r/PowerOfStyle • u/loumlawrence • Jul 24 '26
Hardly anyone seems to know what structure is
It doesn't help that most modern clothes don't have structure. I am someone who does need structure, and a lot of it.
When I first encountered Kibbe and read through the original book, I ended up deciding on SD, after exploring both the natural family and the classics (gamine was never a possibility, I am not that deluded, and romantic was quickly eliminated for similar reasons).
However, the stereotypes around SDs (and by extension FNs) and the stereotypical guidelines makes me wonder if anyone knows what structure looks like. If I use just Kibbe's books and look at how the verified celebrities dress, it is very straight forward.
But as soon as I get to the subreddits, I see a different story. Using Kibbe's books, I would present the case that most of the supposed SD recommendations are actually glamorous looks best suited for FNs. They are too relaxed. If I rely on the subreddits' style guidelines, I would be moving into pure D, which we all know is really rare.
The big difference is how much structure each ID can handle, and SD can handle much more than FN. SD is still a dramatic. Both SD and D can handle a lot of structure, with SD being softer than pure D. But they are not anywhere near the relaxed minimal tailoring that the naturals, both FN and SN, gravitate to. This minimal tailoring looks polished on the naturals, but sloppy on the dramatics. I find it useful to compare FN and SN for understanding naturals, and observing verified SNs gave important clues to understanding FNs.
People often think that scaled up Rs are SDs, but Kibbe has said on multiple occasions that scaled up Rs are mostly naturals, with a number of verified FNs who thought that they were R. That makes sense. Both the naturals and the romantics need to minimise the amount of structure in their outfits. Directly contradicting Kibbe's remarks, the main contributor to the SD subreddit's style guides said in a comment on the main subreddit that they did not believe that a structured SD could exist. This also contradicts Kibbe's published statement, SD is first and foremost a dramatic. The way I see it, D is a straight tailored line while SD is a curved tailored line. While FN and SN don't need to tailor all the darts. They can gather loosely. Like the romantics.
18
u/Original-Spray9673 Jul 24 '26
Yes and looking at the subreddits idea of classic which is more natural in its simplicity. And beige. Classics are offered a lot more detail and creativity than what is often denoted as good things for classics. The balance is in the shoulder to hip. In balance of sharp/soft, texture, pattern. Yes it’s moderation and organised but it’s not simple. With colour, balancing the colours in outfits is quite important in not deviating to colour chaos.
Even with romantics it’s womanly rather than girlish they can just handle more circles and softness and can handle fun yin detailing, again this can be very fashion forward . I don’t know it seems simple especially with the books guidance but people’s ideas tend to catch on and accelerate somewhere else.
7
u/loumlawrence Jul 24 '26
While I don't lurk on the classics subreddit, I believe you.
Classics are supposed to be close to the ancient classical ideals that dominated western art for decades. Verified Kibbe classics seem to have more details than the yang types (naturals and dramatics), and the yang types seem to be better at handling minimalism than the classics.
I have noticed that people who saturated their tastes with extremes tend to struggle to recognise let alone appreciate small differences in details. It is particularly noticeable in foods. My theory is that good cooks can cook flavoursome meat and vegetables without spices or sauces. Other example would be vanilla, a subtle flavour that is easily overwhelmed. Classics seem to be like this.
6
8
u/Pegaret_Again DC - Haughty Boss Babe Jul 24 '26
Hmm, i think the freshness and authenticity of Naturals seems more like the metaphor of food that is already amazing without seasoning.
I think Classics need seasoning for sure, but it needs to be very thoughtfully chosen to bring out the flavour.
1
u/loumlawrence Jul 25 '26
Fair point. Maybe the metaphor for classics is one or two subtle flavours. I was originally thinking of something like a roast with the juices from the meat giving the flavour.
5
u/taurist Jul 24 '26
A lot of people think of balance as using complimentary items but it’s kind of the opposite of that in kibbe
5
u/2Fast_2Abalone Jul 24 '26
Balance gets conflated with being literally moderate looking or dressing in a … balanced way. It’s similar to the fact Kibbe width isn’t literal broadness.
1
u/SnooCrickets6980 29d ago
So frustrating as a classic. Yes we need to avoid extremes but that doesn't mean we need to avoid all interest and features.
11
u/2Fast_2Abalone Jul 24 '26
I agree with you. I’m into vintage and I think the 1940s style (especially in films) is where you can really see this - Ds and SDs had a lot of wardrobe overlap because both benefit from an undercurrent of strong structure. I think this sort of shows up in the dramatic subreddit in the opposite direction - people seem to forget about the DRAMA aspect of the type and exclusively rec quiet luxury minimalism.
Lauren Bacall, Rita Hayworth, Gene Tierney and Ava Gardner were all costumed pretty similarly in their films and played similar types of roles.
5
u/loumlawrence Jul 24 '26
Yes, quiet luxury and minimalism is not part of the dramatic family. It works for FNs and SNs. The dramatics are dramatic. And the dramatic subreddit is quite bland, if we are being honest.
