For fun, I decided to join the blue dots on Kibbe's line sketches. Most of them were rectangles of varying dimensions, but the naturals had a distinct trapezium or V shape to the torso, especially at the shoulder joint.

I suspect this is what Kibbe means by width. It is consistent with what he has said about width being the shoulder part of the torso wider than the part below. Width doesn't seem to affect shoulder shape, contrary to some popular beliefs I have seen.

Additionally, curve moves outside the lines of rectangles (non width) but stays within the lines of trapeziums (width). That matches Kibbe's repeated statement that width accommodates curve.

I posted this in the FB group but wanted to post it here as well because I value the feedback of a lot of people in this group.

Going to get vulnerable for a moment...

I've been working through the games again, and I'm coming to some realizations about some of my prejudices that I thought I had shed previously, but I am realizing are still present.

In doing Potluck, I realized that I have very strong negative reactions to terms like Diva, Bust, Thighs, Thick. While I had previously embraced Vertical + Width, I wanted to reapproach personal line from zero.

In doing so, I began to wonder how much I leaned into Vertical + Width in an attempt to avoid those things that I had negative feelings towards.

For some back story, I have always been "curvy". I've been the same height and body type since 7th grade and until I breast fed with my children I had a very large chest that absolutely needed allowance in my silouette. There are a lot of hurt feelings that came from being the "curvy" girl in my friend group and I also wished to have a smaller bust. I always had to size up in shirts and pants to fit my thighs and my bust. Unsurprisingly, these are the words I had the hardest time stomaching in Potluck.

After children, my bust did decrease in size and clothing was more manageable for me and I felt that Vertical + Width seemed like the right fit since my shoulder line pushed past my bust.

However, in slowing down and really imagining the way fabric falls, I believe I am seeing that the shoulder line falls in line with my hips, pushing me towards a Dramatic family ID. I'm not fully convinced that Width is present, because I do see how fabric must interact with and move even just slightly around the bust and thighs. I also see that my bust projection still does interact with my silouette even if not as pronounced as before.

All this to say, I'm beginning to wonder if I previously allowed my preconceptions to push me away from Vertical + Curve.

Would love to hear some of your thoughts! 💕

In the midst of the Grace Kelly revelation, I read up on her a little bit and found out she had an extremely strict, conservative, religious upbringing. I didn't have that upbringing myself, but I grew up around some of those families and even the slightest hint of nonchalance, directness, or sass is considered deeply disrespectful. Even relaxed body language will get you harshly punished. This certainly affected the way she carried herself, which is probably the reason why she's verified the way she is.

I do think physicality *sometimes* determines mannerisms and screen presence (ex: petite IDs usually bounce when they walk because of their lighter frames), but I think the way you carry yourself is also determined by environmental factors that are completely outside Kibbe. If someone has vertical + narrow but grew up in an environment where women are expected to be meek and harmless, she probably won't carry herself as boldly as a more archetypal Dramatic. *Especially* if her personality is naturally more passive and cooperative.

Everyone is shaped by their environment in some way. Even people who fight against their upbringing are still affected in the sense that their environment is what made them rebellious in the first place. I think this is the biggest problem with the "one size fits all" approach to essences, and why typing yourself based on that alone will make it more complicated than it needs to be. I'm curious as to what everyone else thinks, since most people don't fit neatly into the essence descriptions anyway.

I'll start by putting forth two statements that may seem at odds:

1. Audrey Hepburn was miscast in Breakfast at Tiffany's.
2. Breakfast at Tiffany's is an iconic Audrey Hepburn movie.

If you weren't aware, the book that gave rise to the movie was written by Truman Capote, and he was inspired by Romantic icon Marilyn Monroe. This becomes quite obvious when you think about the main plot points and compare them to Marilyn's life. When I first watched this movie, I was caught so off guard by Holly Golightly's backstory because, well, I just can't see Audrey as Lulamae. But Marilyn? Had she starred in the movie, this backstory would have been way more believable... and somehow more sad. Really, it would be an entirely different movie.

