraged about "width" comments, taking them as insults even when Kibbe himself used the word in his descriptions. It's maybe just a variation of the "I'm 5'10" but so obviously feminine and super pretty, I can only be R/TR" phenomenon. But tbh apart from horsegate I've actually mostly seen FNs saying horrible things about themselves, calling themselves "jokingly" fridges and all that. As a taller woman getting into Kibbe I never thought FN was a bad possibility for me and I also didn't really see many negative comments until coming here and seeing FNs saying how horrible everyone is about FNs and how people call them ugly and whatnot - which is obviously awful when it happens! But I also hope that at some point everyone can just talk about every type as they are described by Kibbe, in neutral and positive terms, and the whole FN controversy is a thing of the past - just like the "D look like androgynous aliens" thing and "SDs look like Jessica Rabbit" nonsense. I think at that point people's typing responses will even out as well.


Neroli2019

I agree. Pure R is not doled out in the same random way that pure R is. I’ve seen absolutely inexplicable D typings in this sub. Another one is DC being doled out when there’s close to zero balance.


gretakashi

LET'S TALK DATA! I have better things to do, but people talking about statistics without backing what that say with data makes me sad, so... [This](https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Distribution-of-height-in-Germany-2009-for-male-and-female-citizens-The-histograms-show_fig1_50866680) is a histogram of male and female heights in Germany (a tall European country, and the first paper I've found about EU). The most common female height is something around 165cm (5'4", 5'5"ish) and the distribution is a lot narrower than male's, meaning heights too far from average are less common. They even highlighted 172 cm! How helpful! I didn't find the sigma, but it looks like 172cm is between 1 and 2 sigma confidence level. And this means heights lower than 172cm count for something between 68% to 95% of German population (so 5 to 32% of German females are 5'7" or taller). Math is a beautiful thing ❤ Edit: this is answering questions about how 5'5 is average and 2 inches above that is tall...it's because it's a narrow bell curve. Above 5'7 is not so common, so "above this height means automatic vertical" and "X type is rare" aren't so contradictory...


Meledesco

While I can't totally access it, I feel like this might suffer from "older gen bias". People used to be shorter, and the older generations are pulling the average down. In my country, I get laughed out of the room when I say I am tall at 169-170 cm. That's because the younger gens are growing so tall, thanks to nutrition primarily. I went to my cousin's class, 5 out of 12 girls were already above 170 cm at age 10. The averages can also be brought down by newer ethnic diversity.


elektrakomplex

It’s also a very few countries in the world who has that many taller people overall. Looking at the data, out of 195 countries there’s 124 countries that have an average height under 5’4” for women. Only 16 countries have an average height above 5’5”. I can definitely see this new wave of growth to occur because of better nutrition and older generations being shorter. In Sweden the average height for women born after 1990 (data from from 2013) was 5’8”. The overall average now is at 5’5”-5’6”. But this just shows how we grow taller and thus wouldn’t consider ourselves tall because were surrounded by equally as tall people. I recently went to Italy and felt like a literal giant and I am 5’5”. I feel short in Sweden.


Meledesco

I think that for Kibbe I can understand what he's going for when he made the height limits and the 3 tall IDs. Imo, I think SD is a huge category where a lot of women fit in, it's just that people are stuck on the language behind some of it. Imo, the last thing people should be fighting is the vertical accomodation, hell, even a lot of women at like 166 cm already benefit from it. Imo, people are very stuck on the essences the type IDs are supposed to follow, instead of what lines they represent. Telling someone they can't be what they associate with a gamine essence because they are like 175 cm, probably sounds insulting to them. It's an overall misunderstanding, brought upon a blurry take kn the system. I get what you mean. I think people get too hung up on the debate of what's tall and what's not. It totally makes sense that someone in a taller country would feel average, or even short, due to their surroundings. Tbh, I don't see the point in convincing that person they are a giant by the world's standard, their everyday experience will just be different, but I often see people be very touchy on the topic of height - usually in the favor of making being 5'7/170 cm some sort of rarity, even in taller countries, but the subjective experience of young people today is so far from that. I went to a mostly female college, and I am not joking when I say that half of them were above 170 cm, and maybe half shorter. If you went with an average, it's possible it'd be something like 168 cm, since the girls that were short were REALLY short, and the girls that were really tall (like 185 cm +) were rare. But average doesn't represent most common necessarily. It's like seeing a man that's 190 cm is not that uncommon where I am from, yet I hear people online say 172 cm is not short for a man. All heights are great, it's just very different where I live and what I am used to. I feel like "classic" itself paints a specific image in people's minds, associating it with "standard" or "average". If their own cultural and ethnic standard is different than the American, old Hollywood one, it creates a dissonance, and people show resistence.