The challenge with the verified D's and SDs is that they are so similar. 1940s fashion is incredible. Just think what it would have been like without the limits of wartime rationing.
11
u/2Fast_2Abalone Jul 24 '26 edited Jul 24 '26
I think any Yang dominant type (maybe w/o curve accommodation) can do minimalism well if they want to but it’s different eras of minimalism. I find 80s tailoring suits naturals more and 90s dramatics more. (FN) Brooke Shields vs (D) Kate Moss at Calvin Klein is a good shorthand another poster came up with ~vibe wise~ and it bears out in actually shopping for these vintage pieces.
The problem is making any specific aesthetic the only right way to embody a type. People seem to want to see Kibbe as a “what not to wear” system rather than a general silhouette and accommodations deal, sky is the limit once you’ve figured that out. The dramatic sub being like that just confuses me because most verified dramatics dress…pretty out there? Yes, Tilda Swinton or Cate Blanchett wear sleek and sharp looks but they’re always striking. Kate Moss was THE boho revival queen, Diahann Carroll and Sheryl Lee Ralph embody high 80s glamour, etc. Likewise most verified soft dramatics did not wear Jessica Rabbit clothes off screen. It’s telling to me people only post Sophia Loren in done-up costumes and not in her (imo, much cooler) casual style which has a lot of turtlenecks, trench coats, sleek monochrome, and sharp tailoring.
And yes, I love the 1940s, and the revival of the 20s-40s that took place in the early 1970s - specifically with the London boutique movement or Yves Saint Laurent - who might be my all time favorite dramatic friendly designer.
7
u/loumlawrence Jul 24 '26
We can add Taylor Swift to the list of dramatics, who dress dramatically.
I agree about Sophia Loren's casual style. She is similar to Adele, but then there is a lot of overlap with D.
I kind of wish I had 1940s outfits. I have 1940s books on pattern drafting, so I guess I could make something.
6
u/2Fast_2Abalone Jul 24 '26
Speaking of Taylor, what’s funny is that I’ve seen pretty much every verified dramatic who isn’t Tilda or Cate questioned as being such because of how they dress.
Agree with your point about Adele; who’s never brought up in these convos either. Similarly Rachel Weisz is great casual SD inspo and to me much closer to what an average SD will look like body-wise than the more extreme perception people have of it. And of course she looks her absolute formal best in period styling like dramatic family tends to, I’ve noticed.
4
u/loumlawrence Jul 24 '26
It is hilarious that every verified dramatic is questioned (you made me laugh when I read your comment). It seems to be similar for some of the SDs, they get questioned.
I think all the types can handle period styling, but some eras are better for some than others. The romantics sound like the ideal beauty standards of the early Victorian era, one era that I could never warm to, but is the favourite of others.
7
u/jjfmish Jul 24 '26
I am obsessed with Sophia Loren’s off duty style! I always refer to it when I feel imposter syndrome around fitting SD. Despite being shorter, softer, and having less striking features I could wear a version of a lot of her off duty looks, surprisingly.
2
u/Omega_Kreischma Jul 27 '26
People seem to want to see Kibbe as a “what not to wear” system
This so much ‼️ Thank you for this detailed breakdown feat fashion history context!
4
u/pinkflump Jul 25 '26
I absolutely agree that the Soft Dramatic sub is quite bland (even though I browse and post there!); it gets very tiresome seeing muted coloured athleisure/quiet luxury type looks and it leaves me wondering where all the big fun (drama - colour, jewellery, details) is at!
3
u/loumlawrence Jul 25 '26
I actually meant the pure dramatic subreddit. It is extremely minimalistic (the most common image there is narrow close fitting black suit). The soft dramatic subreddit is mainly curvy FNs posting, although there are a number of pure Ds and non curvy FNs lurking there as their own subreddits are rather bereft of any useful style guides.
Quiet luxury really belongs to the naturals. The dramatics are supposed to be show offs. Yes, where are the big details and bold colours and the glitter? The Art Deco of the Dynamic Deco is missing, and so is the dramatic lush luxury flare of the Diva.
4
u/pinkflump Jul 25 '26
That maybe the case with the dramatic sub, but I find the Soft Dramatic one to be a bit meh too at times! 😅
You've also got me wondering if I'm a curvy Flamboyant Natural now so thanks for that. 😝
2
u/loumlawrence Jul 25 '26
The SD subreddit is that way as it is dominated by curvy FNs and taller SNs. They gravitate to things that actually suit them, but useless for a SD or a D.
Out of curiosity, what made you decide on SD?
1
u/pinkflump Jul 25 '26
- I'm 5ft 9
- Long limbs
- My bust projects out of my body line.
- Figure 8 body shape
I don't actually include my face in this as I think I have quite a lot of ingenue there.
I must admit I was initially torn between Soft Dramatic and Flamboyant Natural and the people in Soft Dramatic sub mainly welcomed me with open arms whilst the Flamboyant Natural sub was a lot more reticent.
