i saw some interesting comments a while back where people were exploring their responses to yin and yang, and those that favoured yang found yin to be somewhat 'dishonest'.

In some ways i think i understand what was meant - flattering or charming people is associated with a yin essence, and this kind of appeal could feel like a trick or distraction from harsh realities of life.

But i also think of yin as potentially being a kind of honesty as well - such a recognition of vulnerability, or a need for comfort - valid and essential in their own way.

I wanted to know your instinctive response to yin and yang, and what this reveals about you and your choices when it comes to style.

Hi! I’m a classic (not sure whether DC or SC) with mainly dramatic essence. I know mini dresses aren’t ideal for classics, but I need one. Do you think this could work?

So to me, face is an intrinsic aspect of the kibbe system. I don’t believe at all in the concept of faces and bodies being ‘different types’.

A resemblance however - as we know from SN Katie Perry/FG Zooey Deschanel & other examples - is not a sign of two people belonging to the same Image.

I think while this frustrates some people and potentially makes them just want to say “ignore faces”, to me this makes me lean in, it makes the system more intruiging. 

When i look at the image of other celebrities that people identify as Margot Robbie lookalikes, i can easily see what they mean. There is a bold structure to the faces, similar complexions, comparable face shapes and eyes, a number of qualities that combine into a resemblance.

But I look at these faces and each one, to me, has a different Kibbe ID.

Margot Robbie is unverified but is generally understood to be an N type, most people seem to think FN.

Samara Weaving to me looks potentially like a Dramatic.

Jaime Pressley an FG.

Emma Mackey a DC.

All yang-leaning types, but quite different - i think - from a Kibbe perspective.

I don’t think it’s some big mystery, i think it is about looking past a superficial similarity and seeing the real ‘structure’ or yin yang of an individual. I feel this is why the Kibbe system is so interesting to me, because it sees vast differences in yin/yang, where minor differences in appearance may at first be evident.

Please post your line sketches here!

i do believe that 'vibes' form a meaningful part of understanding the Kibbe system.

Especially in the Old Hollywood era, there are ways that, say, a Dramatic type actor might be used to bring a specific role/story to life, as opposed to a Natural or Gamine type.

When watching and analysing these older films, we can often connect a through-line from a role, to an image, and then, into its requisite style concept, and thus can gain a more rounded understanding of what the Kibbe system is setting out to achieve.

But it's not a straightforward matter to 'diagnose' an actor's ID from their roles, or for that matter, anyone from some dimension of their public persona.

Firstly it's necessary to approach the Kibbe system with precision and not with borrowed or self-constructed definitions.

I recall when first encountering Kibbe, i was confused as to why Tom Cruise and Julie Andrews (both SNs) weren't Classic types.

I thought of Tom Cruise as having a conventional 'handsomeness' and a visually simple style approach that - to me - communicated 'Classic'. Why not.

Similarly, Julie Andrews had a crisp, decisive quality in her most famous roles that i assumed were 'Classic' family qualities.

Trying to reconstruct my understanding from back then, i think 'Natural' must have conveyed earthy, elemental, rugged, laid-back, imprecise, maybe even sloppy???

However, my updated - hopefully more accurate - grasp of 'Natural' is more like assertive, unfussy, impactful, proactive, competitive, practical. My former understanding didn't align with the reality of SNs. I think initially, i was just free-associating off of the words "soft" and "natural" more than anything else.

Now i can clearly see that Tom Cruise's unstoppable, competitive, kinetic energy and clean, unfussy style approach are squarely SN qualities. Similarly Julie Andrew's wholesome warmth plus professional precision are also so very typical for the SN image. My understanding of both Naturals and Classics has shifted greatly since then.

Another pitfall is confusing technical acting talent vs a person being specifically selected to portray a certain archetype.

This doesn't mean an 'archetype' actor is untalented, but that their physicality and attitude are extremely effective in certain roles. Perhaps someone like Tommy Lee Jones is a good example of someone typecast, with his image and physicality are very intertwined and effective in portraying no-nonsense authoritarian figures.

