Should You Pay Someone to Tell You Your “Kibbe Type”?

This is something I see a lot, in the comments here and elsewhere: people say that they were analyzed in Kibbe by someone. Sometimes, I even get emails asking me to do this, although of course I never agree to do so.

The fact is, however, that there is only one person you can pay to find out your Kibbe Image ID: David Kibbe. Anybody claiming to have been trained by him, or posing as an expert, or even, in some cases, offering courses that teach you how to “type” people in Kibbe will bring you no closer to knowing what David Kibbe would type you as if you went to see him.

I have never seen anyone who claims to type people in Kibbe actually possess an understanding of yin and yang the way David uses it. I used to say that an analyst claiming to type people in Kibbe has a one-in-ten chance in getting it right (since there are ten Image IDs), but now I believe that their chances of getting it correct are even lower, because they are not applying yin and yang correctly.

There are only two ways to figure out your Image ID: going to see David, or doing the work yourself. Kibbe’s system isn’t a checklist of body parts. The quiz is meant to give a general idea, but you can’t use it as a checklist, or assign each question a point value (the way some people who take money for this do). My belief is that we all can read David’s work and intrinsically know who we are, but we have resistance that keeps us from allowing ourselves to see it. I have always understood what kind of woman I am, physically, but when I discovered Kibbe, I thought I could magically be something different and looked at SN, SD, TR, etc. But living in my body my entire life, knowing what worked for me, and knowing what women on screen and in magazines “felt like me” and which seemed “different”–there is nothing I could be apart from one of the Gamines. And I think for most people, it’s the same. We know who we are.

The point of David’s work isn’t to give you a box to fit into, with a prescription of clothing to wear–especially now that clothes have stretch and fit around the body, rather than imposing a shape onto the body. It is to enable you to let go of what you are not and accept and love who you are.

Putting you into something that isn’t what you are and giving you a list of clothes to wear accomplishes the opposite of what David does. It puts you into a box that isn’t even your own. David’s work is supposed to set you free, not cage you.

So if you see someone offering a shortcut to finding your Kibbe “type,” don’t fall for it. You don’t need them to tell you who you are! And they will just get it wrong anyway.

31 Comments on Should You Pay Someone to Tell You Your “Kibbe Type”?

  1. Sara
    June 5, 2019 at 11:55 pm

    This post made me take another look at Kibbe. I just assumed I didn’t fit into the system. I have a question for you, if you don’t mind. From everything that you have read, do we have a natural tendency to gravitate toward the style suggestions of our Kibbe type? I was thinking I was a Theatrical Romantic, but I don’t quite suit that style. Tonight I was considering Soft Dramatic, the two are often confused. I have a tendency to dress as a Soft Dramatic and feel pretty confident in it. Thoughts?

    Reply
    • stylesyntax
      June 6, 2019 at 1:36 am

      There is really no such thing as “dressing as a Soft Dramatic” or “dressing as a Theatrical Romantic.” You can’t reverse engineer your Kibbe Image ID from clothes. Image IDs are not styles. If you’re over 5’5″, you’re definitely not TR. I know an SD who dresses beautifully and before discovering David’s work, she dressed completely differently. So I don’t think I would go by how you dress pre-Kibbe or what you’re drawn to. I would go by what you need to accommodate in your body and what you understand about yourself.

      Reply
      • Sara
        June 6, 2019 at 9:08 am

        Thank you so much for replying to me! I’m exactly 5’ 5 3/4” so I’m just a smidge over 5’5” this is such helpful information, I appreciate it. If I could I would buy the book because there is only so much one can learn online, and as you have said, some of the information is misleading or inaccurate.

        Reply
      • Cari
        June 13, 2019 at 7:18 pm

        Kibbe himself has typed Rihanna as a TR and she’s 5′ 8″ :/

        Reply
        • stylesyntax
          June 14, 2019 at 3:31 pm

          I cover this question in my Kibbe FAQ:

          Q: David says X celebrity is a type like TR or SG, which have to be short, and Google says they’re tall. Does that mean that I can be a 5’9″ TR?
          A: No! David says that celebrities lie about their heights (in my limited experience, I can confirm this to be true). He will sometimes change someone’s placement after seeing them in real life (Blythe Danner is an example of this, whom he moved from SC to FN), but until he says otherwise, the understanding is that if they are in an Image ID with a height limit, they fit that requirement, even if Google says they are taller.

          So if he saw Rihanna IRL and she were actually 5’8″, he would move her from TR. For now, since he hasn’t said otherwise, we have to assume that she is much shorter than her reported height.

          Reply
          • Christina
            June 18, 2019 at 2:03 pm

            Excuse me? Where did you get that information? I didn’t know Mr Kibbe had become a height nazi. When I was in my appointment with him and his wife years ago they told me I looked very Liz Taylor like, soft and gentle with thick dark curly hair (that I was straightening, first thing he told me to stop doing!) and he identified me as a Romantic/Winter! And I am 5’7 1/2” and he never questioned my height! You probably never visited him, I highly recommend it, it’s worth it.

          • stylesyntax
            June 18, 2019 at 11:53 pm

            Hi Christina,

            I communicate with David frequently–I run the main Facebook group for his work with his blessing and assistance. This information comes directly from him. I don’t know if it has changed since you went to see him, and he still doesn’t measure people. For TR, it is especially important that they at least 5’5″ or under, because they do have some yang, and more height would add to the yang and throw off the balance. I do know an R who says they are 5’6″; my impression from him is that they can actually be a little taller than a TR. Hope this answers your question!

  2. Daga
    June 6, 2019 at 2:50 pm

    Because of small space in other thread I’ll reply here: In terms of myself my intuition works and I’m pretty sure I’m Gamine. You actually helped me a lot by explaining style aspects of the system on the blog. I’m leaning Yin and mislead by many web resources I thought that I had to dress like a little girl to express Soft Gamine. I appreciate a bit of cuteness and femininity, but really! Thanks to you I know the system is not limited to certain styles. It is too complicated for me if I try to categorize anyone except me (or my mother who is very obvious). Same with colors, even before PCA, deep inside I knew I was BSp but I can’t tell other ppls season.