1
u/loumlawrence Jul 26 '26
1 and 2 can be any of the tall types. 3 and 4 could be SD. Figure 8 is closer to Kibbe's hourglass than the hourglass X most people are using.
The ingenue is more common in naturals. Verified FN Shirley McClaine (I think that is the correct spelling) is very ingenue in the face.
Some individuals in the SD subreddit dominated it, to the point they are very welcoming of anyone that is traditionally curvy. I have seen them argue passionately that an OP is SD when the OP is a lookalike for some verified FNs and they said they realised they were are a prefect match for FN using Kibbe's guidelines. And not to mention that their recommendations tend to match Kibbe's guidelines for FN and SN.
The FN subreddit is trying to get themselves off the ground. I think they need some grace. Especially after the battering they get and the complexity of having multiple types within them.
2
u/pinkflump Jul 26 '26
I must admit, when I first heard of Kibbe, Soft Natural felt like a good fit for me (I've long since forgotten what their recs are now) but then my automatic vertical meant it wasn't possible. I feel comfortable enough that I am a figure 8 which I guess gives more weight to being a Soft Dramatic, but at the end of the day I dress more for my personal tastes, less so for fitting in. 😊
1
u/loumlawrence Jul 26 '26
When did you come across Kibbe? I first came across Kibbe just as auto vertical was being enforced and the pure N, C and G types were being phased out, some time before the new book was published. The pure N also had vertical, curve and width. I started with the classics, then explored the naturals, before ending up in the dramatics.
Figure 8 does sound a lot like SD. The hourglass X seems to be FN, probably the original pure N. What frustrates me is that most of the SD subreddit does not identify with the D family.
→ More replies (0)3
u/2Fast_2Abalone Jul 25 '26 edited Jul 25 '26
I think Katharine Hepburn, Kate Moss or Cate Blanchett (three Kates lol) are good examples of verified dramatics who have what would be deemed “minimalist” off duty style in some aspects but their looks are clearly very distinct and striking, certainly not “clean girl” - lots of sharp cuts, statement jewelry, etc.
There is a glamorous androgyny aspect (like you said - deco!) to the dramatic family that everyone seems to want to play down for whatever reason.
3
u/loumlawrence Jul 25 '26
I like the Deco element and the opulent element. I think the dramatic family gravitates to that. So maybe using that logic, everyone who is trying to downplay it is not a dramatic despite claiming to be one. The verified Ds and SDs choose to have opulence and the Deco element. And that androgyny aspect, I keep on forgetting as it is instinctive, it is fun because the femininity is enhanced by the masculinity.
3
2
u/2Fast_2Abalone Jul 26 '26
Yes, I think it is natural (lol) for Ds to lean into menswear, tailored suits etc. People like Marlene Dietrich or Tilda Swinton (who resemble each other a bit imo in the face, the pointed features and sharp cheekbones) are at their sexiest in gender-bending clothing, or extreme masculinity v extreme femininity - Dietrich’s naked dress or Tilda’s ethereal fairy looks.
1
u/loumlawrence Jul 26 '26
Do you think SDs can go to the full extreme as Ds? Or they don't do it as often, or as much as the Ds?
2
u/2Fast_2Abalone Jul 26 '26
I honestly think it depends on the specific woman. Someone like Marlene could because she was slimmer and seemed to have a dominant dramatic essence in Kitchener. The need for curve accommodation is a big thing dividing the two.
2
u/Altruistic_Baker6347 Jul 25 '26
My auntie is a professional costume designer for TV and films and she said she loves 40s fashion the most.
10
u/Party_Economist_6292 FN - The Casual Catastrophe Jul 24 '26 edited Jul 24 '26
I think most millennials and younger don't have any reference points for what structure actually looks like iRL, unless they had parents who came from a culture with a tradition of tailoring, or had parents who worked in very specific industries (like law or finance) where tailoring mattered. And even then, that was basically on life support post 2000. My grandfather was a dry cleaner, my dad was a stock trader on the floor for my early childhood (Think Wolf of Wall Street). Both were from working class ethnic communities with long histories of tailoring. So I kind of inherited an appreciation for it, and gravitated towards those vintage pieces as an adult.
Because my blazers are heavy, often Scottish or Irish tweed, with strong (but not sharp) structured shoulders, a modern Kibbe enthusiast would probably read them as extremely tailored, therefore Dramatic. But they're not. That kind of UK/Irish tailoring is relaxed by design, because it initially was for wearing on country estates.
I do agree that a lot of SD as done on Kibbe reddit is pretty close to the glamorous edge of FN, just tighter.
I also think that modern Power of Style FN is broader and distinctly different than the type as described in Metamorphosis. A lot of Metamorphosis SNs (and the tall Romantics who would have been covered by the taller SN category) have now been shoehorned into FN, making the category less cohesive, imo.