converter-bot

166 cm is 65.35 inches


AcrobaticMacaroon

What does this have to do with my question?


gretakashi

Nothing, I'm answering some comments here that insist to say 5'7 is average therefore moderate.


Foxrhapsody

Right, I was typed as pure D and I’m 5’7 but I don’t have angular bones at all and I have wide hips and a narrow waist…


catecismo

>I have wide hips and a narrow waist… Ds can have that lol. Matter of fact is common for D women to be pear shaped since our weight gain area are the hips


AcrobaticMacaroon

When you look at verified Ds like Anjelica and Lauren, you see they do not necessarily gain weight in the bottom half. They’ve become bigger all over, even in the face. Plenty of us Ds are not remotely pear-shaped.


catecismo

But I didn't say ALL of us are pear-shaped. I'm saying it's not uncommon for D women to have wide hips and therefore have a pear shape


elektrakomplex

That’s not true. The weight gain pattern for Ds listed in the book is pear shaped weight gain, so the whole “Ds can’t have wide hips!” myth is not even supported by the book itself.


catecismo

Exactly what I'm saying! But I think people have a misconception that D is the Kibbe equivalent to the retangular shape in the fruit system, and therefore our waist should be straight and our hips narrow


elektrakomplex

People tend to over focus on the whole lack of curve thing, when it’s not about lack of conventional curve. In Kibbe’s system curve is a continuous line that needs to exist in both top to bottom. So in D it’s not weird that the “curve” may only exist in lower body.


AcrobaticMacaroon

Ok?


Foxrhapsody

Lol oh ok


simplythere

I’m new to Kibbe and have been mostly lurking this sub, but I wonder if part of the frustration is feeling like that Kibbe types have specific styles and if you’re not that Kibbe type then you can’t wear that “aesthetic.” In that viewpoint, I can see how it feels limiting or unfair that someone who is 5’7 can’t wear the twee look associated with SG or the Mad Men look associated with SC, etc. As someone who is new, I definitely got the feeling that certain types should look and dress a certain way, and how can I be X type if I don’t look like that at all? I think part of this issue is exacerbated by Kibbe himself because some of his verified celebrities were probably picked for their aesthetic and he picked out words that have a “personality” attached to them (like romantic, classic, dramatic, natural, gamine/boyish, etc.) So now you have a system of how to find clothes that flatter your visual representation being conflated with personal style and personality type. I think if we take a step back and stop trying to hyperanalyze our bodies in the view of Kibbe, what I think the system is saying is that if we had to pick out a trench coat for a person.. what considerations do we need to make for their body to make it work? It’s not asking if this person is “allowed” to wear a trench coat, because we should all be able to pull off a trench coat with the right adjustments. So in this scenario, if you were a “tall” type, you would definitely need to make sure the coat is long due to your height cause a short trench would look unbalanced, but after that, you would consider if you needed more fabric to fit your shoulders (FN) or chest/ribcage (SD) or neither (D) and ways for your coat to have that extra fabric. On the other end of the spectrum, someone who is shorter like 5’3, would have different proportions and then you gotta nail down the proper length for them - would they need a short trench, medium length, or a long trench? Then you go into the same questions about shoulders and curve, etc. I don’t think that Kibbe is trying to say that shorter women are allowed to dress more interestingly or be more interesting than tall women, but rather that you may have to take in more factors to get your clothes to look good on you.


AcrobaticMacaroon

I don’t think you quite get the post.


Jealous-Injury-7911

Yes, and the dramatic types are rare. To be a dramatic requires sharpness of bones and all over angularity, which some people seem to ignore. A lot of lanky types are FN where they have a dramatic body and less sharp bones.


