I kinda did the same lol ahaha I mean I'm a Flamboyant gamine ( I think ) but I wear mostly Natural clothes coz even though I probably don't look my best I still love myself the best in natural lines 🤷♀️🤷♀️ I think the most important is to still be happy with whatever u like
Why are people so obsessed with Rihanna or Rihanna's height or body type? Who cares what she is! If Kibbe's system works in 98% of the cases, it's still pretty good to describe bodies. We don't need to obsess over certain "exceptions". Nature doesn't owe us consistency all of the time, there is variation and there is diversity. Everything is good... There are no absolutes, as Aly says.
Loved this! I can shed a little bit of light on the height discrepancies thanks to friends and family that are actors. Casting agents will usually include a physical description and height limit or range when having a casting call so lying about your height and listing yourself as taller than you are allows you to be considered for more roles :) xx
@@AlyArt I know!!! It's so crazy right?? Everything made sense when I learned that years ago so now every time I see a celebrity in real life I love seeing what they list themselves as and comparing it with what they actually are lol
I like the fact you mentioned the people that take Kibbe's system too mathematically. I realized there are many people that take it extremely seriously and stress out about finding or not finding their type or a celebrity's type. Obsessing about your body type is not healthy, it's the same as obsessing about your weight, height or anything else that has to do with body image. When doubting between 2 styles, the best approach is trying on different clothes and see what suits you best.
I really like your comment, but don't you feel like aly and kibbe are doing exactly that? Instead of talking about lines, it's all about "Monroe is very small, Hepburn is very tall", when in fact they are much similar in height than not
@@zhvr I think Aly wants to give examples in order for people to have a clearer picture in their mind. But she often says we shouldn't compare ourselves with any celebrities. In a video she said not to take it so seriously, cause "it's just a game". For people that are not very familiar with Kibbe's system, sometimes it helps to see a picture. And when she says Monroe is small and Audrey is very tall, I guess she refers to the vertical line within that type, as Audrey has a long vertical line and she is pretty tall for a FG.
zhvr Kibbe uses the celebrities only as representatives for the image IDs. They are the embodiment of the image ID they represent. They’re not supposed to be taken especially seriously in terms of typing.
Thank you!! This is a good reminder to have. I’ve alternated between DC to FG to maybe D and considering that I’m actually a FN and stressing about that because I look awful in FN lines. So then I’m like wait, hold up, slow down, this system is supposed to work for us, not the other way around 😅 Just wearing whatever you look and feel best in regardless of labels should be the goal
I have seen Rihanna in person up close, in flat shoes. Granted, it was a while ago, around 2007. But she was definitely tall (I’m 5’7 and she was certainly not shorter than me). Also, in my opinion she looks tall in pictures
CurlNamedLauren In pictures when Rihanna is next to her bestie Melissa Forde, who I think is a FN, Rihanna definitely looks delicate and narrower in comparison, besides being 173cm tall. Maybe she could be a SD, one of the tallest types, but I don’t see her having heavy/long bones either 😟
She doesn't look tall to me. She doesn't look short, but she doesn't have that strong vertical line. I think that once you cross a certain height, like say Taylor Swift, perhaps you can't be a romantic type, but I'm not sure Rihanna has crossed that subjective line. I also think sometimes it's easier to say what she's not. She's not a Gamine, she's not a Classic, she doesn't look broad enough to be a Natural, and she doesn't seem like a Soft Dramatic. Personally if I had to choose between a Soft Dramatic and Theatrical Romantic I would say Theatrical Romantic and say some of the Yang is in the height, but it's not enough Yang to be dominant.
CurlNamedLauren I think Swift is incredibly Yang, even in her face. She has very cat like eyes, straight narrow nose, thin-moderate lips, high angular cheek bones. She is very beautiful, very feminine, but her features are sharp. The only thing she doesn’t have is an incredibly strong or square jaw, but the majority of her face is sharp and angular. I think people misunderstand Yang as masculine, as in an actual man. I don’t think Kibbie was trying to say some women look like men.
CurlNamedLauren As for you, personally I think 5’7” is the taller side of average, so I wouldn’t say you had to prioritize your height in the analysis. Kate Moss is 5’7” but she looks much taller, Rihanna doesn’t. If you don’t have a strong vertical line I would do they analysis and then factor in height if you’re on the fence. I personally was on the fence about Theatrical Romantic and Soft Natural. I am athletic, I dance, so I have a bit more muscle and that muscle enhances my shoulders, which are already a good feature for me. This threw me off cause my face in very Yin, my overall body is very Yin, and I am shy of 5’4”. I look a bit taller than I am cause my head is small, but I don’t look tall tall, more like average. In general though I look best in TR styles, though I wear whatever I want. I don’t think one or two traits, like a small head and wider shoulders can throw out all the other results.
Instead of reexamining his theory regarding heights, he reassigned people's entire Kibbe style, or said they must have had plastic surgery to change their bone structure. Now that's stubborn.
Thank you for correcting Kibbe on the fact that there is NO reason to be saying someone had work done to justify his assessments. I am no closer to finding my own type, it is so frustrating.
I'd say it's about 'vibe' or 'essence' or in her case, the way she carries, styles and presents herself. She has classic aura like the majority of aristocracy and old money (when casually dressed they can have strong N vibes as well or D/SD). Her face and body are nowhere near C to my eyes, especially her body. I'd say she is yang dominant, not balanced, but overall impression of her is classic after all.
What I've always found "interesting" in this discussion about height is that "average height" can be so very different across the world. For example I am Swedish and my height is average (168 centimeters). I am definitely a soft classic, but according to Kibbe's "height-typing" I would probably be typed as one of the taller types, even though I'm not if you compare me to other Swedes. It doesn't make sense to me. Lots of love!