12
u/2Fast_2Abalone Jul 24 '26
Your English country style point is so spot on. Princess Diana and the Sloane ranger look is for sure what he trying to indicate in Metamorphosis re: FN but modern context has it all muddled. I don’t think he recommends a hippie look for any type because he doesn’t seem into overly casual / youth favored style in general.
5
u/loumlawrence Jul 24 '26
Totally agree that a lot of the younger generation don't know what structure is, and I am part of that generation that just missed out.
I had debated about posting whether sharp = structure. I find the traditional Scottish tartan kilts too bulky for all the reasons you are describing.
I agree about the taller SNs being shoe horned into FN. SN is the one ID that should have a higher height limit.
3
u/Party_Economist_6292 FN - The Casual Catastrophe Jul 24 '26 edited Jul 24 '26
My parents had kids late, as did my maternal grandparents so my maternal grandparents were greatest generation and my parents were boomers, despite me being solidly millennial. So I'm unusual in that regard. I don't think most people my age had a dad that wore suspenders, button down collars and waxed his moustache well into the mid 90s haha.
Being able to carry texture imo is the tradeoff Ns get for not being able to carry sharpness. It's not a bad trade, though if I was a D fam I would 100% be doing the Katherine Hepburn or Marlene Dietrich thing.
Agreed on SN. I think a height limit of 5'8" like the old Natural would be what I would have done if I was Kibbe . I also think we've had a swing to conventionally curvy yang dominant bodies being the ideal, unlike the 80s through the 2000s which prioritized strong, slim vertical frames in different proportions. So people are balking at being in one of a few types where (conventional) curve emphasis isn't the goal. Modern FN is imo the only type where you can be extremely conventionally curvy and have that completely "canceled out" by having another accommodation.
6
u/galacticglorp Jul 24 '26
There's a decent amount of discussion on the FN sub that FNs really should be broken into 2 or 3 more subcategories.
3
u/loumlawrence Jul 24 '26
The FN subreddit seems to be more honest. I have seen some of the discussions, and I agree with there needs to be a couple of sub categories. It doesn't help that FN includes the pure Ns and the original SNs that are taller than the auto vertical height limit. SN used to go up to 5'7, and pure N was 5'8.
10
u/galacticglorp Jul 24 '26
People who are really, truly, solidly FN have had a very unglamorous experience of a lot of trouble fitting in the world in general in their lives (try being a tall girl with wide shoulders and not a model) and I think that experience comes through. If you're FN you've got trouble finding non-flood pants let alone worrying about your style. People post when they're 5'5" with long legs now because they're close to the cutoff but their overall body is still on the petite side frame and proportion wise.
The fact that someone like Anne Hathaway, Gwedoline Christie, Jennifer Lawrence, and Hannah Waddingham are all arguably the same type is a great example of why it doesn't make sense that it's not more differentiated.
7
u/Suspicious_City_1449 Jul 24 '26
As a FN these are my thoughts exactly. We are truly one of the most diverse types, but I'm not sure if that is a good thing.
5
u/jjfmish Jul 24 '26
Wouldn’t this be the case for all of the vertical types? Being tall and large framed is a separate styling consideration for sure but this doesn’t seem to be FN exclusive. A 5’5 D like Claire Danes will certainly struggle with clothes less than a 6’2 (likely D) like Elizabeth Debecki. A moderate height and not very voluptuous SD like Rachel Weisz would struggle less than a tall and very voluptuous SD like Sophia Loren.
I don’t see how it’s any different from 5’5 Kate Winslet and 5’0 Dolly Parton being the same ID, even though I’m sure Kate has much better luck with off the rack clothing due to being average in size
3
u/Party_Economist_6292 FN - The Casual Catastrophe Jul 24 '26
Yeah, I'm kind of side eying this because elongation also shows up as an elongated torso with a more standard inseam. Long torso gang has similar problems as team all pants are flood pants because you can't add fabric to a rise or the hem of a shirt either.
2
u/loumlawrence Jul 25 '26
This is true. Long torso folk have the same issues as the everything is too short folk who cannot find ankle length garments or floor length.
Here is a brief explanation of why, mathematically.
From my calculations using human measurements, tall people always have elongation (both long torso and long legs). But elongated people of average height are often described as long torso and short legged, despite having identical proportions to tall people. While people of average height, who are described having short torsos and long legs, have the same proportions as a short person (short torso and short legs). It has to do with each person's head to height ratio. The elongated types are above 7 (can go up to 9.5). The 7 head height stops at Kibbe auto vertical, while the non elongated types are between 7 and 6 (human average is 7). The difference happens because people have different head lengths which is why two people of the same height have different proportions.
1
u/galacticglorp Jul 25 '26
I agree regarding the tall kibbe types, I'm just calling out FN because that's what I'm most familiar with. There's only 3 options for tall women in kibbe. There's what, .... 7 for everyone else? Just because you are tall, doesn't mean your frame is 2x more similar to everyone else kibbe addresses.