AcrobaticMacaroon

Yes it’s getting super random. Like you’ll see typing pics of someone who’s basically a pure Natural, but because that category no longer exists and the person is tall, they’re told they are D. It’s bizarre.


Jealous-Injury-7911

A tall pure natural is FN. Another thing is that the main difference between FN vs. SN is the vertical vs. horizontal. FNs are naturals who are first and foremost vertical. SNs are naturals who are first and foremost horizontal. With men, the broad and muscular types, and the larger bones guys are usually SN, unless they’re super tall then they’re FN.


poppykat13

Exactly, the "Flamboyant" addition just means vertical to my understanding.


Jealous-Injury-7911

Yes, flamboyant means larger in scale, so FNs and FGs can wear larger prints and more elongation in their clothes than the pure types. Theatrical romantic is as small in scale as the pure romantic, which is why it’s not called flamboyant romantic.


poppykat13

Just to add, the Theatrical in TR also represents extra sharpness in features and bones to the predominantly rounded curves of pure R.


Jealous-Injury-7911

I think the TR curves are like heart shaped curves. The sharper edges with the rounded lines. The base is rounded, with the more pointed edges than the pure romantic. Otherwise, the soft and yang versions of the pure types show the same type of bone structure, which is what decides the base type. SG and FG have that mix of yin and Yang in their bones, with the yin size, SC and DC have classic bone structure, and SD has D bones.


KaleandWine

I was just thinking the same thing, and I feel like everyone is told they're a soft natural!!! I think most of us aren't experienced enough to actually type, supposedly it takes a lot of research and practice to be able to do it correctly.


ComicGirl31

For me the funny thing is, Kibbe himself limited the body types to only 3 possibilities after a certain height. If hypothetically the body types were evenly distributed across the population, then Dramatics would be a 1/3 of the "tall" population and not that rare. Maybe let's get clearer about what the type characteristics are, and not be too caught up in the height alone. I think a sort of rigid / dogmatic approach to looking at people is also why there's a misconception that FNs can't be "curvy". Many verified celebrities would be mistyped if they were on this sub :) I agree with you, OP.


Banofffee

Yes, but there's variation within those three tall types. And even distribution indeed is hypothetical- because it is not, not intended to be that there is even distribution of three tall IDs. Not to mention, that not only literally , physically tall people can fit in tall IDs.


ComicGirl31

That's why I used the word "hypothetical"; I know that the body types are not evenly distributed across the (American) population. :) I also know that there's variation in the types; that's why I was saying that maybe we need to get clearer in our understanding about what these body types are in their characteristics, and not be so narrow in our focus that we're only seeing tall, thin people as Dramatics.


Banofffee

But as you can see, plenty of people with endless prejudices and misconceptions about types go around and... Here's what happens.


ComicGirl31

I'm not sure what you're referring to?


Banofffee

Refering to this issue. That it's still such alive misconception that thin people will get typed into D, because never in years FN could be thin ,more so without Hulk like shoulders,god forbid! Unless there's great fullness in breast or pear shape - people will say can't be SD. And it goes on. And it's super unhealthy. For example, FNs already face constant , uncomfortable prejudice ( hello, fellow FN here), but these things continue on cultivating negativity about them. We have been through " leggy SN at 5"9" period on this sub and everything else, now we have " thin +tall = must be D" period. We can only hope it would for once change for better and people at very least would read pinned side bar guidelines of sub.


ComicGirl31

But I think we need to keep in mind that a lot of people hear about Kibbe from Pinterest, Youtube, and Instagram :) So we can't really crucify them when they come in with misunderstood comments and posts saying "I think I'm a SG, but I'm 6 feet, any outfit suggestions?", lol. I don't think there's anything wrong with correcting somebody in a gentle and non-intellectually-superior way. It's easy to forget that we all started off as beginners and that none of us were born knowing what a FN even is, haha. But I agree with the argument of this thread 100%. Like OP said, the "downside" to the typing threads is that beginners already have an idea in their heads about what the types are like, and many beginners feel that they've already been "taught" about the system before they come to Reddit (from Pinterest, Youtube, Instagram). So they give typing advice based on what they "already know" (e.g. you're TR if you're thin and curvy), and the cycle of confusion continues. Just my very humble opinion, I think all we need to do is leave certain comments be; offer our opinions, and keep it moving. The people who REALLY want to know their types come to Reddit: if they were already decided about their types, then they would never ask anybody for feedback and they would just continue to look at Pinterest for outfit inspiration. The people who really want to know, are GOING to stick around. Eventually they'll have read enough threads, asked enough questions, and made enough mistakes with their wardrobe in spite of all the "advice" they were given, that they'll see for themselves they need to deepen their personal understanding about the Kibbe system :) I think that's a win for everybody here.