Thank you for saying this! My background is mixed, Scandinavian and North African, so I came out pretty tall but am still clearly soft classic. Height is relative, and relying too much on height typing can lead to inaccurate results
@@abra4862 I've recently found myself concluding that we need to add the following subtypes to various super-categories: "petite" and "imposing". *You* would be an "imposing 'soft' Classic"... By similar logic, Sarah Jessica Parker would be a "petite 'flamboyant' Natural", and actress Rhea Pearlman would be a "petite Dramatic ".
Here’s the thing about height “limits.” Only 2 types supposedly can be tall: dramatic and natural. That’s not enough to encompass every tall woman. Height is not THE characteristic that dominates each other one.
Totally agree. Why even take other characteristics into account, when it all comes down to height? The more emphasis Kibbe places on height, the less I feel drawn to his system.
@@elinljungstrom3932 It makes no damn sense. I'm tall but delicate-boned, ectomorphic, skinny but curvy (34-22-35), I have neotenous features like large eyes and a slender nose but my face is angular too (high cheekbones, brow bone). I can not figure out if I'm supposed to be gamine, dramatic or something else? My look is very soft and feminine. So I'm confused.
Wow. Even Kibbe is confused. It’s not surprising that so many people are expressing their confusion or the need to change their body type. Please make a matrice of measurements, features, etc, so we can avoid most of the confusion. 🙏 😄
What I still don't get is: why does it matter so much the actual height? Shouldn't we focous on the vertical line? If someone appears to be short (=short vertical line), how does them being actually tall affect the perception of that person? Can't someone who is short have a long vertical line and look good in clothes that enhance that verticality? I think it's absolutely possible!
this is my case: im pretty short (5 feet 2) bit I have a rather long vertical line. rn I'm having an inner debate about whether I'm a flamboyant gamine or a soft natural (perhaps I'm in between the two types). And what happens with long lines is that it looks pretty good in pictures where you can't tell what's my actual height, but in person it's a different story. If I'm walking down the street in a long cardigan I would look like a kid playing dress up with my mom's clothes! hahahah (btw sorry for my english I did my best)
I think the issue is that actual height matters when typing, perceived height (vertical line) matters when styling. You can't have a tall gamine and or short dramatic type. But a gamine can definitely have a longer vertical line relative to other gamines, based upon their exact proportions and mix of yin/yang features. If you look at celebrities on the red carpet, they often purposely style short celebrities in longer lines to make them appear taller, so its definitely possible (think Lady Gaga, she's 5'1 but I always thought she was so tall). Its much harder to make taller people look shorter though, because they'd need a very big head or more width than most people's frames could handle just to balance the length. But ultimately, you need to take into consideration both a person's actual height (a tall person needs longer hems) and their perceived vertical line (proportions of their pieces) in order for clothing to really look harmonious.
it's important : you might look a certain way from afar and in pics due to your vertical lines, but up close or next to sb else if you're short, the real proportions of your body will be revealed and you will give a totally different vibe. You can't be a flamboyant natural if from afar you look tall lean with a lot of yang, but in reality you're tiny next to another FN, you're another body type with vertical lines.
Pink is (Pure )Natural..It seems Kibbie is pushing her into Soft Natural since he eliminated Pure Types. Im (Soft)Natural I love my type, there is legitimately a difference between Pure( square)and Soft Natural.
@TheSpirit AndTheBride Pink built muscle on top of a square frame, like Aly says it only adds to (Naturals) broadness, I stay away from lifting heavy weight on my upper because of it.
Frame-dominant and curve-dominant, such informative distinctions - thanks for those terms! Frame-dominant might be the word I feel describes me the best, it's like a light bulb went on when you said it (I'm a soft natural). Thanks for your passion and smart and humane approach to fashion and beauty!
Rihanna is really that tall (5'8" the very least). Just look at the pictures/videos of her at the VS fashion show: wearing about the same heels, she is barely shorter than the 5'10"-5'11" models. She also looks a little taller than Katy Perry who is 5'7"
@@bumblebee_0112 i agree the only theatrical romantic i can imagine in Malu Trevejo...she is so delicated ! Rihanna don't look delicate but just normal.
I’ve hugged her on two separate occasions. she had to bend down to hug me... I’m 5’9. Both times she had about 3-4 inch heels on but if she took them off we would of been eye to eye.
Rihanna is SO CRAZY TALL in person. I’ve seen so many models and actresses in person, and when I saw Rihanna in person I was confused and shocked by how tall she was. She is NOT 5’4! HAHAHAHA. She’s HUGE. Haven’t you ever seen her next to Kim kardashian? She’s amost a foot taller.
How close did you get? close enough to shake her hand? Its interesting that some people who claim to have met her IRL claim she is only 5'4" to 5'5", and very small.
@@tomjones2157 she was right behind me at her table greenhouse. I was right in front of her. I believe it was the night I fell into the ice bucket that held the bottles of champagne and grey goose and caught the bottle while all the ice fell onto the people on the level below me. At greenhouse all the private tables were on separate levels. Like.... Bleacher style, I guess you could say? So she had to walk right past me, while I was standing, me being 5''3 wearing 6 inch heels, her being very tall wearing also big heels.... Just look up pictures of her and Kim Kardashian. Im about kim's height. Watch "shy ronnie" from SNL where she performs with Andy samberg. She's WAY taller than him. People are either lying about meeting her or confusing her with someone else if they say she's short. I'm from NYC. I always worked in nightlife and politics and so many friends worked fashion week and the in the industry. I assure you..... She's a very tall woman.