    I noticed you are very independent person and have reservations about PCA. I’m also sceptic about consultants saying “no one knows their season”. Maybe majority of their clients decide to do it because they don’t have a clue, but I knew, my mother knew hers (purely intuitively, despite not fitting stereotypes). I did PCA to see draping and changes on my face with my own eyes, to decide on my own which colours are the best and how other seasons affect me. It helps me now to conciously “cheat in” other colours. It wasn’t rushed, I had a wonderful consultant who spent 4 hours draping me, despite only confirming what I knew, it was worth it! Wish stylists could offer multiple makeovers so I could judge what suits me the best by comparison 🙂

    About your question on bold colours in post about DYT… I have a friend who is dark blond (lightens further in sun), freckled, has green eyes, looks warm, like typical spring or autumn. She’s stunning in bold, winter colours and very bland in others. They also match her personality better – so it’s hard to tell is it her complexion or personality making it work so well. She wouldn’t know it if one day she wouldn’t decide to try it. So maybe there isn’t a conflict or not as big as you think.

    Instead of commenting here and there I gathered my thoughts on different posts here, hope you don’t mind 🙂

    Reply
  3. cactus gardener
    June 7, 2019 at 11:51 am

    Hi Vanessa, thank you for your blog, also and especially for your research into historical systems, this is really insightful! I have enjoyed reading on your site for about two years now off and on. You are the voice of reason in all that style conundrum, your no-nonsense approach is desperately needed.
    And hi everyone.

    I honestly don’t understand the confusion. Kibbe found something so simple and intuitive, it’s spectacular and genius.Most of my lifelong clothing troubles were solved within an afternoon (plus 4 years of wardrobe building) once I found the bits and pieces of the book which are online (the book itself, alas, $). I feel free at last, indeed.

    Maybe the confusion comes from thinking that body types are on a spectrum as in most color systems. You find stuff like (I invent that, but along those lines): «I am a Romantic-Dramatic- Gamine with quite a bit of Classic, while my knee is definitely Dramatic, but I’m not sure if I might actually have much more Natural, maybe 2,35% or so. I’m 5’2 and have curves, but most probably all this elongation comes from looooooots of Ethereal. It’s just that my left nostril throws me off everytime, because people tell me it looks so innocent. Am I Ingenue then?»

    WHAAAT?!

    (Don’t get me wrong, I don’t want to mock people, but the phenomenon is just so hilarious.)

    That comes probably from all those style personality systems that use Kibbe’s terminology but have not much to do with actual body type, as you Vanessa already diagnosed. There’s that slang of «having» a bit of this and a bit of that. But our body IS, it doesn’t have, and our bones are either or, our flesh is either or. It doesn’t matter what our knee or our left nostril is, of course everyone has a few features that are not exactly in line with the overall type. Our face is part of our body, consisting of the same bone and flesh. At least that’s how I understand it, and I can’t see what’s complicated in finding the main type. The subtype is probably best found by trial and error, if it’s not obvious. I find that the main type goes a long way already. I’m FN, but mostly prefer the N recs for practicality (hate squeezing oversize tops into outerwear, not eager to carry knee-length cardigans around when the sun comes out, such stuff). Later we can add all the color theory and personal unicornness on top of that as much as we want, be Andromeda Ethereal, or Flamboyant Snowflake, whatever you fancy. If you feel your personality is out of sync with your body type, you can still interpret your recs and put another vibe into your home lines with color, pattern, combining, accessories.

    Kibbe gives us LINES – , our body lines and general guidelines, nothing else after all. Knowing our body type should give us a wardrobe that makes us happy and confident, minimize time, money and frustration spent (all this analyzing seems to do the contrary for many!), and reduce waste on a polluted planet, less unworn clothes thrown away. If we need a therapy or fix or our lives, we’d rather work on that instead of analyzing the shape of our left nostril or having it analyzed by a consultant. Oh, and don’t ever factor in «people tell me». People talk a lot. Most of our self-consciousness comes from what people told us. It’s rubbish, but most compliments are rubbish, too.

    Another source of confusion must be our collective Fat Distortion. We are so used to «more than skeleton is bad» for at least 3 generations (celebs as examples for the body types don’t help…), that we can’t tell muscle from fat, or distinguish different qualities of flesh anymore. Everything that isn’t skinny as a twig looks fat to us, especially on ourselves. The only muscle most people ever recognize as such are on fitness gurus, but they do dangerous stuff to «define» their muscle, such as lowering their body fat to starvation levels, cut out salt from their diets, and dehydrate themselves for days on end. Normal muscle isn’t «defined», it’s just firm flesh (touch a steak, that’s normal muscle). Go have a look at a farmer family and see real muscle that comes from physical work – it will look like fat to our average fashionista. So when we’re in front of the mirror, we decide that an outfit «works» when it makes us look half an inch slimmer than we are (for us Yang types «more feminine» in addition to that). We must get around that bend. The goal is no longer to look slimmer or otherwise different.

    A doubting FN said: „But long oversized tops don’t work on me, they make me look bulky“. Indeed, that’s the whole point! Your lines support exactly what is already there, it’s because you ARE bulky (maybe you replace that word, I call „bulky“ „muscular“ for myself). If you dress your lines, you will look more like what you already are, whatever you are. But you have to let go of all the things that you are not. If you don’t want to do that, go back to the toxic fruit types and hide what’s not in demand, fake what is not there (although we all know that we never fooled anyone). I believe that some are confused because they think that dressing their lines will make them magically look more „ideal“. No – it will help you change your eye, if you’re willing to put the work into it, and you will no longer find the approximation of a skinny hourglass ideal for yourself, except if you are a skinny hourglass (in which case you don’t have to approximate). You will no longer wish to be different. The outfit doesn’t work when you look slimmer. It works when you recognize yourself. It will not change everybody else’s eyes, though, so don’t expect a tsunami of approval.

    I don’t know for the other types, but for Naturals, I can only say: if you are Blunt Yang in bone and flesh, you know it for sure! You only haven’t had a word for that sturdy work horse phenomenon before. Somewhere I read that Naturals are the most common type, because sort of average, only less balanced than Classics. This is utter nonsense. Some statistics may help. Less than 15% of all women are tall enough to consider D, SD, FN and N (depending on where you live). They can’t blend in. They‘re imposing, either in length, or both length and width. If the postman doesn’t catch his breath and step back when you open the door in a bulky sweater, you can most likely rule out FN. I believe you now your specific phenomenon the same way, if you’re another type.

    The only thing I miss in Kibbe is how proportion affects the types (or is it in the book?). Being of the „broad, muscular“ FN variety with long torso and short legs, I look like the anti-thesis to the „long, sinewy“ model FNs with long legs and short torsos. I am tall, but what hits the eye first is sturdiness, not height. So I couldn’t have found my type by looking at confirmed FN models. Don’t look at pictures, read only. Again, I don’t know how proportion would affect the other types.