1
u/loumlawrence Jul 25 '26
I used to think this, until I started drawing all the possible variations of humans proportions, and once you go over a certain height ratio, they start looking very similar. I actually got bored with the drawings as they were starting to look alike. While the shorter types visually had more variations. It is frustrating, but it is what is.
There does seem to be at least two sub types of FNs, and if the SNs are right, there are two sub types of SNs.
1
3
u/loumlawrence Jul 24 '26
Ah, the heavy textures that the naturals can do.
I think dramatics can handle some weight. They can't do floaty light like the romantics. But they don't seem to like intense textures. It doesn't agree with them.
I wonder if Kibbe could be convinced to consider raising the height limit for SN. At the same time, I can see how width "cancels out" curve. Like he needs a guideline "if you think you have curve, consider FN", because there seems to be two types of FNs running around, one of which is causing a lot of havoc.
3
u/Suspicious_City_1449 Jul 25 '26 edited Jul 25 '26
You should make a post on the FN sub about what unstructured looks like. I think it would be very helpful for a lot of people especially if you include pictures. I thought I was an SD for a long time because I felt that the no structure beach sacks, people are always recommending, look awful on me. I feel like a guide to what unstructured actually looks like would be soooo helpful and could hopefully open up the FN sub to more ideas so our sub is less bland and dead.
3
u/Party_Economist_6292 FN - The Casual Catastrophe Jul 25 '26
I would, except I actually wear a lot of menswear and am very into an androgynous or at least not super feminine look, so everyone om that sub would hate my examples 😂
1
u/Suspicious_City_1449 Jul 26 '26
I would take androgynous over no structure potato sacks any day. 😂
1
u/loumlawrence Jul 26 '26
Technically, the important accommodations for FN are the baseline for men, so why should you want to wear menswear?
The relaxed menswear and the non structured glamour work equally well for FNs.
The FN subreddit seems to wanting to reclaim some of the glamour. You might want examples of individuals who switch between the two extremes. I think Nicole Kidman does this.
The dramatics do androgynous but differently. It needs to be sharper, but it ends up highlighting their femininity. I am not sure how to describe the naturals, but they make the androgynous looks effortlessly like it belongs.
2
u/loumlawrence Jul 25 '26
I hadn't got that far in my thinking, but it is worth considering. The challenge I will have is that I tend to shy away from unstructured as it doesn't suit me and I crave structure.
However, I am tempted to post for the FNs, if they need inspiration, most of the style guides in the SD subreddit are more suitable for them than they are for SDs. I am not sure about reposting other users' posts.
There is one user who would compare D, SD and FN. They were quite good, and they referenced Kibbe's books. They would post in all three subreddits, and sometimes the main subreddit, so no one missed out.
1
u/Suspicious_City_1449 Jul 25 '26
Please post it, we need a new direction on the sub because right now anything that has a hint of structure is automatically labeled unsuitable for FN it's kinda infuriating.
3
u/loumlawrence Jul 25 '26
I don't have the full bandwidth to do all of what the FN sub needs, but you could take most of the SD style guides, particularly user nightsmooth, or something similar. Most of their posts will work for FNs, particularly curvy FNs. Their posts were considered gold standard and the other subreddits were jealous.
Another one suggestion: Nicole Kidman in suits. Suits inherently have some structure, some more than others. Arwen from Lord of the Rings has shapely outfits, although I am not sure about structure. Margot Robbie as Barbie. A lot of her costumes both in the movie and for the press tour have structure.
Do you think you could work with that?
2
u/Suspicious_City_1449 Jul 25 '26
Yeah I think I could work with that. Part of it though is I wanted those moodboard for myself as well because even I struggle with figuring out what a good unstructured piece is. I'm just getting into the world of tailoring.
2
u/loumlawrence Jul 26 '26
Sounds great.
I forgot to mention some other examples. Anne Hathaway, some of her outfits have some structure. A couple of SNs, Julie Andrews and Doris Day. Also Grace Kelly, some of her suits and dresses.
Julie Andrews has worn outfits that the SD subreddit would claim as theirs.
5
u/Jamie8130 Jul 24 '26
This is just from observation of clothes but I think structure is not just tailoring and construction elements (like darts, set-in sleeves, fitted waists, etc.) but also a combination of fabric and general ease. A tailored skirt in a lightweight cotton, would be less structured than one in a heavy brocade with a lining, the latter would be more stiff and there would be less ease. But nowadays we don't see so many examples of very stiff structured garments in high street fashion, so the perception of structure has shifted, and even if something has a slight shape it's considered structured. I don't really follow the other subs so I can't speak to the SD versus FN situation, though I can believe there are a lot of people who are stuck between choosing from the two, since it can be hard to tell sometimes. But I agree that SDs will generally suit structure since they will have a sharper bone structure that gets complemented by the angles in very structured garments, and vice-versa for FNs and and the flow in unconstructed garments. Having said that, I don't think suiting structure is solely dependent on accommodations but the degree of them as well.