Yes she’s definitely tall! She’s slightly shorter than ASAP rocky who is as tall as Kendall Jenner. Kendall is 5’10 Rihanna is around 5’7 or 5’8 but definitely not 5’4 ahaha that’s Kim Kardashian’s height
At the end labels really don't matter, it's all about lines, and I feel people often forget that and just want to find their label. You could tell me I'm a freaking frog, who cares, all I need to know is that I look best in fitted and short lines. So I don't really understand Kibbe with his changing, why can't he just look up people wearing different clothes and see it that way, surely that's the best way. Just because someone is half an inch above what he decided to be height limit, that "new" knowledge won't change how they look in relaxed vs fitted lines etc.
So Rita Hayworth, for example, was described as small sharp, and delicate but now that's she's 5'6 we suddenly have to see this big bone structure on her... It just doesn't make sense to me how we are supposed to blindly change our perception like that...
Exactly ! I have trouble understanding his new rules with height and bla bla. At the end of the day the most important thing is knowing what suits you.
Love it Aly, thank you :) always enjoy your videos and thoughts! Reassigning myself from TR to SD (I am 169cm/5,6 or 7 tall). It makes so much more sense now ! My big head let me think I look not very long, oh I was SO wrong. On Video.. while walking, dancing... you can see yourself so much more like you are than in a picture - helped me a lot. Dont make sure your vertical by your head to shoulder situation - always look at you as a whole too ! Like Mr. Kibbe and Queen Aly are always telling us - the whole thing und uniquenes first. Love and best wishes from Germany ♡
I see the Kibbe system being clear and accurate. Seems a lot of people are just confused about it or they misinterpret it. Height definitely is an important aspect when typing.
My two biggest problems with the Kibbe system are both height related (and I really like his system in general). First of all, it makes no sense to me why you can be very short and still yang dominant, when being tall and yin dominant is impossible. I just don't get why it doesn't work both ways. People usually just say "Well, if you're very tall, your most dominant feature is your height" Okay, so why isn't obvious lack of height as dominant of a feature? If short lines don't work on tall people, why do long D/FN lines work on short people who are typed D/FN? Secondly, I feel like moving someone from TR to SD just because of height undermines the whole idea of dramatics and romantics being on opposite sides of the yin/yang spectrum. If all it takes for you to be moved from TR to SD is height, did you really look that delicate to being with (short limbs, delicate facial bones, etc)? If Marilyn Monroe was taller, wouldn't she still have short limbs in proportion to her body, sloped shoulders and rounded facial bones? (I know she's a pure R, but still). That's still a lot of yin within her own proportions and no sharpness, so even if she was tall, how would SD lines, designed to flatter sharp and prominent bone structure, look harmonious on her?
It's an imperfect system. Dont take it too seriously, just use it as a guideline. If you find that yin dominant clothes make you look GOOD despite being tall, then it works for you! Don't get so caught up on height and worry about people's policing. I'm a TR and tall and I suspected I might be SD but those lines I drown in. Ever since I dressed in TR lines I've gotten so many compliments on how I dress (for the first time! haha). The point of this is not to label yourself. It's to find out what looks good on you. Check out merriam styles on RU-vid. She modified the kibbe system after using it and studying it a lot and made it a lot more cohesive and sensible. I love her explanations because she turns the theory into actual info that will give you results! Instead of discussing the abstract all day.
It’s all about proportions and literal accommodation. A short person can still accommodate for length, but a tall person cannot accommodate for shortness. Height makes you yang dominant by default. Because literal vertical requires accommodation, and if you’re tall even with shorter limbs in proportion to your height you’re still tall. You will never be able to dress for petiteness. Even at moderate height your proportions needs to be very short to be considered yin dominant. If Marilyn Monroe was taller, she would also be moved to soft dramatic. When she was typed, Kibbe still thought moderate framed people could be romantics, but now only small and delicate people can be romantics. If Kibbe saw her in real life today she may have even been moved to soft classic.
@@elektrakomplexet I disagree. A TR does not need to dress for petite-ness necessary. She needs to dress in Romantic/yin lines with an undercurrent of drama/yang. Why is height such a big factor in that case? If someone has delicate bones and a small hourglass and the only yang about them is their height. Suddenly they are said to have YANG dominant bone structure? That just doesn't make sense. If there is not sharp about her overall bones and flesh and shes just tall, that tall TR cant suddenly be called a SD. That's just an entirely different base.
Aphro You can disagree with what Kibbe says though, but in his system literal height is yang dominance. You can’t be yin if you’re tall. Also, theatrical romantics NEED to dress for petiteness. They’re the smallest of the image IDs in terms of both height and frame. They have small and delicate curves. They are narrow, delicate and short. They have always been. Dressing for yin means dressing for smallness. Yin is small, curvy and delicate. Yang is tall, sharp or blunt and a stronger frame. Rihanna has vertical + curves, which automatically means SD in Kibbe’s book.
I feel better now knowing Kibbe is confused himself about his archetype category assignments. It's difficult to look at a photo of yourself and try to decide if your head is big or small, if your limbs are long or short without a comparison (even though sleeves are usually short on me). Your video showing celebrities next to others, naming their types, really helped to see the differences and why they fell into categories...because there was a comparison. Thank you for your videos! You are very lovely and your videos are very easy to watch and understand. Binge watching them ALL...several times, hoping the information sinks in!
I've been watching you for years, and I must say you get more and more beautiful. I love your style, your talents, and over all your personality. 💖 thank you so much Aly, for all your interesting videos and help with a confusing topic.