    Anyway, thank you so much David Kibbe! I have a wardrobe I enjoy for the first time in my life. I no longer need to buy in Plus Size shops since I know what to look for. I even found the first ever skirt that suits me, and I have never been able to wear skirts or dresses before. I no longer have to stay home because the only T-shirt I’ve had for less than 15 years is in the laundry. I can enjoy an outing instead of worrying all the time how I must look like the Incredible Hulk. No more panic when invited to a formal event. And I can finally appreciate all the other women’s particular beauty without envy, instead of thinking „you have it easy, you cute birdboned curvy bitch“, and then hating myself even more for being mean on top of ugly. So rewarding to be rid of that.

    No miracles will happen once you‘ve found your lines and colors. It won’t give you your dream job or attract your soulmate or make you famous. People will continue to compliment you when you wear a color or style they like, not because they think it suits you (I found out in the process that most people can’t tell a bright from a muted color, or even a cool from a warm, and very few people like muted colors anyway; so all this fuss isn’t relly that important – I now think it’s best to know your worst colors, avoid these near the face, and get your contrast levels right; that’s more than enough for real life.) Some people continue to tell me that I should tuck my shirt in for waist definition, or wear a tight top with some cute ruffles to aknowledge my femininity, and that I shouldn’t wear bootcut as it shortens the leg, and that I should see a hair dresser, and your people will continue to tell you all the hogwash they’ve told you all your life, too. The only before-and-after-effect is that you will think «so what» and move on.

    In short, it’s dream world versus real world.

    If you want to explore and express your personality via style, embark on a neverending journey with lots of flowery metaphors and esoteric bric-à-brac, use any style personality system (or all of them). Here you can be whoever you want, partly or mostly ignoring the reality of your physical body. You can dress as an octopus, or a baobab tree. You will probably have to continue in the hide-your-flaws-show-your-assets-balance-your-proportions treadmill though. Your eye won’t change. Be prepared to never be content. It can get expensive and time consuming, but also lots of fun.

    If you want to solve down-to-earth fitting-, comfort-, wardrobe-, shopping- and dresscode problems, spend less time, money, thought and energy on clothes and come to terms with your self-consciousness, then get to know your body and do Kibbe. You will go with what is really there, no longer willing to camouflage some features and fake others (but your «flaws» won’t go away if you don’t rename them), then be free to pour your personality and resources into work or art or relationships. Be prepared to reach the point where good is good enough. You can still tweak it if you want, and add a bit of fantasy.

    Cheers and good luck to everyone! Don’t overthink it so much. I hope I didn’t add to the confusion. And keep up the good work, Vanessa (I love FG. Have fun!). Thanks again.

    PS. The bodies of the world’s best athletes – here you can see what different forms muscle can take. (Please, people, don’t Kibbe-type these now!)
    https://www.boredpanda.com/athlete-body-types-comparison-howard-schatz/

    Reply
    • stylesyntax
      June 8, 2019 at 3:20 pm

      There are a lot of points here to unpack…

      First, I would say to put down the “recommendations.” It is not 1986! Clothes have changed. David doesn’t even use N as an Image ID anymore, and clothing has changed drastically. Also, the “body type” approach is incorrect. It is based on your body, but there is no one single body type per Image ID; it is your unique yin/yang balance that fits best in a certain Image ID.

      Height I covered in a response to your other comment.

      The most important point, I think, is that while you have gleaned a lot of what is important… you are missing the fact that David wants us to be stars of our own lives. He does not want to solve “down-to-earth” problems. Anyone who has talked to David knows that it simply is not where he resides! If you read the entire book, it’s clear that he wants us to be like the great movie stars of yore. He wants us to help us dress for who we are not to make our lives easier, but to make our dreams come true.

      I have put together a Kibbe FAQ, which covers some of these.

      Reply
  4. cactus gardener
    June 8, 2019 at 5:22 am

    Hi again, I didn’t want to add to the confusion, so I feel I have to correct this part of yesterday’s comment: „Less than 15% of all women are tall enough to consider D, SD, FN and N (depending on where you live).»

    I’m not sure if that really applies to SD and N, as it says «moderate to tall» (if you want to use N, even if Kibbe doesn’t anymore). But I still think D and FN are quite rare, as well as the shortest types, simply due to statistics.

    I searched through my notebooks from back then, and couldn’t find the stats anymore. Sorry for that! Before my color and style journey, I researched how the textile industry makes sizes and patterns, to find out why the XXXXXXXL I’d need doesn’t exist. I found a table from a clothing manufacturer, probably European, stating that 14% of women measure 170cm or over, that’s what I remember. (And then, only 1% of all women have broader shoulders than hips; not to mention a straight hip and low rise…) So at least I knew why I’m not catered to, and why Plus Size fashion didn’t help either or was even worse, because that is still cut for average frames and more feminine curves. I found my solution in Scandinavian brands, where taller, squarer builds aren’t rare. At first I bought all over the place, because the experience that I can try on anything, not even in the biggest sizes available, and it would „fit“ was so new and overjoying to me. I thought „fit“ means I can easily get into the garment, button it, close zippers, move in all directions, and it wouldn’t tear at the back, squeeze my arms to pudding or strangle me at the neck. Such a relief! When I realized that not everything looked good though or felt like me, it took Kibbe to teach me which styles to choose.

    I do think that the nature of your pyhsical shopping problems (or the absence thereof) can give hints as to your type. Really, I couldn’t even worry how something would look on me, the fear was that I would have to go naked because nothing would ever be big enough to cover me. For me it was more than a hint when I read the N section in Kibbe, it was a revelation. I wasn’t a freak of nature after all, on the contrary, a Natural. Okay, maybe I had it much easier than others to find my type, I’ll admit that. It rather found me.

    But still: everyone can probably rule out two main types from the beginning, based on height alone. Or is this too simplistic?

    Reply
    • stylesyntax
      June 8, 2019 at 3:13 pm

      This is not at all the case. Among people I know who have seen Kibbe, SN and FN are the most common, followed by SD. The most uncommon, in my experience, are FG and TR. (Everyone comes to Kibbe thinking they’re TR, because the TR section is really like a love letter to his wife… but they are few and far between.) SN is an Image ID where being tall would actually rule it out for you. Tall women can only be D, SD, or FN, but there is no lower limit. If you have enough vertical, you can be one of these even if you’re technically petite–think SJP, who is 5’3″ and FN. I also personally know a 5’3″ SD who saw him in NYC. It’s much rarer to find a woman who is short, narrow, and yin-dominant than a woman who is more yang.