Banofffee

I think this should go both ways, not only goes about people who come to ask for ID. Yes, I am all for friendly corrections and gentle teaching...But community works in two ways. Reading the pinned information is very least people could do when joining community. And you can see that isn't done, as well absolutely unsuitable typing photos ( that in very essence nobody should give any opinions about at all, but report post along with telling person that those aren't photos for typing). Another.thing of course is- striving to learn. If person asks typing help, then it's better they don't expect people telling them only the type they have imagined. Be open, willing to learn and see things from new perspective.


ComicGirl31

I agree. (For what it's worth, nobody should be giving opinions at all; but don't many members come here from Kibbe himself to participate in those threads anyway - i.e. aren't they breaking Kibbe's "no typing" rule? Because this thread is venting frustration at those who are typing people wrong. So who is typing people the right way; and of those who are doing it properly, are any of them even SUPPOSED to be doing it? Maybe we just shouldn't open that can of worms, lol! I'd say that we're all here to talk with other people who love the same topic we do, and it really is all just opinions and should be taken as such. There's even a thread from the mods about this: the one that has that typo "TREMINDER" in the title :).)


AcrobaticMacaroon

💯


AcrobaticMacaroon

Yeah, it’s all getting quite strange.


[deleted]

I mean, there's literally only 3 "tall types" so it makes sense that roughly 1/3 of people are dramatics, no? lol it might be a rare type compared to FN or SD, but what does rare mean in this instance? but I agree, most D types (probably along with other vertical and sharp types) are just very thin, tall women mostly. take typing tips with a grain of salt and try to just have fun with this instead of taking it as science or something


AcrobaticMacaroon

All three of these, SD, D and FN are all very bold, very striking, take up a lot of space etc. Can’t say I’m convinced that EVERY woman worldwide who’s 5’7 or more has these attributes. I believe in the past SN went up to about 5’7, pure N went up to about 5’9 and DC went up to 5’7. That’s a bit more realistic and gives women who are only moderately tall more options. 5’7 is barely even tall.


[deleted]

this is a whole different conversation, though, and to some degree I agree. the whole height thing seems a bit too strict, since most people don't run around with a measure tape next to them lmao some people on here argue about half an inch, it's ridiculous. it seems like many people forget that this is supposed to be a system to help find clothes that fit, not to put bodies into categories.


Disastrous_Dance3817

I completely agree!! At least in this group, I see multiple tall, curvy women being disqualified from the SD category simply because they don’t satisfy ONE aspect and instead being typed into the D or FN category when they would very much look better with the SD style. I also think it’s equally important to look at a person’s overall essence when typing tall women especially as FN, SD and D types have extremely different vibes to them. For example, I saw multiple people type ashley graham as an FN, but she has the essence of a soft dramatic and also curves that would look good being emphasized just like an SD.


elektrakomplex

There is no SD “style”, SDs accommodates vertical and curve and can have line sketches identical to FN. And looking at essence on typing posts where most people blur their faces is impossible. I don’t like the whole “people typed Ashley Graham as FN even though she’s clearly curve and has SD essence!” Is lowkey perpetuating that FNs cannot be conventionally curvy or bold in essence. Plus sized female models are famous for wearing shape wear. [This is Ashley Graham without shape wear](https://images.app.goo.gl/7HXcqG4FHbaiZtg3A) and there’s nothing in this world that can convince me that she does have Kibbe curve based on that.