Another thing about TR, they are very particular. I see a lot of people saying that they are TR, I did that too at some point, but I find them to be quite rare, I don’t see a lot of people walking around with that small curvy body with delicate sharpness that often actually. They look so light. Even their faces! They’re like wasps. The most common types are probably Naturals and Classics family.
The waistline on the Romantics is the obvious giveaway.. There waistlines are so teeny tiny looks like they'll break-Salma Hayek young body pics shows perfect example.
Constructive Alignment In the book it also says that theatrical romantics are sharper than soft dramatics because their bones are so delicate it creates sharpness. Soft dramatics are more lush like stretched out romantics as you say!
He has to reassign Ns to SN or FN because pure N no longer exists in his system, nor do G and C. He believes you'll always be a bit on the soft or flamboyant side.
Imo it would be a bit reductive. You can be slightly on the F side but you'll never be able to pull off FG outfit like a true FG. I think of it as a slider. I myself think I'm a gamine because softer outfits make me look bulky even if I'm pretty skinny, and harsher lines or extravagant FG outfits sometimes are a bit too much and to hard on me.
you know what, i guess i'll stick to soft gamine style since it's my favorite, even though i'm a romantic... idc about him anymore, why does he even care so much about height 😭😭
This is so interesting! When I first did the quiz, I was typed as a Soft Natural... even though it was only my facial features that fell into that category. Scarlett Johansson was literally the only celebrity SN I could relate to, now this has me questioning everything! I retook the quick and think I'm more of a soft classic type
Aly I agree with you that pictures are an illusion for assessing some physical attributes. Something to keep in mind regarding someone's height in a photo depends on the camera angle. I photograph people and when I photograph them to look taller in a full length photo, I always shoot from a very low angle, meaning I'm sitting on the ground and sometimes laying on the ground to make them look tall. If I want to make someone look slimmer in the waist then I pose them by telling them to move their waist sideways to the camera but have their shoulders more square to the camera that makes the waist look much smaller. If I want their hips to look smaller, I make sure to pose them slightly angled away from camera not straight on to camera.
Could you, please, do a video on long versus short torso? How does that play into the body type? Does it determine how vertical someone's line looks? Short torso, long legs -> long vertical line? Long torso, short legs -> short vertical line?
It doesn’t affect vertical line on its own, but alongside other factors it can. If you have longe legs and short torso but are short overall that’s juxtaposition. Same with long torso but short arms. If you’re taller it won’t become juxtaposition. Short legged people tend to be perceived as shorter IRL, not necessarily on pictures. It also aligns with high or low hip. Many romantics have high hip and long torso but some yang types have long torso and low hip.
@@elektrakomplexet Oh, so, in addition to the long or short torso, there's also a difference in high or low waist? Thank you for this additional info! :) Yes, you're right. I have yin flesh on a yang frame and I do have a long torso and pretty low hips. Is that a "good" thing or a "bad" thing, in terms of proportions and perceived "beauty"?
Hi, I’d like to hear an update on how you’re transition/move has been in the U.S. and about your current life now. I know the quarantine and pandemic has made things different for everyone but would love to hear an update since your first one when you first arrived. Thanks!
Yeah but according to the height rule that would be too tall to be a Soft Gamine type, let alone a Gamine. And I think 5'5"-5'6" is already considered quite tall-tall in Kibbe's system. I don't agree with that but yeah
I really don't think the height matters that much, since the system is more about proportion (for me). Although I am short, the proportions of my body are very longilinear and people often say that.. even my arms are very long! I thought a lot of my characteristics fit in the Dramatic Classic type but the height :( I did other test and the result was Gamine but it's kind of confusing 🤣
@@ineslebreaud he did though. He always had those rules, and now he made them stricter. Hence the debate about celebrities and height issues in the comment section. I wish it didn't have the minimum height rule, I really do :-(
@@brookeshields0619 I'm not sure I follow what you mean by "he did". There really isn't a minimum height rule. People discussions online are based only on the book he published in the 80's, some public info and personal assumptions. You may learn more if you go on his official website or look for Strickly kibbe. In the meantime, I can assure you there are no minimum heights for the Image ID's :) That's not my opinion, I'm really just repeating David's words.
@@ineslebreaud ohhhhhhhh you said "minimum" like the shorter height cut offs. My bad, I interpreted wrongly I thought you meant that there were no height rules Sorry about that haha There is a maximum height rule though Like such and such type can't be taller than X height And yes I do follow Kibbe's own words and not online forums :-)
@@brookeshields0619 ohhhh okay! Get it now :) Yes, there are rules indeed. Although, as I was telling someone else, I don't think of them as rules as much as I think of them as clues to help us see ourselves. If you're over a certain height you can be assured that, because he already made that research over the years, you will be perceived by others as having a vertical line. And that helps you take it in consideration when dressing yourself. It must be hard to only find out some of his thoughts halfway through the journey and having to shift gears, but it actually just helps you see with more clarity what was already there. I'm a DIY 5,2" FN and I had a really hard time being sure of my vertical line (still doubt it once in a while). So as I see it, if your height gives you a clue, you're just one step closer to see yourself :)
I don't really understand when people say "she's too tall to be romantic" or "she's too short to be dramatic". I thought it was about the line? I thought it was how tall you _look,_ not how tall you actually _are?_ Combining both how tall you look and how tall you actually are only serves to cause confusion.