      Reply
  5. cactus gardener
    June 9, 2019 at 5:28 am

    Thanks for your patience and clearing things up, I appreciate. I’ll adress both your answers in one comment.

    I’m aware (thanks to your blog) that C, G and N no longer exist officially. In the N section, I wondered if this might be because there’s actually not much difference between N and FN in body type description (not so in the recs). It seems to be a question of degree only – like „slightly large hands“ for N and „large hands“ for FN, while SN is clearly distinct from N. SN is Blunt Yang plus Yin, FN is now double Blunt Yang (with three types, N would be the double Blunt Yang only and FN Double Blunt Yang plus Sharp Yang influence – the difference would be hard to figure out in many cases, also in mine).

    But my point that it might be easier to find your type by first locating the main type (by reading up on all the main type sections, not looking at pictures) might still be valid. You’d just determine the overall Yin/Yang balance first, and only later go into details. That’s so much easier to see and feel instead of deciding on each single feature separately and then have a heap of incoherence. The overall balance is actually the part which each us must have known „in the bone, in the flesh“ for all her life, but couldn’t put into words. I tried to describe the feel of Blunt Yang as „sturdy work horse“ (although other Ns might describe it very differently). On the other hand, if you look right from the start at all the types, including celebs, verified an self-typed non-celebs, and style visuals, and pick apart all the features before having an „overall feel“ (for your body AND the system), it’s only normal to become extremely confused. That’s when you get lost in details and start to doubt if you could really be FN if you see an FN with curvy hips while yours are straight.

    I didn’t know that height wasn’t limited on one side (I read that some people claim it doesn’t matter much in any case, but then why would Kibbe have put heights into the descriptions in the first place). Thanks for clarifying. Still, height itself (length and width of bone) is part of the Yin/Yang-balance. So I assume that though it happens, it would still be rather rare for petite women to have a clearly Yang-dominant body-type, as apparent height in that case must „overpower“ actual height (otherwise it would make no sense for Kibbe to give both height limits). If that’s true, then it would still be useful to rule the tall types out at first if you’re petite and only go back to them later if none of the more common petite and moderate types really clicks.

    Kibbe diagnosing more SNs, FNs and SDs than other types doesn’t necessarily mean that they are the most common in the population (due to stats, Ds, SDs and FNs can’t be common, and they wouldn’t be „taller than average“ if they were). I’m not surprised, because these have probably really the hardest time to find clothes that fit, let alone clothes that make them happy and confident. They might simply have the most need for a helping hand, while Ds are narrow and non-curvy enough to still fit into clothes that are made for average heights. On the petite side it can get difficult too, but there are way more shopping options.

    True, chlothes have changed (not always for the better, especially in quality!, a pair of pants used to survive 15 years at least…), but I don’t find that the recs are outdated on the whole. They still give the overall idea or even details on certain garments. Especially the «avoid» sections are helpful. I would never have figured out how to find said first ever skirt without these recs, for example.

    That Kibbe is an artist, not a problem-solver, is apparent from every paragraph he writes, that’s not lost on me. Art begins with problem-solving though (without problems, we’d have no need for art, and art devoid of «problems» in a wider sense isn‘t art, but kitsch; the same way as perfection isn’t beauty). And as in my case, the down-to-earth wardrobe problem got so out of hand that I was hindered in my own art – not only took it up too much time and energy, it caused me to sometimes turn down inivitations to public events because I had nothing to wear on stage. How can I become the star of my own life if I don’t solve my down-to-earth problems first? Also, for most of us it’s still about practical needs for daily life, building a functioning wardrobe, doing the lifestyle pie chart etc. My point was that I wouldn’t have been able to do that if I had been caught up in an archetype-dreamjourney for years, as it often seems to happen to people who use other style systems (I looked at some of those systems too before Kibbe, it gave me ideas, I made mood-boards, it wasn’t totally useless– but it did nothing to help me find clothes that actually fit, or styles that work; no one explained me before why waist emphasis is not good for me, that kind of thing; the practical, „bodily“ side was totally missing in the other systems).

    But you are right of course in correcting me insofar as Kibbe is about much much more than that. Now that the down-to-earth-problem ist mostly solved, I’m looking forward to take it a bit farther too. Kibbe did exactly that for me, free up my capacities for my own teeny-tiny quest to „stardom“. I can now fully concentrate on what I want to give to the audience when preparing an event on stage, instead of worrying what to wear for the occasion. And I’m comfortable in my clothes in everyday life.

    If it weren’t so inspiring and artsy, I wouldn’t keep on reading up on other people’s style journeys and exploring style systems long after having settled on my own body type and color palette.

    The only thing I feel bad about is that Kibbe did so much for me for totally free. I really hope the book will see a re-edit, I will buy it as soon as that happens. (Say thank you to him from my part when you „meet“ him in the FB group, if you don’t mind. I don’t have an FB account.)
    Have a nice weekend!

    Reply
    • stylesyntax
      June 9, 2019 at 3:20 pm

      1) No. Celebrities who were in N have been moved to both SN and FN. It is exactly what Kibbe says: people either have a little more yin or a little more yang. FN is not “double blunt yang”; it is still blunt yang and sharp yang and SN is blunt yang and yin. If you are trying to figure out whether your hands are “slightly large” or “large,” you are getting lost in the weeds and looking at parts instead of the whole. If you had a FN woman with a significant vertical and frame width, and a woman with frame width and lacking the vertical for FN, the latter would be SN even if her hands were bigger than the first woman’s hands. Anybody who picks apart celebrities or other people is going to be very confused. That is why all the YouTube people are #fail when it comes to understanding Kibbe.