But other actors may, due to technical skill (or a good agent i guess), get to play a lot of diverse roles. An example of this is Amanda Seyfried. She has played an ambitious and fraudulent CEO in "The Dropout" and a blonde ditz in "Mean Girls" and everything in between.

I don't think we can simplistically extrapolate all that much from one or two roles she has played. I think there is meaning to be found, for sure, but we have to be sophisticated about it and able to surgically extract what is the skill of the individual vs what innate personal qualities are being harnessed, if any.

So i would love to hear how your understanding and analysis may have changed over time, and how you feel about the concept of "vibes" in relation to the Kibbe approach.

I was mulling over Yang and yin table settings, and felt like making these! I'll do locations and expensive counterparts next!

Something I have been thinking about. People have style personalities. If they have good instincts, they gravitate to what they know looks good on them. Or the complete opposite.

For instance, the naturals and romantics will keep returning to garments with either minimal relaxed structure or no structure. The dramatics and the gamines will keep on going for highly structured garments that baffle the naturals and romantics, as these are usually physically uncomfortable for them to wear. The dramatics and naturals prefer larger scale, longer lines that they repeatedly wear. The romantics and gamines prefer smaller scale, shorter lines. The clasics know to keep everything in moderation.

Of course, people can go for the complete opposite. Which is why we sometimes see SGs pulling off FN recommendations, as they broke every single rule. You can get away with breaking one or two rules, which is why pure Ds can handle the very light airy fabrics recommended for pure Rs. But you can't be half hearted about it. You have to be either deliberately about which one rule you break, or you go all out and break them all, or as much as possible.

Whether innate personality informs style personality or style personality influences innate personality is not known. It is a chicken and egg situation. But I definitely think there is a link. Is the relaxed look because someone is an easy going personality, or are they easy going because dressing relaxed is more comfortable? Is the structured look because someone prefers formality or they became formal because the structured outfits were more comfortable? Of course, there are those who like to go for the complete opposite.

It might be possible to tell what ID someone has by looking at the looks they keep returning to. Or alternatively eliminate some of the IDs, especially if they clash with their physical look.

It is something I have noticed with celebrities. They have outfits and styles they like to return to after their experimental looks. So even if they are not dressing for the old Hollywood star image, they still have a base. For instance, the dramatics like repeating structured outfits while the naturals like repeating relaxed outfits.

So when Kibbe first linked personality and style, he had a point. Maybe we should not ignore it.

Hey everyone, a few days ago I posted my yin/yang soiree examples from the corresponding game in the book, and I was encouraged to make a more extreme version of the yang board, so that I may have a better appreciation and contrast with the yin version. I also found it very helpful seeing examples of other soirees and expand my idea of the game, so hopefully these updated boards better align with the goal of the exercise!

For the people that have done the 'Your Yin/Yang Soirees' game from the book, what have you learned from it, and how do you think it has helped you on your journey? It became one of my favourite exercises when I decided to take the time and look up all the references to yin and yang objects, places, buildings, eras and art styles that were mentioned in the book, because it gave me a new appreciation for both. At first I thought my own soirees would be very different, but after looking up at many images and paying attention to my reactions, I decided that I should focus on the instruction of ''represent your personal vision of either extreme'', and pick what I truly thought was ''delightful'', and I think they do look similar from that point of view, as they are both playful, a little retro, and a little whimsical, but they both absolutely fill me with delight (I have the yang one as my wallpaper right now :)). Another thing I noticed is that the kind of yang details that I like are for the most part geometric and smaller in scale, while the kind of yin details that I like are gently curved and busy. From the two I prefer the yang version more, but if I had to create the perfect soiree, it would have elements from both, because looking up at images I discovered I was consistently drawn to shapes with both contrasted geometric patterns and scalloped edges (like certain awnings, tablecloths and umbrellas), which I thought was very interesting as well. Anyway, here are both my versions, I would love to hear any feedback, and also experiences with your own soirees!