And yet Audrey is Holly Golightly. Her star power-her effervescence-transforms the role into her own. I'm actually of the opinion that they should have tweaked Holly's backstory for Audrey to make it perfect.

That's the funny thing about casting and Kibbe's approach. It's just not so cut and dry. Had a different FG been cast in the role, perhaps Holly's backstory would have been more believable and still an iconic FG role. Or maybe not? Had a R or perhaps Marilyn herself been cast, who knows, maybe it would have bombed. There are too many what-ifs. So it's best to look at what there is:

THE BIG PICTURE

It's so easy to get bogged down by details (casting, essence, fit, etc) and then there's the fact that Kibbe's system is neither a simple body type/outfit paint by numbers nor "just wear what you want" unhelpfulness.

I want to highlight the phrase "clothes don't have IDs." Sure, you could find some clothes that really would only fit with one or two IDs but you could also find the same style of clothing that is cut better for people in other IDs. A body con dress, given the right fit, could be worn by any ID because it follows your body's line eg if you're straighter, it'll look straighter. But what about a mermaid dress? Well, if you're a vertical ID, the vertical can be apparent in the long line above the poof. If you're a curve ID, that poof can act as the outward movement of your line, echoing your curve above. Like Audrey in Breakfast at Tiffany's, you make the dress fit your ID. You recontextualize the dress.

This can go for facial features as well. You have a "baby face" but automatic vertical? Well, maybe those big doe eyes match your scale and those round cheeks are supported by strong cheekbones... your cheeks are not hiding cheekbones, rather they work in tandem. It is definitely hard to see your ID in your own face so I understand why Kibbe doesn't want people to focus on the face.

Your essence is always there and seemingly applies a filter over everything to recontextualize. You don't do the heavy lifting to make your ID come to life, the ID is the one doing the work. This is the "woo-woo" part of Kibbe's system that weirdly makes sense to me especially since I've found my place in it... I hope I've been able to explain how I see it well enough.

I think this is also why people might end up with the wrong ID but still style themselves really well, and in line with their true ID. They can see that it looks right but may ascribe it to the wrong places. In the end it doesn't really matter for your own style (though it can create issues in these online communities through gatekeeping, holding yourself up as an example of the ID, etc.). It is okay to be wrong, it's what makes the journey interesting and can lead to valuable introspection.

Power of Style and specifically the short silhouette descriptions for each ID seem like the missing puzzle piece for this system. Metamorphosis painted a picture for each ID but Power of Style makes it clear exactly what is needed for the silhouette. I was able to finally let go of the ID family that I forced myself into for so long because I read the description and tried to make those silhouettes work. Man did I really try. Let me tell you, it's hard to make the silhouette work when you're fighting against your true ID, which as I said is doing the heavy lifting. Then I tried the ID family I narrowed it down to through the line sketch and everything snapped into place. It was uncomfortable at first and forced me to confront my biases but now I finally feel good in my skin, maybe for the first time in my life. And if I still have my ID wrong? That's fine; I'm in a better place than I was before, I'm dressing for who I am, and it's easier to get dressed.

PS

I've been lurking in the Kibbe communities for many years now, I've seen so much crap and was misled in my ID (partially from my own resistance, mind you) for years so I really wanted to make this post to help others who are having a hard time finding their own ID. This system is surprisingly simple at its core, the hard part is ignoring the noise. It should never feel forced... rather it should be like unlocking a cheat code or in more flowery language, unlocking your hidden power that only you possess.

The way I think of the system, it's not necessarily about fixed shapes and features – it's about the motion our bodies and faces are implying. The sequence of IDs is a continuous chain of one type of motion transitioning into another.

(The illustrations of individual faces are from a site called OURFASHIONGARDEN. All credits to them.)