      You are right that you shouldn’t pick apart the yin/yang balance, but it doesn’t necessarily mean you need to start with the general category. Whether understanding the general category, rather than the F/T or S version, is more beneficial to you depends on your individual yin/yang balance. For me, I am very close to that middle line. I don’t have a sinewy look and a super flat chest that make it clear that I’m more yang–I’m closer to someone like Zooey Deschanel. It is helpful for me to consider the broad category of “Gamine.” But there are situations where it is much more distinct than that, and the question isn’t whether someone is FG/SG or D/SD or FN/SN, etc. For some people, the question is whether they are TR or SG, or SN or SD, or FN or SD, etc. So, to sum it up, there are definitely people for whom thinking in the broad category of the “parent” Image ID is helpful, but for many people, it is clear which of the two they would be, if they are in that category, but their other contender isn’t the other Image ID in that pair. And this isn’t just people figuring it out themselves; SN/SD and TR/SG are two pairs I have seen David give several people as their potential Image IDs, and I know someone whom David believed was a FN in photos and realized she was a SD when he saw her IRL.

      2) Nope. It doesn’t do you any good to eliminate an Image ID unnecessarily. The only people who get to start out with limited possibilities are tall women. And trust me, it is not a problem that women see themselves as too yang. There is the association of yin=feminine and yang=masculine, which isn’t true, but almost every woman starts out as seeing themselves as being more yin than they are. You have no idea how many 5’10” women have to be gently told that TR is off the table for them. It’s probably rare for very petite women, but women in the more-or-less average range (~5’3″-5’5″) should not start with just the “short” types in mind unless those are the ones that actually make the most sense for them. And SN is definitely a type that is not considered in the “tall” range and goes from petite to moderate only.

      3) Again, as I said, FNs/SDs/Ds are not necessarily tall. It is just that if you are tall, they are the only ones you can be. But even in the book, the “tall” types all start at 5’5″, which is average height in the U.S. and most of the Europe. In the contemporary era, in the U.S./Canada and Europe, there are far more women who are yang than the opposite. All women feel like they have issues buying clothes. But nearly all models are FN, clothes that go on a body that has enough structure already to frame clothing are cheaper to make, and lists of clothes that are supposed to be “universally flattering” are also written with this body in mind. TRs actually have the most trouble finding clothes, from what I’ve seen.

      If you are significantly taller than average, of course it will be difficult to find clothes long enough, but as I said, not all women in these categories are taller than average. They are simply the categories open to women who are, because the length automatically means vertical dominance. But you can have this even with average or shorter-than-average height, too.

      I’m 5’4″, but narrow, and I need structure. If I buy something without structure, it has to be petite, not because of length, but because otherwise it’s too wide (and it has nothing to do with weight/clothing size). I am simply narrower than most women of my height and weight, and how many lines carry petites? Just as few as those who carry talls, I suspect. (And then my torso is so long that really my best bet would sometimes be a combo of petite for narrowness AND tall so the waist hits at the right place… Gamine mismatch fun!) And stores base inventory on what sells, and there are simply more women walking around, at least in the U.S. and Europe, who are broader than the other way around. I run a community of 2,000 women, and I simply walk around and see people–TR and FG are absolutely the rarest out there. I don’t even think I know another FG IRL.

      3) If you are following the recs to heart, you are simply limiting yourself unnecessarily. They can serve as a springboard, but clothes are no longer made the same way. If you’re a FN, I would think of things that showed off your strong frame and your verticality, and use that as your shopping guideline, just like I basically use straight, narrow, and a little shrunken when I shop. Everybody was shocked when they saw how David actually dresses FNs now, because it looked so far from the stereotype based on the old recommendations.

      4) David is actually big on boards! He doesn’t have you do a board to express your style, but rather to understand yin/yang, the seasons, etc. A major one he has you do is a board of a dream you have for your life. It sounds a little strange, but his approach is really closest in its heart to something like a Vogue spread or even the runway on RuPaul’s Drag Race–creating a head-to-toe fantasy. He encourages Outfits and discourages mix-and-match. It is great that he has enabled you to open yourself for stardom! That is exactly his point. If people really just want to make it out the door looking more pulled together, but still in 20 minutes or less, I would recommend DYT over Kibbe. I see a lot of people who want that get frustrated with how his system actually works, because he doesn’t give you that list of practical recommendations and instead expects a lot of internal work and understanding.

      Reply
      • cactus gardener
        June 10, 2019 at 11:28 am

        1a) Yes, that is what I was trying to say, don’t get lost in details. It is easy to decide between SN and FN from the overall Yin/Yang balance – either a good amount of Yin is there, or it isn’t. But it must have been more difficult to decide between N or FN, because the difference is more one of degree (Sharp Yang is just another kind of Yang), not overall balance, so you have to go into details for that distinction. An undercurrent is more difficult to detect than a part of the overall balance. In my case, I have a few Sharp Yang features, but I don’t find they’re prominent, and wouldn’t be sure if they were enough to shift me from N to FN. If I have to decide between SN and FN though, it is very clear where I fall. That’s why I wondered if Kibbe wanted to eliminate invitations to get lost in details by no longer using the middle categories; but I don’t remember how the subtypes differ from the main types in C and G, so that’s just a vague guess.

        1b)I totally see what you mean and agree now that different approaches are needed for different people. Sadly, the book is out of reach for most of us. The best advice would of course be to read the whole book before you go online or even try to locate yourself. From many of the discussions and cries for help I got the impression that some people just do the quiz, look at pictures, read mostly over their suspected or desired types if they read at all, sometimes even excluding types they don’t want to be because they don’t like the styles on Pinterest, and ask others for their opinion, without ever having read up on what Yin and Yang exactly mean, and how the balance is composed of bone and flesh. And it often gets mixed up with the style personalities from other systems.

        One of the hugest stumbling blocks must be though that we have to change our definition of what flattering means on each of us. I basically wear exactly those styles now that I was always told were unflattering on me by salespeople, friends, family and style books (although many of those styles I had always felt drawn to and was sad because I thought „everything I like isn’t meant for me“). I can now blindly avoid anything marketed as „flattering every figure“ (I can’t see how these should be made for FNs, because they’re mostly about waist emphasis, like A-lines, wrap dresses, jackets with inbuilt waist etc.). But it took forever until I could really see how unflattering they actually were, because those styles indeed made me look slimmer and more feminine in most cases. That it was off and ridiculous was only obvious to me on photos (and from my feeling self-conscious), but I never guessed the style was wrong. I thought that my body was wrong, that I was wrong as a person, or on better days that the angle of the camera was wrong. Flipping the eye inside out is a process that takes years, not an afternoon and a quiz, and it will not magically happen the moment we find our type and dress it for the first time (I had begun that process some time before Kibbe though, when I decided one day that I would no longer play the game and see what more interesting silhouettes I could create without the requirements «slim» and «feminine». One of the most gorgeous silhouettes I discovered is actually a huge oval! Basically faking a tummy instead of curves. So hilarious). But people also seem to rule out body types for themselves because they tried the style recs (or have tried those styles in the past) and found them unflattering. As long as we don’t see our bodies objectively and completely detached from beauty ideals, we just can’t see what is flattering either. It’s the flatter-thing that must change.