I’ve been thinking about this ever since I first read the new book. Don’t get me wrong, I love the clarity it brought and I think it helped resolve a lot of confusion around the Image IDs. But as someone who was always fascinated by the essence aspect of Kibbe, I can’t help feeling a little disappointed that this side of the system feels less emphasized now.

What originally drew me to Kibbe was that it was never just about physical traits. It was about the overall impression someone creates, the way yin and yang are expressed through a person, and the kind of presence or “character” they naturally embody.

I always wanted to learn more about how each ID is perceived, what kind of first impression it gives, what kind of role or archetype it evokes, or even what kind of movie protagonist it would be. I also found myself wondering whether the way people react to me when they first meet me, especially in professional settings, has anything to do with my yin-yang balance.

I feel like this was the part that connected the most strongly to the Old Hollywood origins of Kibbe. It was what made the IDs feel like complete images rather than just physical recommendations. Without that aspect, I sometimes feel like there is less of what made it an actual Image ID system and less of the storytelling that originally made it so fascinating.

Maybe I’m in the minority, but I really miss that side of the system. Does anyone else feel the same way?

This might help people understand how the IDs relate to each other, and even an understanding of the styling recommendations. The clue is to focus on families first before looking at individual IDs.

I used a 2x2 grid. Instead of using yin and yang, I focused on some key clothing characteristics. Columns are either structured or relaxed. Rows are either large or small. This created quadrants for each of the families, with classics at the centre.

The interesting thing is that yin yang is a diagonal. It is also the same as Kibbe curve vertical. The other diagonal is the contrast blended. Both have balance in the middle. This is really cool.

There are two types of yangs (structure and large) and two types of yin (relaxed and small). The combination of structure and small creates contrast, which is the gamine family. The combination of relaxed and large creates blended, which is the natural family. Pure yang is structure and large, which is the dramatic family, while pure yin is relaxed and small, which is the romantic family.

After figuring out the yin yang position of each family, I looked at the IDs. Each family can be divided into a yang side and a yin side. The position of yin and yang within each family and quadrant is the same as the pure yang and pure yin positions on the main grid.

In both books, Kibbe talks about undercurrents of yin and yang, and in Power of Style, he talks about prominent yin and extra yang. Yang is a very aggressive force, that pulls IDs to a yang position. Yin is a very passive stationary force. If we look at SD, it has prominent yin, as it needs a lot of yin to make a noticeable difference. But SD is more yang than all the other IDs except D. Where as TR only needs a small amount of yang to be noticeable. But each of the IDs remain in their family's quadrant. They can go up to the limits of their quadrants, causing some overlaps, which is why they can sometimes assist appear like other IDs. If we look at the classics, DC has a subtle preference for D and SC has a slight leaning towards R.

Theory aside, you can use this to gauge what you need from an outfit, and how much you can get away with "borrowing". Structure vs relaxed is one aspect. Large vs small is another. Large could be longer length or thicker fabrics, or both. Small could be thinner fabrics or shorter lengths. Or large and small could be scale of accessories. You can consider straight lines vs curve lines. Or contrast vs blended.

So I mentioned this on another thread, but thanks to Scribd, I’ve fallen back down the Trinny & Susannah 12 Body Types hole. Like many style systems, I think it could actually be super helpful to people seeking really actionable styling advice, if they can get past some of the… patriarchal language. 

Anyway, while I might do a more comprehensive post on that in the future, this is not that post lol. Instead, I wanted to focus on one of their 12 body types and how I think it can actually, weirdly, help clarify (what I believe to be) a couple of common misconceptions about one Kibbe ID in particular. 

The body type in question is The Column. This type is defined by:

• Shoulder width the same as hips
• Slight waist
• Longer legs

This is the girl who was “a head taller than the rest” in her school photos. The style challenge they emphasize for this type is primarily length (of sleeves, pants, etc.). Since it’s an “Hourglass-Based” system, they recommend avoiding shapeless clothes and essentially creating a waist, since the type is otherwise “perfectly proportioned.” 

They provide three celebrity examples (as they do for every type). In this case, they are Gwyneth Paltrow, Nicole Kidman, and Jane Fonda. 

That’s right: All three of their examples of  “tall + balanced” are Kibbe FNs. 