This story of height in the Kibbe system is unbelievable! :D So, if we make a statue of Marilyn (R) as tall as the Statue of Liberty (obviously keeping the proportions) we must necessarily change her clothing and dress her like Tilda Swinton (D) or Maria Callas (SD), because according to Kibbe a tall person cannot accommodate brevity. While, if we reduce Tilda Swinton (D) at the height of a Barbie doll (obviously maintaining the proportions) we can (indeed we must!) dress her like Tina Turner (FG), or maybe like Marilyn Monroe (R), all frou-frou and flounces and light fabrics! :D It is like expecting that the small scale model of the Palace of Versailles, because it has become smaller, must be furnished with Ikea furniture! Well, I did not think that so many people today could ignore such a fundamental thing or even engage in long discussions on something as obvious as the theory of relativity and that of proportions. But it is clear that I was wrong. The KIbbe system ignores it! 🙃 I would say that this whole theory of height is based on a greater probability that certain skeletons match more frequently with a certain height. But nature is full of exceptions… or rather of infinite variations and combinations. Less probable doesn't mean impossible! 😉
Restating a comment I made above: I am a 5'10" FG and no one can convince me otherwise (after much research and originally trying to fit myself into FN, D, the "tall" types). One of the few if not only areas I disagree with Aly (and Kibbe) about.
This is such a beatiful well-thought-out comment; love your examples!🙂 Indeed it's on the surface - crazy how we sometimes ignore what's on the surface
That’s not how it works exactly. If you make a statue of Marylin Monroe her body proportions will be the same, hence, she should be dressed the same as R type. But with real people it doesn’t work this way. With the changing of your height, your bodily proportions change accordingly, and your kibbe type changes. For instance, the smaller one is, the head and body ratio is different than in people with average height, etc. I wish I could attach a picture to clearly express what I mean
Thank you so much Aly. There is so much conflicting information floating around the internet, so I fully appreciate your direct approach with referencing David Kibbe himself. You put a lot of creativity and thought into your videos. Thank you again 💕
So there’s a lot of misconceptions of Kibbe and height, mostly from other people that misquote him. If you’re tall, you can’t be yin dominant. Being tall gives literal vertical that needs to be accommodated in clothing. A dominant vertical is yang, only the three tallest types have a dominant vertical. It doesn’t matter how soft and rounded you are, if you’re 170+ you have literal vertical from your height alone. Your visual proportions or if you look shorter does not matter. It’s about literal accommodation first, visual second. Kibbe himself says that people who identify with theatrical romantic but are tall are soft dramatics. Because those two image IDs are very similar, the only thing that can matter is the height. The height and frame is what makes the image IDs. That’s why you can’t be a tall theatrical romantic. That’s why you can’t be a tall gamine. People are also very confused as to why short people can be yang as well, then it’s about physical proportions and accommodation as well! SJP has vertical, width and frame. That’s flamboyant natural. Her proportions makes it possible for her to carry vertical. Kibbe has also seen her IRL so her typing is more accurate than other celebrities. For a short person to be a yang dominant type it’s the proportions that matters. Longer limbs, size of frame, lack of delicacy in bones, lack of juxtaposition are all things that makes a short person yang dominant. Now, short people being yang dominant is rare, and not the default. The proportions needs to be extreme for them to be a taller image ID. SJP is an exception. Hope this clears up some things. You can disagree with this how much you want, but this is Kibbe’s system and if you quote him you need to understand what he actually means. Aly Art goes by the book and she is not always updated on his changes.
@xlzotiod at 5’10” your vertical is the most dominant part of you, and soft naturals do not have a dominant vertical. You can only be SD or FN in that case.
Can i be a flamboyant natural If i'm 5'2? I have a really long torso and short legs and wide shoulders. (I am underweigh, but i'm pretty sure i'm more to the "dry" than to the "flashy" side).
The height, weight or measurements we are told are rarely accurate. You will see that nearly every female celebrity, regardless of height apparently has the measurements 34-24-35 or something very close to that. Usually celebs are reported as taller than they actually are except that over a certain height the females tend to be reported as shorter. I read several autobiographies on Audrey Hepburn, one of them written by her son. He claimed she was 5'10 though she is usually reported as 5'7 and sometimes 5'8. Have you seen a photo of Nicole Kidman standing next to Reese Witherspoon? It's astonishing but I'd wager that more female celebrities are closer in height to Reese than they are to Nicole.
I hope you make a dedicated video for each type! The jumping around is confusing and even if someone knows what type they are, it is so difficult to gather the tiny bits and pieces scattered throughout all of the videos. Thank you so much for your wonderful work and sharing with us!
@@MsSonali1980 Yes, but dedicated to a subject. Not to each type. For example makeup for ALL of the types in one video. Hair for ALL of the types in one video. I am asking for one video per body type. So if someone knows their type, they can get all the information in one spot.
No offense to David, but it kind of annoys me that he’s making assumptions that certain celebrities have had ‘work done’ when there’s no definitive proof or evidence to really suggest that. Some women just tend to flesh out or get wider in certain places when they get older, giving the illusion of more curves or a different figure than when they were younger. So what? Also, this newfound emphasis on height is really off-putting. I wish he would bring back the pure Classics, Naturals, and Gamines and focus more on people’s lines than their heights.
k s I personally don’t think it’s all that bad, but the overall public opinion is still divided on the issue and it’s really none of our business what they do to their bodies. He shouldn’t be making baseless accusations and stating them as if they’re fact. It can be damaging.
Rihanna is an easy 5”8; from that perspective her limbs are actually quite stocky looking, and with that jawline she has very distinct facial features as well. She has small shoulders but wider hips and thighs. Sounds natural to me. I agree about Anne and the reason it’s hard to tell sometimes is because of how she carries herself. She does not hold herself up straight in a way that would show her frame but her face makes it obvious. She has a very wide mouth, wide eyes and shaped jaw, all of which would not be sharp/dramatic features.