        (You see, I’m still trying to figure out why it isn’t easy for everyone to locate herself, or at least boil it down to two possible types. While as for colors, I completely understand, this took me almost three years too.)

        2) Okay, got it! I still hadn’t internalized that one-side open height scale.

        3) Well, this wasn’t a competition on which type is rarer than another. I just hardly ever see people as Blunt Yangish as myself, or when I do, they’re men.
        Only a tiny fraction of the population is represented in style system groups, and it stands to reason that mainly those who have the most problems finding clothes and/or the deepest dismay at the perceived strangeness of their bodies would get into style systems (of course, there are other reasons; and of course we all have our specific fitting problems and body image issues). The «average body» used by fashion manufacterers to decide on their patterns and sizing, calculated by computers based on the merging of measurements of thousands of women, would certainly resemble a Classic body (though they normally measure women in their early twenties, here’s where the problems begin already). So you would probably have an underrepresentation of women who happen to be more or less average in height, moderately wide/narrow, moderately proportioned, moderately curvy etc. in style groups. This would certainly skew the stats, and you can’t assume that the frequencies of the types would be the same in the whole population.

        Patterns aren’t made to fit models, but based on above mentioned calculations of an average body. It’s more the other way round, these models are chosen because they’re used (or abused) as clothes hangers in 2D (this helps manufacterers avoid expensive tailoring or taking curves into account, that’s true). I believe that the information «most models are FN» might actually be outdated. 80ies and 90ies supermodels sure were that, but today’s models are leggy teenagers, a far cry from Naomi Campbell. At that age it’s probably not yet possible to determine body type. Growth isn’t finished, hormones haven’t done their transformation thing yet. If they have muscle, it’s at least not visible. Their bones and shoulders can’t be called wide anymore. Or it’s just photoshop (then it’s no use to know they’re FNs, if we can’t see them as they really are).
        Afterthought: since my eye flipped the flattering-thing around, I can actually see how unflattering some garments are on models!

        Length is not my main problem (I have that sometimes for tops too), my bottleneck is the width of back and shoulder (and then yards of loose fabric in front and around the lower torso), tight sleeves and claustrophobic necklines, the same way as I can’t put my hand in a «one size fits all» glove or my head in a «one size fits all» beanie. I have been underweight for a few years and wore what would be a US size 18 for tops at the time. The ribs stuck out, but that shoulder didn’t go away. Back at normal weight (a weight difference that would suggest at least 3 sizes up) I’m at 20. No matter how much I weigh, the shoulder and upper arm defines it all. Most stores/brands in my country used to carry sizes 4 (I believe) to 14, only occasional items in larger.Some went to 16 or 18, but more expensive and often not the full range either. (Of course, in the expensive boutiques it’s probably different). Still, the average woman here wears 14 or 16, which basically means: even average women can’t shop in average stores. They often carry French, Italian and Spanish brands too, where the sizing is even smaller. While with Scandinavian brands I wear everything from M to XL. I must admit that it’s been a few years since I went into an actual store though. Hopefully this has changed in the meantime.
        (You can imagine how long it took me to realize that I’m not fat! I still didn’t get it when I lost a third of my weight and my clothes didn’t become lose enough to justify a new wardrobe… I didn’t get it either when my physician asked me if I were into body building, which I wasn’t. Maybe I should be!)

        3) Yeeah, I’m shocked! http://www.davidkibbe.org/before-after—archives-2pgs.html
        Lol. Indeed.
        No, I don’t follow the recs strictly. I don’t want cooking recipes. Creativity I’m not lacking, I lacked technical knowledge about bodies and clothing (I never was into fashion). The recs just help me to understand how to spot garments that highlight my actual shape, and avoid those that fake another shape. To reverse the brainwash. Lots of the recs just gave me permission to do what I always wanted to do: that, emphasize the large frame. Rec fabrics, patterns etc. are what I feel naturally drawn to. But how many times have I heard «don’t wear that textured knit, it adds to your bulk». I always wanted a sporty swimsuit with a racerback, but was talked into more womanly styles with optical illusion curves that should «soften» me. It helps me to have limits too, similar as with color, there are just certain styles I know now I don’t even have to try on. And I understand now exactly WHY some things work and others don’t, the mechanics behind. Priceless. No matter how much lycra, I still want all my clothes to sit lose (but not too lose either, comfort and practicality are always first and foremost for me). Too bad, but I probably wouldn’t wear that blue dress! (Maybe she said that too before she put it on?!)

        4) Good! I still do some boards. I have the working wardrobe now, but that’s not yet a style, really. I want to overthink my style in other areas of life too, while I’m at it. And yet, I first had to fix those very 20-minute-stuff problems before I could proceed elsewhere.

        Reply
        • Silverroxen
          June 10, 2019 at 7:15 pm

          “most models are FN» might actually be outdated. 80ies and 90ies supermodels sure were that, but today’s models are leggy teenagers, a far cry from Naomi Campbell. At that age it’s probably not yet possible to determine body type. ”

          What current models do you know that are teenagers? Gigi Hadid (who is 24) is one that I see that is compared to an FN.

          Reply
          • stylesyntax
            June 10, 2019 at 11:11 pm

            There are a lot of teenage models who are not famous, although some designers are now making a push to have stricter age cutoffs for their shows. But Gigi, Kendall Jenner, etc.–I would be shocked if they are not FN.

          • cactus gardener
            June 11, 2019 at 8:24 am

            Hi Silverroxen and Vanessa, yes, I was thinking of the majority of anonymous models we see in catalogues, magazines and adds, not celebs. They have become narrower, skinnier and younger from decade to decade, although the trend might be changing right now, ever so slowly (or there are different trends existing side by side – like Insta models, who are very curvy, though rarely naturally so).

          • stylesyntax
            June 11, 2019 at 11:23 pm

            Remember that FN also has sharp yang. They can be quite narrow, with some width in their bone structure that creates the strong frame. There is going to be a range in each Image ID. There are basically as many ways to get to width + vertical as there are FNs.