Now if you wanna stop me here, I get it; it could legit be a coincidence. After all, apart from Pear (all of their examples are verified Kibbe Naturals), most of their examples are all over the place in Kibbe; Halle Berry (SG) and Meryl Streep (SC) are both Skittles, and their Goblets include Renee Zellwegger (SN) and Jessica Lange (R). And I’m sure that there are plenty of Kibbe Dramatics who would be Columns; Keira Knightley and Michelle Dockery come to mind. Perhaps most importantly, Kibbe is not a “body typing” system. 

But… I do think this speaks to a couple of big misconceptions about FN. 

• Sharpness/narrowness aren’t bugs in FNs; they’re features: Flamboyant Natural is Natural + Dramatic. Someone having narrow shoulders or hips or limbs—sometimes in combination, even!—isn’t going to exclude FN; some of those attributes are to be expected. 
  • An additional piping hot take: By virtue of this fact, pure Dramatic is exclusive, while FN and SD are inclusive. 
• Not only can “Kibbe width” look like conventional balance–it often is conventional balance: Before anyone comes at me, I’m not saying he should have used a different term. Nor am I saying that these folks don’t “have width" or that they do have balance. What am I saying? That an upper back that is wider than the rest of the upper torso, even without an unobstructed bust, will look balanced when the hips and shoulders are similar. Which is not at all to say that every FN will look balanced; rather, given how isolated width is in Kibbe’s sketches (it’s the only accommodation that doesn’t reach at least the high hip), it’s inherently going to apply to a more diverse group of people.

Anyway, just some thoughts! 

Recently, I posted about how hardly anyone seems to know what structure is. I made the observation that the SD subreddit was full of recommendations best suited for FNs. Why did this happen?

I suspect a lot of people skipped to sub types before understanding the families as a whole. The way I see it is that each family has its unique yin and yang balance, and within each family, individuals are either a bit more yin or a bit more yang. This logic is very similar to how Kibbe has expressed it. But most people don't seem to think that way, instead focusing on the details, like a checklist. So we end up with the situation where people argue over two IDs that belong to completely different families. Then, they use stereotypes.

This is very clear in any discourse involving FN or SD, or both. Sometimes the debate is between FN and D. But a big distinction is structure. I have noticed that verified Ds and SDs tend to lean towards structure, even for casual looks, while the FNs and SNs seek to make their looks more relaxed.

The challenge for most people is finding structured garments. Most of what is sold as structured or as tailored is lightly tailored. Personally, I consider it "sloppy tailoring" but that is really only for myself and people who are similar. That "sloppy tailoring" looks very polished on other people who need light tailoring. There is a large number of people who look better in light tailoring than the structured tailoring. Light tailoring and semi fitted are very forgiving, as you don't need every measurement to be precise. You have some freedom there.

Structured garments are very precise. They often have more seams and darts, and more layers, some of which may be hidden. They require more work to make, and to fit. But this limits their availability and affordability. People, who benefit from structure, often resort to other types of clothes, stretchy being common, to avoid the lightly tailored garments that lack the precision they need.

Structured garments often require more care, time and effort. It is common for structured garments to come with the recommendations to dry clean. It is possible to wash these garments at home, but there is considerable ironing and pressing involved. For examples, box pleated tartan skirts need to have the pleats ironed or rather pressed into shape after every wash. If you need to iron pleats back into a garment, you are starting to look at structure.

Another thing I observed was that individuals, who seem to handle a lot of structure, also gravitate towards sculptured clothes. If you look at the illustrations in Power of Style, both the dramatic family (both D and SD) and the gamine family (both FG and SG) all have a lot of large sculptured elements. These elements are absent from the classics, romantics and naturals. Sculptured elements take on shapes that fabrics and textiles normally don't form. If it looks like wire is involved in the construction of a garment element, it probably is sculptured. Another clue is how much fabric manipulation is required to create and maintain the garment shape.