Idk but I know so many naturals :D. So I just always assumed it's the most common type. But almost all women in my family are SD... I would say it's hard to tell but if anyone really has the answer I'm intrigued.
@Marr she said there weren't many celebrities yet a lot of her fans that send her pictures were classic. And if I'm not mistaken she said in one of her latest videos that Kibbe actually removed the classic, gamine and natural body types, so those people have to technically be relocated to another group.
I think the point is the principles stand but we can sometimes not see things fully at times, as Kibbe has already shown in his ability to reassign, he doesn't throw out the truth of the reality of bones and flesh and features. Having found such relief and revelation and confidence that i was on the right track re my look through his words on the Theatrical Romantic body type i am so sure Rihanna is one too and i want to defend that... Takes one to know one? :) x
I’ve met Rihanna twice, she is a solid 5’9 like she says she is. The only thing that was shocking both times was that she was very thin. She looks more thick on TV.
The point of classifying to see what clothes look best on you. Because they're statues without anything natural ahout their appearance (man made) idk if they can really be typed. However, I'd like to point out the ancient Greeks thought the male physique was the most attractive. In fact, it was a popular opinion that women's bodies were just a disfigured form of the male body. So maybe that could explain why the female statues often look very yang.
@@ImpressDivinity I just feel like men and women are perfectly beautiful the way they are. One thing kibbe taught me was that yin and yang be found in either sex. Instead of clinging on to what we wish we had, falling into the traps of body ideals and turning body parts into trends, we should be happy the way we are. We are perfectly beautiful the way we are. Beauty is such a subjective thing, why should we accept someone else's (in our day: the media) definition of beauty? That's why I initially loved the kibbe types. We are all beautiful and can compliment and harmonize with that beauty in our own way. Whether its ancient Greece or the 21st century, YOU are solely the one who defines what is beauty. The patriarch of ancient Greece and the one running today's media want the same thing. To tell a woman something is wrong with her. Hate to see it, so I don't subscribe to it. I stopped consuming a lot of different kinds of media just to avoid the evil invasive insecure thoughts it jams into our heads. How sad is that 😭 I have to play ninja just to have good mental health. but thank God I feel so much more peace of mind
Re-assigned Jacqueline Smith from TR to SD just because of hight make no sense to me. She has overall so delicate bones in her whole body. He might be a genius but this whole system supposed to be about general impression and not about one feature like hight. The same with Rihanna.
Totally agree! How can you go from one end of the yin/yang spectrum to the other just because of height? If all it takes is height, how could any TR turned SD have looked delicate and dainty enough to be considered TR in the first place?
@@elinljungstrom3932 I am going to take a guess and say that because we are not generally seeing these people in person that there is much room for error and illusion. I have been surprised by the petite-ness of the celebrities I have seen who appear very different in size and stature in media (often appearing taller on screen/in print). Pictures/motion pictures are oftentimes not a very good nor reliable representation and we can be easily deceived, on purpose or not.
@@caravanrose I wasn't really thinking about any celebrity in particular. I'm just saying that to be considered TR you need to come across as dainty and delicate. Height is not the only thing that plays into that, it's also the proportions within you own body. My sister is 167 cm and looks like a textbook TR, dainty, delicate, curvy. She looks shorter than she is. Seeing her in person doesn't change that. We're almost the same heigh, but people still perceive her as being way shorter than me and remember her as short. Even in person she comes off as dainty because of her overall proportions. SD lines drown her completely. To move her from TR to SD because of height would lead to her being recommended things that don't work for her, because despite her height she still looks delicate. To me it just shows that so much more than height plays into your overall yin/yang balance.
There’s a lot of cherry-picking in the comments. If you’re tall and curvy you are a soft dramatic, not a romantic/theatrical romantic or any of the gamines. The height is literally correlated with the kibbe types. You can’t be tall and “look” short, it’s clear as day that you’re tall when people see you, and vice-versa.
You aren't alone. Most people don't have a strong impression of Rihanna's height. They don't think she looks tall or short. I also don't think she looks 5'8(172cm) or 5'4(162cm) like david kibbe think she looks like. I would've guess she 5'6(167cm), which is more tall than short and still shorter than her actual height. Rihanna tall height isn't noticeable despite being super tall because of her body proportions.
I think the confusion is due to a misunderstanding of tall people's anatomy, generally tall people have bigger sceletons which means that their heads are bigger too, which shortens their vertical line in pictures because the bigger head makes the body look shorter. Those same people wouldn't look nearly as short in real life. It's like an optical illusion. But you can almost get closer to their height(looking at pics)when you take a look at the limbs, hands, and feet.
@@FriedToiletDuckRice Thank you! I think I heard it from Merriam Style first, I don't agree with everything she says but her approach is more holistic, in a nice way ^^
it's rather easy actually. Just google her with other celebs and compare. With Taylor Swift: www2.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Rihanna+Taylor+Swift+52nd+Annual+GRAMMY+Awards+Fn2wKjydZiPl.jpg Taylor is 5'10''/178cm. There are quite a few images with her, on all of them the difference in height is insignificant.
@@moontears3887 I don't think people think she's short, they think she's average height and surprised to find out she's tall. To me, she looks 5'6..not short nor tall. She has a large head with narrow sloped shoulders, plus fleshy (which makes her look extra delicate).
I was confused about what Kibbe type I was for a while. I looked back at old photos of myself wearing different lines and then it became crystal clear quickly. The lines that made me look old and frumpy were a big clue as well, sure enough they were the exact opposite of the lines I should wear.
It seems to me like there’s too much of an emphasis on how tall women are over how tall they look. I’m 5’4” but I look taller than I really am, so I consider myself a SD. I think the system is flawed, how can one aspect have more of a baring than the rest. Also, why is he so obsessed with the fact that celebrities have gotten work done?