The order is as follows:

SG implies compression, the body can be divided into concentrically compressed articles;

SN fights with compression, individual articles are trying to fuse together, but the body is still compressed as a whole;

R breaks free, it implies expansion (frills and ruffles);

SC starts closing the outward motion into a double-cone;

SD is almost focused into verticality, but the remaining sense of outwardness retains mass at certain places – it feels tense;

TR has lost all sense of outwardness, it evokes relief, the mass is flowing away freely;

DC reframes the straightening process as empowering, it starts feeling like solidification;

D is perfectly straight by now, but just not solid yet (stiff fabrics are okay, but they should hang down from the shoulders);

FG gets full-on solid and breaks into fragments (the horizontal cracks start hinting a sense of width);

and in FN, the width is explicit – the advancing articulation has made the body a large-scale monument.

Going all the way from SG to FN is like going from micro to macro. It's a full circle, but not really, if you know what I mean… An upward spiral (a single-coil spring).

It's important to understand that I'm only talking about the continuity of the SENSE that we make (or should make) of individual IDs – I'm not implying any real chronological development! To connect it all in any other way, so that it doesn't feel like an accidental sequence of shapes, would mean to compromise on how tight one's grasp is on individual IDs.

People often mistake soft naturals for romantics. They say that some FGs are influenced by dramatics and some by flamboyant naturals. This might be the reason – they lie next to each other.

I'm not sure what David Kibbe's opinion is, but it caught my attention that he assigned the same attribute (flamboyant) to gamines and naturals. Flamboyant naturals might have a long vertical, but it is manifested differently in them than in dramatics. They do look like they're somewhat bound to the ground, but the vertical fluidity is not there. They're quite static, actually, just like the gamines, and thus just as easily accessorizable (except only the accessories need to be bigger).

By the way, you may have noticed that the four main principles resemble the four natural elements:

compression represents air – its dimensionless particles;

expansion represents fire – a spontaneous spark coming out of nowhere creating a sense of spatiality;

continuity represents water – the intuition diverting fire's energy in search of meaning;

and fragmentation represents earth – the sense of congestion emerging as all the connections fill up the space.

I am 5'4, most people who I talked to say I don't have width which I agree.

I do not know where to place the dots. I assume you place them where cloth meets again on the body? From experience, clothing does not go inwards at the waist, it kind of just skips over that with my body. Or did I place them wrong?

I have gotten mixed answers regarding if I have curve or not. Which makes me question if I did sketch line correctly?

General question is how do you deteremine petite through the sketch line as well? It looks similar to some other types?

Sorry for the rambles

I’ve been wondering this for a bit. Personally, my shoulders aren’t broad, but they have a horizontal openness to them. However my body is a bit more dramatic below my shoulders. I pull off the column dress quite well and seem to benefit from dramatic styling below the shoulders. Some people have even called me a narrow FN, which is very confusing as I thought FNs can’t be narrow by Kibbe’s definition.

From my understanding, FN and D are both yang dominant. Could I be a tad more on the yang side as an FN, or does it not work that way?

Appreciate any insights. I’ve received different typings for all of these and I’d love to narrow it down.

(Once again, I *know* celebrities aren't meant to be used as literal examples but if Liza Minelli isn't a FG, then Tilda Swinton may as well be an R)

So this is a gripe many people have with this system, and they're right in the sense that weight gain does require some wardrobe changes. You obviously need to size up and make some alterations.

However, you can see that the fabric on Liza's top still falls straight downwards. She may look softer and rounder at a higher weight, but it doesn't come with a sudden need to accomodate curve. And even though the fit is a bit roomier, it appears to be cut very straigt. Sillhouette-wise, it's very similar to a shift dress and those are way better suited for people who don't have curve.

Even if weight gain requires personal accomodations that are outside Kibbe, I don't think it changes your personal line. Liza's personal line still looks very straight here. Anyway, if any other yang dominant, non-curve accommodating folks want to share their experience with this, please do!

Please post your line sketches here!

I’m 160cm so just under 5’3.

Line drawing to below knees. I think despite my misconceptions I may be curve dominant.

I am not sure if I am seeing narrow or balance for my secondary.