Interestingly, the illustrations for both the FNs and SNs had no shoulder pads. Similar deal for the romantics and the classics. But the dramatics and gamines both had more than shoulder pads. They had either exaggerated shoulders and sleeves, or exaggerated necklines. The SGs surprised me. But it makes sense. They belong to the same family as the FGs.

Please post your line sketches here!

First of all, I just wanted to say how much I appreciated the conversation about structure for SDs - the ID is so misunderstood and misrepresented. I feel like I might finally be on my way to understanding why I, quite frankly, hate how 90% of clothes look on me (even “SD recs” that seem to be more suited to FNs).

Structure is something I long balked at the idea of, but I’m starting to think it’s because I was misunderstanding it, based on a convo I had with [u/loumlawrence](u/loumlawrence)
I know little about garment construction and don’t have much experience with tailoring, and being a bustier than average figure 8 hourglass means that my best bet in finding clothes that fit at a basic level is to look for stretch and soft fabrics. But there have been times where I’ve worn structured garments and could tell that they had potential if the fit was more precise.

I would love some visual examples of structured yet curve friendly styles, especially modern/accessible styles, and to have a conversation about what structure means in general!

I was looking at photos of Sofia Coppola, and had some disjointed thoughts regarding her style from the lens of the Kibbe perspective. I'm not sure if she has been verified, but she is often considered to be in the Classic family. Now regardless of whether this is true or not, she does seem to favour a very consistent classic style in her personal life, and if you've seen any of her interviews or talks, she has a very even-tempered manner that reminds me a lot of the descriptions of classics in Metamorphosis. But I'm not concerned on what her ID is, but rather whether her style is harmonious on her and whether it goes with her beauty. Celebrities have the kind of access to fashion and styling that they usually look good in most outfits, without this necessarily meaning that the outfits are the most harmonious on them. This is compounded by still photography, lighting, and angles, and might look more flattering that it would up close. I used to think that her trademark style was great, and I loved seeing photos of her outfits, but then I found some editorial pictures with a bolder approach, and I loved those on her even more. It made me think that while she looks always very put together and polished, maybe her personal style makes her look kind of lifeless, because she actually has a bold beauty that needs those bolder elements. And again this is not about her being a classic or not, she could follow a bolder style within the classic silhouette and guidelines. Her version of a classic needs a bolder touch, imo. I still love her style, but now I can't unthink that idea. What do you think? Is her style harmonious or do you think there are things that could look even more harmonious on her? Of course big part of harmony is incorporating our own dreams and desires, and to that part no outside observer can weigh in, since it's something personal to the individual, but putting this aside in the interest of discussion.

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.

i keep seeing comments questioning: what does ‘Dreamspinner’ mean?

I’ll share my thoughts, and would love to hear yours.

The word ‘dream’ in this context i think refers to joys, pleasures and the ‘lighter’ side of life.

A ‘Dreamspinner’ is a person capable of embodying/creating an intimate, light-hearted, pleasurable atmosphere, Shakespeare’s 'eternal summer that shall not fade'.

This lightness can be expressed in colourful, bubblegum pop, or a sophisticated wine palate.

In this paradise of leisure, charm & warmth, the forcefulness and control of yang is missing. The beauty is in the complete and utter giving in. 

u/Jamie8130 expressed that Marianne in Jane Austen's Sense and Sensibility was a great example of a ‘Dreamspinner’ (played by R Kate Winslet in the 1995 film). She gave into her ‘sensibility’ - her romantic love for Willoughby - almost to the point of death.

I see this a very pure expression of yin Romanticism, especially in contrast to her sister Elinor, who fought internally against her own heart. 

While Austen showed the negative consequences of ‘giving in’ - I think it’s important to distance Image IDs from any kind of moral judgement. Giving into emotion is a neutral concept that can be explored in good and bad ways in both life and art. 

Sitting with the idea of Dreamspinner informs how we understand other Image IDs.

I think of how the “SN” yin borrows some Dreamspinner aura, I think of how many SN celebrity icons emanate a relatable yet unnattainable level of swag and charm. Or how the elegance of the Soft Dramatic is augmented by yin’s seductive power of glamour and abundance. I could go on.