I cmpletely agree with you. According to all the quizzes I am an R or TR and I am 5.7. All of a sudden according to Kibbe's latest whim, I should be something else like a Sd? No way with my R characteristics like tiny feet and hands which a SD is never said to have! I may have to unsub from Aly at this point as she is going along with the kibbe nonsense as if she were Tom Cruise at a scientology meet up..
@@annedonker4795 Don't blame Aly, you can use her advice or leave it. After all the system is merely a tool which is supposed to be helpful - if you're sure R/TR clothing fits you best then rock it. 5'7'' isn't considered very tall everywhere, so it seems like the system is skewed towards smaller ethnicities
Yeah I’m with ya, as a 5’7 a romantic type suits me best with my tiny hands feet, short arms and absolutely ZERO angles (no jawline or cheekbones 😭) I have features that could not look any less badass and any more feminine, haha. Everyone always laughs when I try to pull badass faces. I am really beginning to think that because people ARE getting taller, we can maybe start letting go of those height parameters a bit a just go with what we can SEE suits us. Like, I’m not going to force myself into dramatic or soft dramatic clothing just because my height says so, I will look frumpy and boxy and my curves will be lost.
@@FrootKat same with beyonce. like can we imagine her anything else besides romantic? no! she is working out and her flesh is STILL soft like you can't get more yin than that lmao. just for some inches she will be Soft dramatic? as if the only difference between sd's and r's is height...i like kibbe and i follow styling tips for romantic's but some things are questionable to say the least. I'm 5'3 and look 5'2 and I have friends my height that look 5'7. so vertical line should be more important than actual height imo.
I think it’s fascinating that Kibbe himself cannot even type some celebrities because they’ve had “work” and altered their physicality. That blurred line isn’t new, but way more common than it used to be. Crazy!
Aly, thank you very much for all your kibbe videos..learnt a lot about nuances of self appearance..Btw, you look great with the new hair colour, could you share that hair dye you use? Thank you 🙏🏻
@@JW-uq9yt The way Kibbe means contrast isn't between isolated body parts that you are listing. That is just normal human variation. Gamine contrast is YIN SIZE contrasting with YANG SHAPE. At kate moss's size she is not a yin size, just very slim.
@@tomjones2157 actually the mix of yin & yang in Gamines is everywhere except the size , I'm absolutely sure I'm a FG and I have very small eyes a large /wide nose / soft lips , chubby cheeks and a pretty square jaw = this is exactly what is giving my face the child-like vibe and the reason why I look ridiculous in very feminine clothes because I look like a teenager although I'm 23 but also very tailored Dramatic suits dont fit me either because it's too harsh for my body which has some yin in it ( other than my size) . That's why mixing yin and yang textures and lines in one outfit looks best on Gamines because they have both yin and yang both in their size & frame but ALSO in all of their features
@@somebody7070 Well that is Merriam body typing geometry gamine. In the Kibbe system you would not be gamine based on being "mixed" or "childlike vibe". Go google Fred Astaire, and "Bette Davis baby jane". Both are verified SG's.
Rihanna is really 173cm or 5 feet 8. Look at the many pictures of her besides Cara Delevigne who is a model known for being the exactly same hight. An singer can lie about her hight, but a model can not. They are both 173cm.
I think it becomes confusing bc he stopped using the pure types. Some ppl who would be pure gamine, classic, or natural become the soft or dramatic versions. But what about those distinct essences that he wrote about for those types? All 13 types are distinct to me in physical appearance and essence. do 3 of them no longer exist?
Don't you think height is also just one criteria? Like hands or waistline? Also the average height has changed. People were shorter then. So I don't know how much weight we want to give to arbitrary numbers
If height has changed, then the fashions and styles will change to accomodate that longer frame size in the population. Which is what has happened to fashion. You don't keep stuffing naturals into romantic and gamine clothes, you just redesign pretty stuff to suit them if they form a larger part of the population now.
Much of the time, the way I figure out Kibbe types is to first figure out what they’re not. It helps if you can find pictures of people in the “wrong” clothes. Stevie Nicks is a great example of a flamboyant dramatic, and she has dressed for her type since the 70s at least-the ruffles, shawls, flounces, lace, corsets, embellishments-it’s all there. Imagine Grace Jones, Iman, Tulsa Swinton-Dramatics with a capital D, in Stevie’s clothes-it doesn’t work; they would look awkward, like their clothes are wearing them. And vice versa-a rounded figures changes the shape of angular clothing to the point where they look stuffed, misshapen, usually heavier than they are, and awkward. True Naturals--I think Kibbe uses Candice Bergen frequently, or Katherine Hepburn-look great in simple silhouettes without too much fussy detailing. Gamine clothing makes other types look like they’re wearing clothes that are too young for them, whereas a small 70 year old woman with a boyish figure and angular face looks great in gamine clothing. The same goes for flamboyant gamine clothing. Cyndi Lauper and Pink, both flamboyant gamines, would look very plain in the same clothes that Naturals wear so well. These are just some examples; you can extrapolate from here. Also, I think Kibbe said that we generally move toward yin or yang as we age, so it is possible to be one type when we’re young and then shift toward another over time as our features change-not to another type, like from Dramatic to natural, but within our subtypes, from flamboyant to soft, or vice versa. Another rule of thumb could be proportions; I think Kibbe mentions feet, and that Naturals tend to have big feet-and Rihanna has large feet I
If height is so important (like even just an inch or two) than Beyoncé can’t be a Romantic... She is 5’6 or 5’7 and he reassigned Rita for being 5’6 from Theatrical Romantic to Soft Dramatic... I just don’t see how height can be that important if all your other answers are definitely a type that is “typically” shorter or taller, why would that put you in a type you have no other answers for? Also the styles Kate Middleton wore before (I’m a big fan but she didn’t look her best) were the trendy styles at the time. I’m TR and I used to where those clothes. She has worn some FN styles and they look so undone/unfinished. IDK if FN works on her very well, too tousled hair and unconstructed lines usually look messy on her. With her height and wider shoulders FN styles are supposed to work but she looks better in something with longer tailored lines and shapes, styles w/almost SD very smoothed hairstyles. Maybe I’m crazy but her most praised outfits are not FN, although she could wear a paper bag tbh.