        • stylesyntax
          June 10, 2019 at 11:04 pm

          FNs can totally emphasize their waist. There is the idea that only yin people have waists and should show them off. This is incorrect! Wrap dresses are a very N thing to me. Think of the Studio 54 looks. Totally stunning on an FN. SNs look great in them, too. I knew this one woman, who ended up going to be Kibbe and typed as SN, wasn’t a FG when she posted a picture of herself looking absolutely amazing in a basic jersey wrap dress. Certain things may not be great on you, as an individual–but that doesn’t mean that no one else in your Image ID can pull them off.

          If you are only seeing men who are as blunt yang as you, I think you need to realize that you are just your unique self, not what all FNs look like. There are a TON of women who are FNs and SNs. And yes, even today, runway models are still absolutely FNs. If you’re a teenager on the runway, you are tall enough to be on that runway, and thus you will be FN or D (SD, I have found, tends to dominate among plus-sized models). My sister is 19, and I could definitely tell from the age that models start their runway careers that she would be either FN or SD. FN creates the frame for clothes to hang off of–as you said, be clothes hangers. They may be very skinny, but they are still that. In fact, FN and SN are really the current standard of beauty. What people now think of as “curvy” is really the kind of curves within a strong frame that you see in FN and SN. (This is why it confuses me when no one in the community wants to be N!)

          I don’t think it’s true that patterns are based on Cs. Fit models are chosen for their measurements, not their yin/yang balance, and you can have a “balanced” figure by the numbers without being anywhere near a C–I always have, as an FG. And my point really has nothing to do with the patterns that are made; it is that women who are SNs or FNs have bone structures that frame clothes well, and thus require less structure, so the clothes are cheaper to produce tend to favor these women heavily. If you go to cheap stores, sometimes the clothes will only flatter someone who has a frame for days.

          The fact is, women generally have issues regarding their appearance. I don’t think that it is that women who have issues seek out things like Kibbe, because I think regardless of what you look like, you have some kind of resistance to your Image ID. For me, it wasn’t finding stuff that fit/flattered me; it was understanding what my adult style would look like. I find that what I see in the groups generally aligns with the general population of women. Kibbe goes over the resistance that comes into play for each Image ID: if you’re tall, you want to be short. If you’re lush, you want to be straight or athletic. If you’re totally symmetrical and balanced, you’re afraid of looking boring. And so on and so forth. As an FN, you see the women who don’t look like you and the clothes that don’t work for you before anything else. That doesn’t mean that FNs themselves or rare, or that FNs have a harder time generally (again, if you are at the more extreme end of the bell curve for height, or width, it will be an issue, but it doesn’t mean that FNs who are closer to average will have that issue–and they DO exist!).

          And when that woman was preparing to go see Kibbe (this was many years ago)–everyone thought she was a R! They saw her curves and sweet face and didn’t understand that she was actually a very yang woman.

          The thing with Kibbe is that you don’t take a group of women and compare them to one another. You look at the individual as a whole in isolation, and look at her compared to herself.

          Reply
          • cactus gardener
            June 11, 2019 at 9:05 am

            The core of the FN recs is shoulder and vertical emphasis. Whenever a horizontal below the shoulder is emphasized, the vertical is destroyed, the shoulder gone. That goes especially for belts, or color blocking with separates. (There are no belt recs for N and FN at all, and for SN it says: if worn.) A wrap dress won’t do the damage in an equally harsh way and may still work, depending on what kind of wrap dress. Still, the eye will be drawn to the waist, and no matter how beautiful that waist is, it will compromise the vertical somewhat and totally dim the shoulder.
            We’re still free to do whatever we want, but waist emphasis simply isn’t an FN look by definition.
            While waist emphasis – always lose – is one of the cornerstones of SN recs. So yes, it is an N look, but not FN.

            Now that I’ve learned that it’s not a requirement to be tall for FN, I’ll watch out. Maybe I will suddenly spot more of them. I also think that proportion really affects the overall impression a lot (as well as other things, like pyhsical work etc.). An FN with short torso and long legs will never look as sturdy as I do, no matter her width.
            (I must add that “sturdy” is a wholly positive word for me. I love sturdy animals, sturdy people, sturdy shoes, sturdy design in about everything – but you have to come to terms with the fact that for most people sturdy means fat, just as curvy means fat, and that they consider fat the worst thing. That’s what I meant by Fat Distortion earlier on. Many curvy women also believe their curves are bad fat, until they learn otherwise, and they get the same message from stores as I did.)

            I’m glad to be N. I tried to remember which type I would have liked to be when I was young. It’s funny to realize that I hadn’t a clear idea. I wanted something from all the types, like being tall and petite, curvy and boyish, skinny and athletic, funky and traditional, cute and authoritative, all the opposites at the same time. I also realized that I never hated my body when I was alone, but only felt uncomfortable around other women. The difficulty to find clothes was certainly the biggest factor for low self-esteem, because those stores basically told me that I was an alien. If someone had given me Metamorphosis at age 25 and I would have had a free wish, I’m still quite sure that I would have chosen N, both for the body type (described in such a positive way!) and the recs. It aligns perfectly well with personality and lifestyle, then and now.

          • stylesyntax
            June 11, 2019 at 11:20 pm

            Well, it depends what you consider “waist emphasis” to be. The key is to not be too dogmatic about it. Some people took it to mean that you could never show the waist, and that a TR and a R always have to. Neither is true! The idea of the horizontal being destroyed is quite difficult, because it’s just there. The key would just be to make sure that you are accommodating your vertical and making use of your shoulder line. You can wear separates of different colors! You can wear a belt (although Kibbe does not recommend creating a waist in a dress where there isn’t one with a belt). (And as an FG I can wear a monochromatic outfit as well and don’t have to colorblock all the time. He is big on connecting color anyway, and I never think of what he recommends as “colorblocking” to begin with.) These are old, old ideas that, as someone who gets new info from David pretty much daily on Facebook, I know do not hold water. An FN’s waist could not possibly dim their T shape, lol, if the outfit is still structured around the T silhouette. In the old days, when clothes were made very differently, you had to be more careful. Now, things are much more open. It is about maintaining the yin/yang balance in the head-to-toe look. I hope you reconsider your stance on Facebook and join Strictly Kibbe and the Strictly Kibbe Flamboyant Natural Group, because David teaches us so much.