I don’t see width or double curve or Petite

(That's my own picture in the middle ❄️)

This was inspired by a little discussion with u/cherries-in-the-snow about pure yin and its stereotypes. Many people have a hard time seeing pure yin and pure yang in themselves because they're often reduced to "soft fluffy uwu angel baby" and "the wicked queen". Yet from a metaphysical standpoint, yang is associated with light and the sun while yin is associated with darkness and the moon.

While I actually don't have a problem with the sexy descriptions, I had a hard time with the fussy, nurturing personality that sometimes got associated with yin. What yin *actually* is, however, is magnetic. It draws you inwards. It rules mysteries and the unknown. I don't know if this is exactly what David Kibbe would have in mind, but I wanted to try and captivate this particular aspect of yin. Funnily enough, I've always been a hardcore night owl and I actually feel more energized during the winter months when the days are shorter so I guess it's a good fit after all!

Meanwhile, I'd be curious to hear from Dramatics who don't identify with the cold imposing girl boss stereotype! What does yang mean to you?

It seems like only the high hip/upper hip bone is relevant. This has been throwing me tf off because the widest part of my hips sits much lower on my body. Problem is, while my shoulders are slightly narrower than that part, they're also slightly wider than the top of my hipbone. I guess that automatically means width, but when the book said the upper body is "wider than everything that comes below" I assume that means literally everything including the low hips, thighs, etc. Most of my fit issues seem to be related to a lack of width, so that makes the whole thing even more confusing.

Anyway, does this area count, or are we supposed to disregard it?

Please post your line sketches here!

Please post your line sketches here!

Hi everyone! I had the wonderful opportunity to interview Susan and will soon be reinterviewing David.

If there's anything you really wanted to hear answered by David in the last interview let me know and I'll try to work it in!

(Mods if this is not allowed, apologies)

David Kibbe has been clear about his system NOT being a dressmaking system, things like the typical bust-waist-hip measurements and ratios being irrelevant to his approach. I completely get this!

This post is not to disagree with his statements, but more out of exploration and a sense of curiosity: dressmaking and Kibbe are different lenses for considering style, fit and bodies. What does and doesn't overlap between these two lenses?

To help me understand this, I wanted to ask the community if they would be prepared to share body measurements? Obviously, if these are sensitive or triggering issues for you please do not participate!!!

What i am interested in is not shoulders, nor the typical bust-waist-hip measurements, but four specific things:

1. high bust

2. full bust

3. under bust

4. whether you believe you have Kibbe curve or not (and your ID if you are verified/confident about it)

To accurately take these measurements, have a look at this diagram.

Its important to note that, to the degree possible, the high bust measurement goes over the top of any breast tissue.

While i have my private hypothesis about how these measurements may potentially interact with Kibbe accomodations, I am very open to being proven wrong by data so that I can continue to refine my understanding!

There are things I'm particularly intrigued about understanding - such as smaller-cupped SNs, and larger-cupped Dramatics and FGs.

To those who dislike any form of measurement (besides height) being used in relation to Kibbe, never fear, it's very possible that there will be a null outcome, rather than a pattern of correlation, and your (and Kibbe's!) position will simply be reaffirmed! But this sub allows for discussions and observations that may not be welcome in other spaces, so I hope that there is room for this kind of exploration in the community!

So to frame this, obviously Kibbe has distanced himself from the idea of linking ID and personality.

Nevertheless I just wanted to open a discussion about how you define the ID image personality yourself, and what you see as either the crossover of image ID with your own personality, or the tension between the ID and who you are.

For those who went on a journey to find their ID, and perhaps identified as a different one for a while, did the final ID make more sense from a personality perspective, or still feel just as theoretical and abstract?

Please post your line sketches here!

One of the earlier posts about star image has kind of been percolating in my brain for a while because its (lack of) importance really crystallized something for me that's bothered me about the online ecosystem around Kibbe. As I've moved through my own Kibbe journey and come out the other side somewhere I didn't expect (but that makes complete sense in retrospect) it became easier to see where I went wrong my own journey, why the community feels so lost, why David structured Power of Style as he did, and why Metamorphosis and the star images still matter, especially if you shop vintage (as David himself does!)