She looks awful in natural lines, no, height is definitely not the dominant factor, if so, why there are 15 questions not just one? I think here, Aly becomes dogmatic.
I feel like 5’7” isn’t even that tall. Especially when you have a curvy body type like her. I’m a 5’7” romantic too. I think what separates soft naturals and romantics is that waist emphasis is optional for naturals. I think comparing Beyoncé’s body type to Kate Upton shows the difference between romantic and soft natural
In dark ages before the internet people had things called books, magazines, tv, movies, and real life events. Believe it or not, things could be researched before google! 😂
Laura Collins Yes the 80 is golden era for entertainment, it's just a bit less convenient but im sure Kibbe can easily check on the celebrities and their height
Acts 2:12-13 And all were amazed and perplexed, saying to one another, "What does this mean?" But others mocking said, "They are filled with new wine."
I mean, a theory is developed doesn't mean that the theoriest should testify everything him/herself, more work need to be done by other people to polish the theory/system, so that it will work better.
I’ve always just bought clothes I thought might look nice and had little consideration to the overall outfit or whether garments were versatile. Going down a kibbe rabbit hole has not necessarily defined my own category, but it has made me think about ensembles on the whole, smaller details and shapes in garments that I would never have observed. I think it’s also helped me, when I see someone on instagram in a cute outfit, I can consider a little better whether that shape clothing would have the same effect if I wore it. I don’t like the idea of rigidly sticking to only certain lines or shapes, but it’s helpful to get a better idea of how to make certain clothes work for you. Eg. I have a pair of skater/baggy jeans that I got after seeing them all over instagram looking modern/effortless but they just make me look 13 😅 It’s not the same effect on my body as someone else’s - that is all. I will probably still wear them from time to time but I guess moving forward this will help me buy clothes more intentionally, not strictly to my line mind you, just armed with more knowledge - so thank you :)
Great video! I feel like I am still confused about Scarlett Johansson! Why is she not a romantic? Her shoulders seem like the strongest part of her bone structure and even then they are not super prominent to me 🤔
Pilgrim's Progress She’s a verified SN because of her frame. Her shoulders give her upper back width, and they stand out from her frame. Even if they aren’t super prominent they aren’t narrow either. You can also see how much thicker her bones are compared to other romantics.
@@elektrakomplexet so if ur shoulders are the widest part of ur back youre soft natural?? Its the part that stands out the most for me im the same but i keep getting TR on the tests. Also im not sure if the width comes from flesh or bones im more leaning towards flesh because i can grab a lot of it.
@@ninalou4629 Think of it like this: having shoulders wider than hips is common. But having wider shoulders and upper back in silhouette means width. Theatrical romantics are not supposed to have wide or prominent shoulders, they’re narrow and sharp. Sometimes they’re sloped and rounded. But they cannot be noticeably wide or give frame in silhouette. Another important thing to consider: do you need space for shoulders when buying clothes? Because theatrical romantics with narrow shoulders would have a hard time fitting their shoulders into regular clothes because they’re too big.
@@elektrakomplexet no I usually need space for my arms rather than shoulders if my weight goes as lil as two or three kilos above my normal weight. Im still confused ;(
@@elektrakomplexet Id add my shoulders are really rounded even if I go underweight. I cant see any trace of angular bone. Theyre like the letter C if that makes sense.
I can’t type myself and I can’t answer the questions. I have a petite upper body and large lower body. My arms are very short and my hands very small size 4 ring finger. I carry my weight in lower body about 4 sizes larger than my upper body and my legs are long 33” inseam. Most people are shocked when I tell them how much I weigh. They think I’m much smaller lol. I have spent the last 40 years trying to balance out my body. I’ve put on a lot of weight which I now carry in my stomach and upper body thanks to menopause but before this happened I actually lost weight and bought boobs I was then more balanced and able to buy dresses. If we go on height alone I’m probably a soft dramatic or classic 5’7”. But I looked very good in a turtleneck in my youth actually I still do, just feel to restrictive after menopause. But I still look better in a button up if it’s fully buttoned up then if it’s open. I think I’m gonna stick with soft classic. I love your channel by the way. You explain things so well thanks
I'm having trouble deciding where I sit in the natural family. I've heard different things from different people. Just knowing I'm a natural is helpful, but I'd really like to narrow it down!
I’m taller than 5’9 but realized I can’t be dramatic or soft dramatic because I look like crap in oversized glasses, man coats straight pants and big bags and big jewelry. I look like crap in suits and hate suits and tailored clothing. I look like a sloppy tired mama in natural clothing. My facial features are rounded and delicate and I’m an hourglass. My hair is even delicate and skin too. I look best in theatrical romantic and soft classic clothing and I have been drawn to naturally my whole life. If you look at pictures of me you will think I’m short.
The day I realised that there can be tall gamines was the day I realised the flaw in using height as the ultimate exclusion criteria. Taylor Swift is a tall gamine. Controversial statement I know but I said what I said