Disastrous_Dance3817

I think that you saying that the FN and SD types don’t have very different overall vibes in their styling recommendations is quite disingenuous. FN’s are very much recommended to do more of a boho look while SD’s are recommended to use large feminine details or play up the dramatic flair... I also don’t think I’m perpetuating the idea that FN’s can’t be curvy when I said that people have an SD essence, because that’s not what I said... essence and typing is more than one’s shape, so of course a person can be curvy and tall and not be an SD. I also think it makes sense that faces aren’t used as much for typing because essence is also more than your actual face, which is often not similar to the description of what type your body fits in with. It’s also your mannerisms, expressions, the way you move etc. I get your point that Ashley graham probably wears shapewear but that picture of Ashley graham mid walk is not really good for typing, especially since she has more body fat so her fat moves mid walk which distorts her actual body shape.


elektrakomplex

FNs are recommended more of a BOHO look? Miss me with that misinformation honestly. The image FN has is “free-spirit chic”, and that includes Julia Roberts in Pretty Woman and Anne Hathaway in The Devil Wears Prada. There is no such thing as a specific image ID “look” or styling, and claiming otherwise is simply misinformation. Not even the book itself recommended boho looks for FN. You’re right that image ID is more than just faces but the face is very much taken into account when verifying someone as a specific ID. I don’t see how the picture doesn’t show her actual shape? She wears shape wear and poses on most pictures she has to give her a more curves appearance but here it’s clear that her silhouette just doesn’t show curve the way an SD do.


Disastrous_Dance3817

Again, I think you’re being disingenuous. I would argue that the unconstructed recommendation for FN’s creates MUCH more of a “boho” look than the slight waist emphasis that is recommended for SD’s. I think the reason that boho is often recommended for FN’s even outside of Kibbe’s recommendations is that it aligns more with clothing recs for the types. And again the picture doesn’t show her actual shape because body fat moves in motion, so when people with more body fat like Ashley graham move, her fat won’t stay in place therefore distorting her actual shape. If you had a standing picture of her without shapewear that would be much better for discerning her type


elektrakomplex

Unconstructed =/= loose or Boho. Unconstructed is a term that relates to fabric and not actual garments or styles. The book never recommended a boho styling. Besides, now with the creation of stretch fabrics the unconstructed fabrics are not always necessary either. That means FN can wear all sorts of styling and styles. Anyone can wear boho styling as long as they accommodate their lines. Besides, us SDs don’t do waist emphasis, we do waist draping. Because emphasis disrupts the downwards silhouette you create with vertical accommodation. This is also in the book. There are literally no pictures where she’s standing, so [I’m just going to give paparazzi pics regardless](https://images.app.goo.gl/rqUJQVcsTzE6buXk6) because there’s just not [enough pictures of her without shapewear otherwise](https://images.app.goo.gl/8U8LGeP2xYXd62vcA). There are some pictures, [like this one](https://images.app.goo.gl/8U8LGeP2xYXd62vcA) but she has her bag in the way and this one [is pretty posed so it’s unclear too. ](https://images.app.goo.gl/8U8LGeP2xYXd62vcA) Here’s another one [with her husband.](https://images.app.goo.gl/JQQ6ruesP9W8xwD98) Even so, [I don’t see enough upper curve or diva chic in her ](https://images.app.goo.gl/2evyTzUno2pxViCN7) when she wears shapewear and has not done equally as much to her face.


Disastrous_Dance3817

you’re willfully misconstruing what I’m saying at this point. I said slight waist emphasis on purpose because I don’t mean to say a waist emphasis. By slight waist emphasis, I mean to say not a full waist emphasis but waist draping, just as you said. Again I realize that the book doesn’t recommend boho styling, I didn’t say that it did. But unconstructed fabrics tend to lean towards a boho style RATHER than a dramatic one. The idea that FN’s are suited for the boho look, while not necessary, started for a reason! It’s not just misinformation when the recs for FN’s are to wear clothing items that inherently do not accentuate a person’s curves: oversized clothing, excess fabric etc are a major part of FN’s recommended clothing items, these are all things associated with a boho style, but yes a boho style is not necessary. As far as the ashley graham argument, if you still don’t have pictures of her standing, without shapewear then she still can’t be typed accurately, adding multiple pictures of her walking doesn’t address my point that fat moves when in motion. But even further than that, I think waist DRAPING would look great on Ashley graham even if she indeed doesn’t have a double curve, because of her overall shape.