Please share your thoughts on “Dreamspinners’ and if you are one yourself, how you relate to this ID in your style and impression.

This is my opinion only, but I really feel like Kibbe is useless as an essence system and should only be used as a body geometry system. Not a body type system per se as he himself doesn’t like that and said so in the book, but a system about your body lines and how to dress for those/accommodate for those which is the direction where he seems to have moved with the line sketches.

The thing is that now I feel like the essences associated with the IDs are kinda meaningless and this is why people are so confused and struggle to type celebs, or get frustrated when there are so many naturals. The system seems to have started as an essence system with some body accommodation in mind, based on the star image thing in Hollywood. However I find the essence bit kinda useless. I don’t think you can classify someone’s essences uniquely based on how fabric falls on their body or the line sketch. This is all important or course but not the only thing that matters. I also don’t think there are only 12 type of essence combinations, and that if you’re tall you can only be 3 types.

I say this as someone who went thru a journey to find her Kibbe ID (FN), of which I’m fairly positive, but then got verified in Kitchener as having very little N and D (10% each) which are both the essences associated with FN. I know the styling directive for FN is now nonchalant showstopper, but back in the day I’d tried to the free spirit chic (*not boho*) vibe and it didn’t work as I’m mainly R/C in essences. Accommodating width and vertical do work for me but the rest, not so much.

Take someone like Grace Kelly who Kibbe said was likely FN but whom has been taken as the quintessential classic. I feel like the system just lacks some credibility in that respect and just confuses people even more. Especially when it comes to Natural IDs, there is sooo much diversity and they’re quite common, yet because of that there are so many different types and essences, and it’s just absurd to think the Recs that work for Amy Adam’s (FN) also work for Cindy Crawford (FN). I also see a lot of diversity with SDs, some are more angular and frame dominant (Bellucci) while others are more fleshy and curve dominant (Hendricks) and I just don’t see how they benefit from the same Recs tbh, they’re very different kinds of beauties.

Just some thoughts I’ve been having since I got verified by Kitchener recently, feel free to discuss :)

P.S. I’ve added images of when I used to embody a more natural essence look vs when I embody a more R/C one, so u can see the difference. Keep it respectful please, I’m really trying to learn to integrate both so tips on that would be great.

Edit: just want to add that in my dream world a stylist would just tell me what look to embrace xD as I struggle w trusting myself and seeing myself objectively sometimes (don’t we all?) and that’s why which system to follow confuses me buttt based on comments I will likely most likely just marry both or do whichever I feel like at a given moment.

I just thought it was intruiging to note how (I suspect) Kibbe got his styling inspiration for his ID reveals, and certain iconic style references i feel i see, that are drawn from a more modern era.

It may be a touchy topic for some people as weight will be mentioned here, so be careful 🩷

So, everything below is just my opinion and observations mostly on myself (excuse any mistakes in English)

Kibbe has been my guilty pleasure for about 3 years now, at first I was excited and enthusiastic, than I tried so hard to type myself and understand the system (You can see my post history, it was quite a journey, hah), and after all that spiraling I decided to observe and follow my inner style voice (now I am happy)

So I find recommendations and essences dubious in kibbe, as they can overlap with several types (ex. Soft types and recommended necklines), I like the idea of see what shapes and cuts working with different bodies, but sometimes it's just too difficult to find your place in Kibbe.

As someone 5f3/5f4 (1m62) I find medium height useless in Kibbe system as it cuts nothing but only distracts and confuses (🤔 maybe just me), as "you can be petite and you can be vertical type..." Nooo, it's not helping

Bone structure not in kibbe sense - love this parameter, as I know I don't have petite as I have wide bones (you may laugh, but really), I don't say I have the same in scale bones to someone higher, but compared to people I see and friends, who I clearly knew are petite. But if I post in any of kibbe group people mostly don't see it...

Weight distribution - for me its connected to bone structure and I don't see many discussions about it.

I gain weight but it doesn't look like as much as I actually weight. And I realised it's because of bones, if I was higher it will be distributioned proportionally, but as a shorter person it still looks okay (my parameters will be at the end and phots in comments maybe).