          • cactus gardener
            June 12, 2019 at 9:13 am

            I certainly don’t want to promote dogmatism! Maybe I underestimate the difficulty translating 80ies fashion into current fashion for younger people. I think for those of us who remember the shoulder pads, outrageous colors and strange fabrics from first hand experience, this is really not an issue at all. As I said, I find the body types and the recs timeless (overall, not in some details) and absolutely intuitive, once you have understood the technical part intellectually – don’t get lost in details either when it comes to recs of course. But the recs still make sense. So I won’t ever compromise on the shoulder line when buying a new top, waist line is secondary. And yes, being among the mix & match fans (even that is in the recs!, but if it weren’t, I’d do it anyway), of course I wear tops and bottoms of different colors all the time, but I’d still make sure to reestablish the vertical in case it’s compromised (which it will be with a solid white top and black bottom, except if the hemline is «fuzzy» or diagonal etc.), by adding shoes that match the top, or wearing a long jacket over the combo, or a necklace that echoes vaguely the pattern of the pant, whatever.
            It’s not that I use the recs as a checklist when shopping or putting an outfit together. I filtered the essence of the recs on the whole and stored this in my brain (I can’t really explain this, but to me it feels like every part of the recs blends into something totally organic – it’s really as if somebody had explained my body to me, and most of the old fitting problems just disappeared). When I try on a garment I ordered or a new outfit combination, I actually close my eyes and walk around for a few minutes first before I look in the mirror, to check how it feels. It happened in the beginning that I bought something that didn’t feel exactly like me with closed eyes, but then I was seduced by the mirror (because it just looked good, or also because it was so rec-conform…) and bought it anyway. These are the things that didn’t get worn much, and now I know better. That’s how intuitively I go about it. It’s not dogmatic to use the recs, I understand them as a starter kit/exercise tool until you’re able to see and feel your lines blindly.
            Thanks for the invitation to FB – yes, I’m so so so tempted every now and then! Trouble is, I have so many interests that I would end up in a hundred groups within the week. It requires just too much discipline when you work in a home office, so I prefer to forgo social media… Maybe one weak afternoon I’ll cave in, haha!

          • stylesyntax
            June 17, 2019 at 6:05 pm

            Yes, that is a good way to think of them–like a starter kit. I, too, just have really absorbed the idea of how the FG yin/yang balance translates into clothing, and shop intuitively.

            A lot of people have joined Facebook just for this. We have a whole network of groups, which can be time-consuming. I definitely understand the pain of trying to concentrate when you work from home.

      • Silverroxen
        June 10, 2019 at 6:10 pm

        “It’s probably rare for very petite women, but women in the more-or-less average range (~5’3″-5’5″) should not start with just the “short” types in mind unless those are the ones that actually make the most sense for them”

        This is true for me, I’m  4’11, so the Dramatic/Flmaboyant types were eliminated first lol.

        ” 4) David is actually big on boards! He doesn’t have you do a board to express your style, but rather to understand yin/yang, the seasons, etc. A major one he has you do is a board of a dream you have for your life. It sounds a little strange, but his approach is really closest in its heart to something like a Vogue spread or even the runway on RuPaul’s Drag Race–creating a head-to-toe fantasy. He encourages Outfits and discourages mix-and-match.

        This sounds fascinating! I might have to try this out.

        Regarding #3, I’m just now getting beyond the recommendations. I know how SG lines look, but when I buy clothes I tend to go for Gamine lines, which isn’t a part of the system anymore, so I don’t think I know how to truly express my Yin/Yang balance. This might be due to me still experiencing some resistance with my Image ID. I found tje chapter “Exploring Resistance to your Image ID” online and I often find myself rereading it.

        Also, I’ve always felt stumped on the head to toe approach because I mostly dress by throwing an outfit together, not planning it. Along with that I seldom wore accessories, aside from earrings and SG requires a lot of detail, same with makeup (which I’m still learning).

        *This isn’t in chronological order, but in order of my reaction lol.

        Reply
        • stylesyntax
          June 10, 2019 at 11:14 pm

          For David, the head-to-toe starts when you’re shopping. So like, if you’re shopping for a big event, you start with something and then build the entire outfit around it. I actually do find Fashion Photo Ruview, a Youtube series that reviews the outfits on Drag Race, to be really helpful for understanding this concept because the commentators go through the outfit and what works and what doesn’t, and talk about how different pieces work together.

          I don’t wear a lot of accessories as an FG. In fact, I find that necklaces don’t work for me at all, for instance–same reason why long hair doesn’t work on me. Distracts from my face. I will maybe wear earrings and that’s it. Don’t be fooled by the way other people present SG. It’s not busy busy busy.

          Reply
          • Silverroxen
            June 20, 2019 at 8:54 pm

            I have trouble with necklaces as well. The main reason being that I’m ticklish and I always have trouble adjusting them.

             The two neckaleces I bought from Forever 21:
            https://www.forever21.com/us/shop/catalog/product/f21/women-new-arrivals/1000374942
            https://www.forever21.com/us/shop/catalog/product/f21/app-main/1000316833

            The jokes on me though for looking to others for advice on jewelry. What seems to be the only necklace recommended for SGs is “big, bright beads” like the representation for SG in the book.

            I have found a pair of fun bead bracelets. Bangles are next on the list. I don’t know if this works, but I have been considering chokers.

          • stylesyntax
            June 22, 2019 at 12:45 am

            I’d just look at an outfit and see what works…

  6. Barbie
    November 18, 2019 at 4:57 pm

    I’m really confused by this test and it’s just seems like my type does not exist..
    I’m 5’7 which is 170 cm and I look like my height.
    I’d say my face is quite yang, kinda Cindy Crawford-like. My upper body is a lot smaller compared to my bottom which is more heavy with everything (bones, muscles, flesh) so it’s a lot wider.. i gain weight first at my hips and tights and I loose weight at that part of my body the last. I have quite long legs and arms compared to the torso and I’m quite busty and have flat stomach and very thin waist. So my figure is in between hourglass and pear shape i have strong bones, muscles but feminine curves and flesh. Pretty much like a flamboyant natural but not inverted triangle but normal. I took several tests it says I’m TR… which i don’t think is right for me. If you have any ideas please feel free to help a girl out!! Xoxo

    Reply
    • stylesyntax
      November 18, 2019 at 5:13 pm

      David says that if you think you’re TR, but you’re over 5’5”, there is a good chance you’re SD. 🙂

      Reply
      • Barbie
        November 18, 2019 at 5:20 pm

        Ahww thanks for the quick answer! I like that type a lot!

        Reply

Leave a Reply to Sara Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.