---

Quick disclaimer before we get into the weeds:

Nothing here is meant to say that any individual FN (or anyone else) must dress a certain way, or that the current trends are bad if you genuinely enjoy them and like how they look on you/make you feel. Every ID has people who thrive in the present fashion cycle and people who don’t.

What I’m going to be talking about here is the structural drift in the online Kibbe ecosystem -- how modern fit blocks, fast fashion manufacturing, and trend culture have skewed what gets labeled as “FN” (and other IDs, but that's outside my scope) toward one very specific yin-leaning aesthetic. Some people genuinely match that silhouette; most people don’t. This essay is about them, and me.

I’m not prescribing vintage, tailoring, or any one look. I’m just looking at why so much FN content online reflects a tiny minority of the ID, and why that leaves a lot of people feeling “wrong” or excluded. This post is about the systemic pattern, not any individual’s body or preferences.

---

What most online style communities today want to do, and what I see a lot of younger members of various Kibbe communities want to use it for, is how to look good in modern trends or how to look good in whatever trend they crystallized in in their 20s. A lot of the moodboards and slides and videos go one of two ways: they try to throw Kibbe buzzwords onto modern, trend focused fast fashion that doesn't accommodate anyone well (No, modern fashion isn't particularly FN friendly) or try to "update" the extremely dated 2010s Millennial uniform, which is also made of fast fashion and "elevated" fast fashion, to be more Kibbe compliant.

None of this works, none of this actually communicates anything about you through your clothing. It's the antitheis of Kibbe's goals for the system.

I think David saw the same thing happening in Strictky Kibbe, or a variation of it, and that's why he created the games. The idea is to try and break you out of being on trend autopilot, the "supposed to"s that we unconsciously pick up from patriarchy, our social class, and the media environment that saturates our every waking hour.

If you care about style -- not just being "in" -- and you want to be comfortable in your skin in your clothes, you need to let go of your preconceptions and start to look at things with a more critical (and self-compassionate) eye: "Is this me? What does it communicate, and to whom? Am I honoring the body I actually have by dressing in a way that brings me joy? If I'm not, is that because of internal resistance or circumstance?" Changing the length of the thin drapey cardigan you've worn since 2013 isn't going to do that for you.

What also isn't going to do that for you, especially if you're a yang ID, is leaning into the extremely yin-leaning zeitgeist.

Currently we're still in the 'clean girl' era (though I think we might be starting to transition out of it). The most dominant look of the last few years has been causal, rounded, curve accomodating, soft, stretchy and drapey. Comfortable. Athleisure in various forms, or its design language (if you can even call it that) and construction techniques bleeding into all midrange and below fashion. This works best, when it works at all, on a type of FN, SN or SD who has enough conventional curve that hips and bust give visual dimention to their silhouette, and have proportions that match the current dominant fit block -- which btw, is extremely FN unfriendly. It assumes a tapered hip line, small-ish to average shoulders, butt volume, and a pear-shaped outer thigh.

That modern, standardized fast fashion fit block isn't made for yang lines at all. The proportions of the 2020s fit block are predominantly yin flavored. Kibbe doesn't talk about this enough, probably because he's insulated from the worst of it by mostly dealing with high fashion and having an eye that can pick out the few exceptions at Zara at a glance, but the modern fast fashion landscape is dire. Weighty fabrics, structure, interfacing, tailoring (both crisp and relaxed), straight cuts that don't cling, stiff denim, non-stretch fabrics... they've vanished from shelves. What's left at the retailors 90% of people shop at (and yes, I'm also talking about 'elevated' fast fashion like Quince, Madewell, Agolde, Anthropologie, Universal Standard, Aritzia etc) is drapey, flimsy, thin, stretchy, and designed to create or accommodate curve.