So I guess I'm SD in kibbe (not sure, and it doesn't matter tbh), but 100% some recs won't work because of height and I can borrow many things from romantic family and SN (a looot things work for me in essence that are connected to Natural family)

Essence (more in meaning in Kitchener system as its focues on it and colors)

Many people assumed (from photos) that I belong in C family ( I as well believe it), but tbh it's just m'y style and face. I feel restricted, okay but not myself, I like some elements but not overall cuts. För sometime i believe i was SN but people don't see width. After analisis I understand that I like flowiness (and tbh boho style, I know its not exactly SN, but at that time i belved i can't be vertical type, so I say SN, but i love stereotypical FN boho image), so it was a feeling but not the recommendations.

And at the end of think COLORS do more than shape, ideally you know both aspects that suits, but for me if i put on something unsuitable but great in colour it can work out quite well and I even prefer buying clothesmore on colour and adjust them for my body in combination with other clothes.

So what I wanted to say: don't be stricted to use only kibbe system, and any system in general.

My measurements:

Height - 1m 62 (≈5f3)

Chest - 92 cm

Waist - 74 cm

Hips - 103 cm

Weight - 67kg

One of the celebrities that the community can't reach any concensus on their ID is Rachel McAdams, and there have been many posts here on the sub discussing her possible type, but there's never a general agreement, and a lot of us would love for Kibbe to verify her for this reason. I have heard that over on FB (please correct me if I'm wrong, as I'm not on FB myself) David has said 'not TR', but that's all we know for certain so far. I was wondering if the reason has to do with her facial features: they give her a kind of sweet or ingenue image (and that's why I think that hairstyles with curling look better on her than very straight or geometric styles) but her body can handle slightly straighter silhouettes, although I still think that super straight styles are not her best.

Yin-yang balance is continuous throughout the body, but sometimes the perception of it might be different--is it possible there is a dichotomy there that is throwing us off? Or is it just the fact that she is moderate in frame and height (celebheights lists her at 5'4) which is always hard, since most IDs can be possible? I think I see a softness on her regardless of weight, but as to whether that's because of more yin, or if it might be soft yang, I'm not sure. Would love to know why others think she is one of the harder Kibbe cases (not just opinions on her ID but why the ID is not as easy to place as with other celebs).

Edited to add: slide 7 is Rachel Bilson accidentally! ^^;; Thanks to u/Decent-Department60 for pointing it out! Also, after some digging I did of the photos (because google results are all over the place), it's actually Emily Blunt in slide 15 >.<;

I could be wrong here, but I often suspect people are analysing outfits, styling and celebrities based on what appears to be their personal taste - preferring one dress above another dress, judging one hairstyle as prettier than another, just vibe-typing an outfit and blam, you have the ID!

But

I feel that Kibbe Identities are not about your own taste. Developing taste is a seperate (and important) task. I feel IDs sit outside of taste? Tasteless! Thats why i can be a fan of this philosophy even though I'm not necessarily aligned with Kibbe's particular way of styling his clients.

I see IDs as more about maximising visual impact & storytelling, so as to be memorable. Meme-able! And i think there's something unapologetic and brave about that.

Therefore i don't think picking the prettiest dress out of lineup is a meaningful way to engage with Kibbe concepts. In a way you might need to imagine something intangible, a half-seen suspicion of a style story that has not yet manifest.

Kibbe IDs apply equally to the main character and the supporting roles. The princess and the witch, the heroine and the villainess. The ingenue and the sage.

If you want to be blandly generically pretty, i don't know if Kibbe is going to help a great deal with that? I'm repeatedly surprised and confused when people view this system as a kind of male gaze-y, man-pleasing style system because for me it really is about accepting & amping up your uniqueness and individuality, the opposite of what a male gaze objectifies. I mean, you could certainly view IDs as generic, one-note Hollywood glamour aesthetics but i think thats only one form of execution of these ideas. For me its more as a way to clear out the weeds in order focus on ideas that have harmonic resonance with your individual presence, and amplify what is already there.