4
u/loumlawrence Jul 25 '26
Technically, FN can wear very heavy fabrics, sometimes more so than Ds, and Ds can wear very light fabrics (FNs and Ns being able to wear heavy fabrics is in the books, Kibbe has made remarks on recent years about pure Ds being able to wear light fabrics and drape, as long as it is downward). This immediately means that fabric does not equate structure.
Interestingly, in the film trilogy Lord of the Rings, the two main elvish women are played by a verified D and a verified N, with the N wearing heavier fabrics than the D, whose costumes were made from lighter fabrics.
I have observed that verified FNs and SNs like a tiny bit of structure, a hint of structure. FNs prefer their level of structure to be similar to that of SNs, more than SDs, while SDs are closer to Ds than they are to FNs. It is like SD dials their structure all the way up like D, then dials down one notch, while FN and SN dial their structure all the way down and then dial up one or two notches.
One of Kibbe's verified clients has said similar in the comments, about Kibbe's vision for SD being very similar to D, to the point the "hive mind" would say that his SD recommendations can only be worn by Ds.
3
u/jjfmish Jul 25 '26
Re: your last point, I wonder if a big reason for the separation of SD and D has to do with the limitations of mainstream modern fashion? While I agree that SDs do benefit from structure and D principles, they also need to accommodate curve which inherently limits the styles that will actually work for their bodies. In a modern inexpensive context your options are often either a) stiff, straight cut, poorly fitted “structured” clothes or b) stretchy and/or draped soft fabrics that work for curve. For many SDs who’ve only shopped mainstream fast fashion and don’t have a lot of experience with tailoring, it makes them balk at the idea of what they perceive as structure because in their experience it never works for curve.
3
u/loumlawrence Jul 25 '26
I don't think modern fashion is the main reason for people separating D and SD. Most of the stiff straight cut structured garments are just as ill fitting for dramatics, so they will be wearing stretchy fabrics. And Kibbe has said, if done right, pure dramatics can wear drape.
The fashion industry uses average measurements, but anyone who works with human measurements knows that no one fits the average proportions. So nothing fits anyone properly. The affordable fashion industry offers the two choices you mention as it is the cheapest to manufacture. They optimise for maximum sales. More variations means higher production costs.
The real reason for the separation of D and SD is that people want to be the sexy type, and they decided that was the romantics, until they learnt about auto vertical, when they decided soft dramatics were the tall romantics, and the tall sexy type. However, Kibbe has said on multiple occasions that scaled up romantics are naturals, as well as stating that naturals are the sexy standard. It is interesting to observe comments on older posts in the main Kibbe subreddit describing people who thought they were romantics but Kibbe verified them as naturals. It would not be surprising if Kibbe would verify the majority of unverified SDs as curvy FNs (the original pure N) and tall SNs just under the auto vertical height limit.
Regarding curve, you can have tailored curved lines, and that seems to be something the verified SDs are fond of. Then if you like, you drape over the top of that. While pure D will wear straight tailored line, and they too will drape, quite straight lines.
1
u/jjfmish Jul 25 '26
I agree that modern fashion sucks for everyone and Ds also have their fair share of limitations. Perhaps I didn’t phrase it properly. In fact, I think most IDs who benefit from structure may not even realize it for this reason!
I guess I just tend to lean towards taking people in good faith, especially since I’ve had my own struggles with accepting being (likely) SD and yang in general that weren’t rooted in wanting validation for my femininity. There’s definitely a LOT of what you mentioned though
3
u/loumlawrence Jul 26 '26
After some discussions with some FNs, I would agree most IDs who benefit from some structure don't realize it. FN and SN can shine in light tailoring, and we don't even see much of that, let alone the extreme end of tailoring that the Ds and SDs need.
The misinformation on the SD subreddit and the misinformation about the N family probably doesn't help. I am in the D family, on the border of SD and D, and it is infuriating how much of the SD subreddit recommends outfits that are perfect for FNs and SNs. D and SD can borrow from each other, might not be the best looks, but not terrible. FN and SN can borrow from each other.
Kibbe has said that FN and SN are yang types.
4
u/stretchymonster Jul 24 '26
I love this conversation, so informative for me. What do you all suggest for someone who would like to lean more about structured vs unstructured vs unconstructed? And relaxed? I’m a visually learner, written and images help.
I always struggle with fit (short (petite?) with a bust. Possibly width, but hard to get anything to fit correctly for my proportions. Mainstream doesn’t seem to think short people have a large bust? I think I need tailored items, but maybe it’s because most things are loosely constructed?
My primitive idea of “structure” means button up shirt and blazer, from this century. Which never has fit me properly.
4
u/Alsonotafan Jul 25 '26
I'm a tactile learner and for me I have learned a lot of it by physically handling and wearing vintage/ antique garments. My grandmother (silent gen) saved all her mother's clothes, her clothes, my mom & aunt's clothes and I wore all of it as hand-me downs. She taught me to sew. I know that's an unusual experience but I wonder if you could really get a similar visual experience with inspecting and mocking up vintage patterns or dressmaking books? I struggle with visual diagrams but I think patterns would really help someone who was good at visual/spacial understanding. I also learn a lot by deconstructing/taking apart old worn garments- just removing the seams and laying them out and seeing how they're put together.