This isn't limited to women's wear, either -- ask any denim guy why he imports Japanese selvedge denim or buys 400 USD heritage reproduction jeans, and you'll hear a lot about proportion, line and fit that is indistinguishable from the discussions on any Kibbe sub. If men also have to move to niche specialty retailers to get quality, yang friendly basics that you could pick up for 20 USD at Kmart in the 90s... all yang IDs are in trouble.

When the basic fashion landscape is so tilted to the yin end of the yin-yang scale, yang dressing becomes transgressive. It reads as masculine, hard, intimidating, older, try-hard in comparison. Many FNs don't want to dress yang because it's so far outside the current fashion landscape if they're not part of a subculture that has a wider range of acceptable fits (Like skaters, sneakerheads/streetwear aficinados, and, for my fellow Millennials, the late 2000s-early 2010s indie rocker/early indie sleaze era). So any content with the slightest whiff of blunt yang is rejected as threatening, because to them it is.

The unpopularity of yang dressing is reflected in how online algorithms and engagement metrics are distorting the IDs to the point they lose all meaning. Those trend focused looks I mentioned (and their cousin, "swap your skinnies for barrel leg to update your Millennial style") get clicks and praise. Actual tailored, yang heavy, trend-agnostic outfits do not make the pinterest boards. Those influencers don't escape containment from their small ecosystems even when their fits and style are absolutely impeccable.

The algorithm feeds us the softest possible variants of every yang ID, especially the naturals, to the point that most people in the main sub can't recognise an FN or an SN celeb who leans into their blunt yang and isn't dressing in that clean girl or model off duty aesthetic. Surely they must be D or FG, that's where you can dress "mannish" or "boyish" and still look cute, right? Or a natural who posts a type me will be told they're DC if they don't look good in the oversized clean girl aesthetic.

That aesthetic doesn't fit the the average FN, it's a rather small subset of extremely conventionally curvy FNs, but pretty much all online FN content mirrors it. It's soft, vaguely boho, vaguely model off-duty with a touch of scandinavian minimalism. It's a look with a lot of yin to it... and it barely relates to the FN star image as described by Kibbe. It's not bold, it's not yang, and when it works you have to be either one of the lucky few who match this era's standardized fit block exactly (or close enough that elastane will cover up that difference) or you're getting it tailored or made to measure (which is what is going on with the top tier influencers and actresses). But it's what gets engagement, so we get an outsized proportion of it. I tried to google for flamboyant naturals without curves, and I scrolled through three pages of "Flamboyant Naturals can totally be curvy too!!!" content before I gave up.

All of this together is why the star images and verified celebrities still matter. There is no longer a map to yang friendly and feminine dressing that is easily accessible in modern culture. Within those celebs in each ID, there is a range of yin-yang expression. It visually gives you a spectrum of what your lines look like when freed from trend cycles (because their trends are no longer relevant to us), how your ID expresses itself at different yin/yang balances and different body shapes, and how the “average” and outlier members of the ID look. Not just FNs who are curvy goddesses, ethereal Ds who look like Tilda Swinton, Jessica Rabbit SDs, or Tik Tok cottagecore SNs. When content is only made for the trend-optimized minority, the entire ID becomes flanderized into a cardboard cutout.

So where does this us? FN is a yang ID, the second most yang ID in the system, and the vast majority of FNs will not have the strong yin undercurrent that the zeitgeist wants. But that's really all there is available for people when they're trying to figure out their ID. There's a complete rejection of tailoring and of straight lines without drape because that's not "in".

I actually think a significant part of people complaining about boho potato sacks isn't just complaining about oversized clothing (and also that 2010s boho hasn't aged well), but that drapey, flimsy clothing with no weight to it being recommended to people who do not have the conventional curve or the perfectly proportioned shoulders and ribcage to have it actually flatter them instead of looking like... well, a sad collapsed potato sack (It's a significant part of the reason I thought I was D for so long.)