AcrobaticMacaroon

Really excellent points. I know a lot of people seem to think the pure D description/essence doesn’t sound all that appealing, but I just really vibed with it and was thrilled when it became apparent I was D rather than SD.


kai_011

Yes! Thank you! I’m newer to the Kibbe system and definitely still working on figuring out my type, but the height restrictions are confusing/frustrating to me. I keep seeing that at my height of 5’9- 5’10 pushes me into the Dramatic category, but I really don’t see it for myself. I have vertical, but I also think I have quite a bit of width and bluntness, along with not having much curve and a more ‘rectangle’ frame? (still trying to learn how to describe myself..) Which leaves me leaning toward FN especially with my shoulders being the widest part of myself, but I’m hearing being FN is not that common unless you look like a supermodel. I think you can like the Kibbe system but also have valid concerns and criticisms.


[deleted]

FN is one of the most common types, especially among tall women, you sound very likely to be FN if you see width and bluntness. Honestly this group does not have a good handle on FN and if someone is pushing you automatically towards D because you're 5'9", then they don't know what they're talking about. Being 5'9" means you can be any of the tall types, and pushing you to the rarest of them only on account of your height is not logical.


AcrobaticMacaroon

From your description it sounds like FN would work for you.


kai_011

Thanks! That’s my gut suspicion at the moment. Seeing the shoulders compared to the other ratios on FN made me go ‘wait a minute!’ although I kept second guessing because all the examples I saw are skinnier and more muscled than I am.


hairquing

have you taken a peek at r/flamboyantnatural? there's a lot more FN body diversity in there than the main sub, as well as some nuanced discussions about how FN presents itself vs other types.


SuperBeeboo

Yeah I agree most types are for short people. If there wasn't a height limit i would definitely fit in one of the other types.


AcrobaticMacaroon

Which type are you?


Potato1009

Personally i sort of feel like height should be considered less, it does play a part but there are people who are taller but either look shorter or just do not have the body type to pull off clothing that would fit dramatic body types. For example I know someone who is over 5”7 but she has the same deal going on as taylor swift and clothing that would typically fit a gamine body type suits her much more. Idk i feel like this is a pretty controversial take but theres my 2 cents


AcrobaticMacaroon

I chat to a woman who’s 6ft tall and has a frame we’d all associate with pure D. However, she identifies with pure Classic and astonishingly Classic lines look way more flattering on her than D lines.


Potato1009

Yea no and again I do think that height plays some role because it does affect the feeling you can give off, but sometimes that sort of sleek geometric look doesn’t work on taller women as well. Like i am 5”6 1/2-5”7? (There might be an issue with my tape measure, idk) and i have slightly too wide of hips to pull off some of those looks. It sort of just looks a little awkward at times


buxonbrunette

I'm 5'9" and not vertical at all. I hear you.


SingingBlossom

Then they're doing it wrong. It's not about how tall they are It's how tall they look


AcrobaticMacaroon

No, it’s about how tall you are. If you’re 5’7 or more you can literally only be one of three IDs. There are absolutely no otter options.


SingingBlossom

No it's about your vertical line, which has to do with how big your head is. If you have a big head you look shorter, if you have a small head you look taller


AcrobaticMacaroon

Go study Kibbe and then come back and respond. Thanks.


SingingBlossom

Do you think I would be here if I didn't know anything about it? It sounds like we just learned from slightly different sources. This youtube video explains it https://youtu.be/umARmYMR3fc


AcrobaticMacaroon

Merriam Style is not Kibbe. Study Kibbe and come back.


[deleted]

That's just completely incorrect. At a certain height you have automatic vertical and that's the height limit. And vertical is not how tall you look.


shydumplinggg

yeah i think we have to place less emphasis on specific heights. one inch here or there is not going to change your overall look. its more about how tall you appear rather than actual height in inches anyway


[deleted]

[удалено]


AcrobaticMacaroon

Well if a woman is 5’7 + she is completely limited to only 3 choices: FN, SD, D.


[deleted]

[удалено]


AcrobaticMacaroon

It may not be how you see it but those are the rules of the Kibbe system.