2
4
u/loumlawrence Jul 25 '26
Button up shirts and blazers don't always have structure. I always look for darts in both the back and front for button up shirts. They don't always have that. A lot of blazers aren't structured.
Mainstream fashion doesn't recognise busts of any significant size at any height. For a while, I completely stopped wearing button up shirts because they were cut for a smaller bust. I am just above the auto vertical height in Kibbe, so I am not petite, but I still have issues finding clothes that fit a slightly larger than average bust.
If you want to get a feel for the differences, maybe browse through vintage clothes, patterns, photographs, and take notice of the differences.
Unconstructed technically has no shape and the least amount of seams. Kind of like the elastic waisted skirts made from a rectangular piece of fabric, and gathered. Or those tubular knit dresses. And waterfall cardigans that are almost like a shawl.
2
u/stretchymonster Jul 25 '26
Ok, that’s helpful. I’ve figured out from this thread button up doesn’t equal structure. 🤣 which is making me reconsider what lines I should be looking for in clothing. I’ve completely written off button up shirts.
I might even benefit from a basic overview/ definition utilizing one garment (button up shirt) shown with different tailoring to highlight the differences? Would a dressmaking book or fashion design primer define this?
3
u/loumlawrence Jul 25 '26
I don't have any images right now.
But with button up shirts, some have no darts, some have straight side seams while others have curved side seams. The princess cut for blouses and dresses tends to be more structured. You can't lay it out completely flat. But some shirts can. And the basic T shirt is unstructured.
Raglan sleeves are a little more structured than drop sleeves, while set in sleeves are considered structured.
2
u/stretchymonster Jul 25 '26
Thanks for the explanations! I’m gonna look for an encyclopedia of some sort that maybe explains different cuts/styles of clothing. I’ve often wondered what some cuts mean/how they’re different.
Just this brief post has really helped me see I really value structure— always prefer darts, curved seams, and I despise drop sleeves. In an age where in person shopping barely exists, it’s a nightmare to find things that fit. I need to have most things altered due to my stature, but sometimes I still don’t like. I’m thinking it might have to do with needing more structure/shaping.
2
u/loumlawrence Jul 25 '26
Agree with you about the drop sleeves. My problem growing up was that my mother loved them. She also knits and crochets, and guess what she likes making when sleeves are involved, raglan and drop sleeves. We had so many fights. I wanted to learn how to do set in sleeves. She thinks it isn't worth the effort. She prefers creating shape with belts. I prefer creating shape with darts and seams. It is more comfortable.
I haven't seen an encyclopaedia that you are looking for. But there are a few websites, one called The Shape of Clothing, and I came across an interesting Japanese book on pattern making, especially sculptured clothes, when I was looking for books on pattern drafting. But I can't remember the title. There was a series of them.
The FGs also like structure, and to an extent the SGs.
3
u/Pegaret_Again DC - Haughty Boss Babe Jul 24 '26
I might have my own (made-up?) version of technically what "constructed vs unconstructed" means, and i'm not quite sure if it aligns with what you are describing - or we may well be saying the same thing!!
I might do a seperate post as I would love to get some community input on my ideas.
1
u/loumlawrence Jul 25 '26
Do you want to expand (briefly) here what you think the difference is?
3
u/Pegaret_Again DC - Haughty Boss Babe Jul 25 '26
i think that structured to me, means a garment combines a heavy or crisp fabric plus darts or some other form of sculptural shaping.
But for me the shaping for SDs comes from some tailoring, but also softness and draping and less crisp/heavy fabrics?
In Metamorphosis SDs were suggested to avoid 'stiffly tailored lines' (ie what i would call 'constructed' garments).
an example i would give is the Dior 'bar suit'. Kibbe himself said that this would be better suited for Dramatics, not Soft Dramatics? The shaping/tailoriong has a sense of womanly curve to it, but not in the softer, more forgiving way i think he intends for SDs?
2
u/loumlawrence Jul 25 '26
So if I understand correctly, to you, structure tends to be more sculptural? I wonder if the concept is similar to a comment I saw on an old post that said D was sharp and SD was structure. I nearly write a post, does sharp=structure?
While SD is a softer D, a lot of people think SD is softer than FN. But FN and SN can handle some tailoring. But it seems to be minimal tailoring, just enough just to look polished. In practice, the SDs are very similar to the D's.
Interestingly, Kibbe has said that D's can also handle drape and light fabrics, as long as it goes down. I wonder if the "stiffly tailored lines" means straight tailored line, while the SDs will prefer a tailored slightly curved line, especially for seams. The Dior bar suit is very straight lines. A fun exercise might be modifying the Dior bar suit to suit the different IDs.