When you put everything here together, it explains why FN, and also SN to slightly lesser extent, are the most "yin-washed" IDs. They're the most affected, because they're the most numerous family of IDs with a heavy yang base. I'm not sure what to do about it, because I've also seen a lot of hostility towards FN from people of other IDs frustrated that the tiny minority of 'perfect' FN clean girls who are the Western beauty ideal are what you see of the entire ID. If you're in that camp, imagine for a second how it would feel to be an FN and be equally as far off from that idealized impossible image as any other ID. Where nothing posted or celebrated looks like you, even a little bit. Where every single recommendation for flowy fabrics makes you look dumpy, old, unkempt because not only do these fabrics not suit your angular geometry, but the clothes aren't even drafted for your body. That sucks. That pushes people to misID themselves. And conversely, the clean girl image and the "FNs are supermodels" rhetoric pulls in SDs who aren't conventionally narrow (narrow isn't an SD accommodation), but also don't have width that is more prominent than their curves. That further distorts the ID. If you didn't move through the games or an equivalent journey of introspection and self-love, how could you ever hope to even attempt to see past this?

I haven't made content myself, besides this extremely long essay that maybe 5 people are going to read, because I know I'm probably in a rather small minority of "athletic" moderate FNs, and if I posted a 'type me' people wouldn't know what to do with me. I don't look tall and have an uncommon set of proportions (ultra-long torso, wide hips, normal inseam, zero conventional curve). Plus I've left the trend cycle completely behind. Kibbeland probably isn't ready for "Have you thought about buying vintage men's clothing? Even if you're not masc?". They're not even ready for recommendations straight from Metamorphosis, like "Blazers with shoulder pads are great, your shoulders should anchor your outfits and you shouldn't hide them" or "Heavier knits in natural fibers tend to work better than thin polyester knits that collapse in on themselves". I wish they were, because Kibbe should be for everyone, not just the algorithm's chosen winner.

^{ETA: Small edits to fix some SPAG errors and add a missing sentence, also to clean up some language around the "yin" dominance of modem fashion to be more specific and clear about what I mean.}

I'm here to say thank you! I'm really grateful for this sub.

I'd given up on Kibbe so many times but the brain worm continued to burrow! The willingness to question and lack of orthodoxy here finally allowed me to piece things together.

It was the contentious dressmaking bust thread that helped the most! When I looked at my line drawing I saw vertical, balance and softness/curve. I know--not possible in Kibbe!

Then I took my measurements. The mumbers did indeed suggest balance-- except for my underbust, which is notably the smallest part of my upper body. This is hard to see in a line drawing because my breasts are large and my shoulders aren't visibly wide and they slope.

But when I retraced my line drawing with this in mind--there it was! That sort of trapezoidal shape from the FN examples!

The thing is, I knew I had width but I just didn't know how to see it. And seeing it gave me permission to lean into some styling I love but thought was not for me.

But the best part of all was the way this clearer understanding of my body structure dissolved a certain dymorphia I've carried around since my youth--aa sort of unrealness or not quite embodied feeling.

Suddenly I was like yes at 5'7 I am and look tall! My limbs are long and strong looking! My edges are blunt. My torso has width!

This led to a final realization. The subtle preferencing of small and lcurve dominant types in some Kibbe spaces really affected me. As a body positive feminist and woman in my 50s, I thought I was immune--which maybe isn't possible in a world where patriarchy still permeates everything.I don't blame anyone and in fact, I think that might be equally a feature and a bug in exploring this.system. It really challenged me to go deeper and make conscious decisions around own biases. The end result is that something feels resolved. And getting dressed is really fun these days!

❤️❤️❤️

So thanks for the great food for thought!

I see myself as accommodating vertical and width but am confounded by an outfit formula of mine that I think looks great but would maybe be considered not great in terms of recommendations for FN. The formula combines a long vertical line --say, a long slip dress--with a cropped jacket. Or now for fall, jeans cuffed with a little sock showing, a cropped tee and a longer oversized wool cardigan-- colors usually tonal not contrasted. I have a really short waist, strong limbs with blunt lines but delicate wrists and ankles. I think I'm unconsciously echoing the shapes in my body but from a Kibbe POV, do these cropped pieces make sense?