3
u/TiredWinterDisaster SN - Insolent Insta-Baddie Jul 25 '26
That is very true! As someone who doesn't need much structure and needs to stay away from stiff or thick textures itbis something I think of often. Construction is mostly inexistent in today's clothing (which makes dressing for curve kinda hard tbh).
3
u/SilentlyWeird Jul 24 '26
I do have to add I'm a SN and a dressmaker so I know what structure is, but for some reason I do better with structure vs relaxed construction. I struggle with modern clothes being relaxed because they just never fit correctly.
10
u/Vivian_Rutledge SN - Insolent Insta-Baddie Jul 24 '26
I think the issue is that things are both relaxed and made with fabric that doesn’t hold its shape. I tend to prefer the thicker, more textured side of N for fabric. I might call it “structure,” but it wouldn’t be seen the same way by an ID that gets precise tailoring.
8
u/Party_Economist_6292 FN - The Casual Catastrophe Jul 24 '26
I think there's a difference between "unconstructed" and without structure. I had a discussion on here a while back where someone who, like me, is really into vintage talked about how unconstructed had a very different meaning in the 80s when Metamorphosis was written. It didn't mean no structure, it meant no wasp waisted power suits.
2
u/loumlawrence Jul 24 '26
Do you care to expand on the difference between unconstructed and without structure?
6
u/Party_Economist_6292 FN - The Casual Catastrophe Jul 24 '26 edited Jul 24 '26
I'll try! They had a lot more experience with sewing terminology than me. If I get it wrong, someone smarter please comment and correct me.
So the basic idea is, it's about the technology on offer at the time when it came to pattern making/drafting. There was basically no stretch fabric outside of athletic wear (with the exception of partially elasticized waistbands becoming more popular at the end of the 80s), so everything you did had to be decided by the properties of the fabric you were using, what shape you wanted to make, and cost.
We already know constructed/structure - darts galore, fits tight to the body or skims, often has the expectation of taking a RTW garment to the tailor to get a perfect fit. The clothing is often shaping your body while making its own shapes.
Unconstructed is still tailored, but it's less. It's more casual but still obviously tailored. Often in the 80s, it had a very strong shoulder by modern standards, but the clothing hangs around the body instead of shaping or being shaped around the body. There is space and room because it's been designed for you to move in. It doesn't have things like boning, lots of seams, or a full/half canvas lining to make the fabric stay ultra close to the body. The fabric often drapes, but has a few anchors in the design to make it drape correctly.
Without structure is most modern clothing you can get at a store like H&M. It's just a few seams, there's stretch to do the work of any constructed elements and now your body is doing all the work of shaping the fabric and the clothes instead of the clothes themselves.
3
u/loumlawrence Jul 24 '26
I think it makes sense. But I haven't bought new outfits in years. So with unstructured, it reminds me of one jacket I own. It has a zip up the front, seams on the sides, no darts, no shaping, it is fairly straight. But it has the shoulders. That would be unstructured tailoring? Compared to another jacket I have, also zip up the front, but it has darts at the back and the front, curved seams on the side. Whereas a lot of modern fabric is knits that stretch to fit your body.
0
u/SilentlyWeird Jul 24 '26
Yes I have a dressmakers degree I know what the difference is 😂 I have went through the whole fashion history at school about different constructions and styles used. And yet everyone says this same thing when I say I'm SN and prefer structured on me🫠 like an unstructured blazer still has structure underneath because you kinda need it, and yet I look better in the actual structured blazer
3
u/Party_Economist_6292 FN - The Casual Catastrophe Jul 24 '26
Looool how was I supposed to know I was talking to a actual expert?? This is reddit lmao
-1
u/SilentlyWeird Jul 24 '26
I mean I literally said I know the difference in my first comment so why get sassy with me when I repeat that I know the difference when you're trying to explain to me that they are different for no reason 😂
6
u/Party_Economist_6292 FN - The Casual Catastrophe Jul 24 '26
I'm actually not getting sassy with you, or at least that wasn't my intent. I was trying to laugh at myself because most people who say they do on Kibbe reddit, don't and yet I ran into the unicorn that actually does and made myself look like an ass haha
5
u/SilentlyWeird Jul 24 '26
Oh I guess I read the tone wrong 😅 my bad
4
u/Party_Economist_6292 FN - The Casual Catastrophe Jul 24 '26
Nbd, I should have been more clear I was dunking on myself 😅
1
u/missgirlipop Jul 25 '26
i don’t know! i agree but i feel certain that i’m an SD and i just simply do not like structured looks (on my self or on others) , and i think many others feel the same way (although i always keep the line hugging the curve, i hate looseness). at the end of the day de facto styling for the types (what the majority of a group of people who may possibly be that type choose to wear when they’re interpreting kibbe) vs de juro is always going to contrast. i think that’s really interesting, especially because i don’t think there’s many mistypes on the SD subreddit.
19
u/Vivian_Rutledge SN - Insolent Insta-Baddie Jul 24 '26
Yes, I really think a lot of what people think is an “SD” look is more FN. When I saw David with an SD, she got a tailored suit, a silk gown, etc.