ISFJFashion_Love


























  1. Megan has a proportionally narrower ribcage and shoulders and a longer torso. Megan looks at least as tall if not taller than Dua in isolation even though Dua is about 4 inches taller. Megan is shorter waisted. All of these things affect how clothes drape on you which is the whole basis for the Kibbe system.

  2. Their bone structure especially the shoulders are very similar to me

  3. I don't think Dolly is a good representative for that, the woman's tiny. Pure Romantics, unlike their Theatrical cousins though don't need to look very petite; they can look more moderate like imo MM & Beyoncé (also Emma Samms) do.

  4. Am I able to ask a someone who is still debating between TR and pure Romantic, what do you mean by TRs looking very petite is this in height?

  5. She also to me looks too square for TR and sort of has more of a cheeky pixie vibe to her, I see FG

  6. I thought maybe she was a Soft Natural or Soft Dramatic with Dramatic essence? But not too sure

  7. I like Freddy Cousin Brown, Marilyn Monroe (non glam which I know sounds weird), Ariana Grande's pink looks.

  8. I feel like you'd be in some secret club in a teen/kids movie, like a secret witch. I feel like you would be the one that wasn't told about their powers and has to find out.

  9. Looking at these pictures, I was thinking FG. “Broadly angular” seemed to fit and I think some of the sharper lines look nice on her. But idk! The broadness of her shoulders really stands out to me, and the other option that crossed my mind was FN, although she doesn’t seem to have much vertical. If it still existed I would consider pure N. She doesn’t actually seem particularly soft to me.

  10. She isn't mixed though, she is solidly one thing, kind of has a pronounced square bone structure and then curves, she is just squares and circles, not enough going on for Gamine imo.

  11. Agreed! I was looking at pictures of her at a lower weight also and I don’t really see much bluntness but idk. She also clearly works out so I think her muscle definition is contributing to people thinking she is SN. She could be SN but I kind of think she shines in more angular looks like 1, 2, 4, 6, and 10. In my opinion those are more DC lines than SN but I could see how they could work for SN as well. Anyway she is gorgeous whatever her Kibbe type.

  12. It's not so much that she blunt, but her bones are more prominant than curves, she is not sharp, she is not mixed, she is not balanced, and she has softness, as a whole picture she can only really be SN.

  13. I think people focus far too much on how small or not small someone’s waist is when compared to their bust and hips when it’s pretty irrelevant concept in Kibbe.

  14. to me, you look like you have to accommodate vertical, so probably not TR 🤔

  15. Sorry just feel like no one ever says TR, its so gate kept it is unreal, but the moment someone is yang dominant they say TR it is ridiculous.

  16. finally, thanks for agreeing with me that Ni is superstition

  17. All the Ni people I know, including my self are not superstitious, opposite to the Si who went on to not talk to me for 3 weeks for challenging it. I don't think it should be type related, and especially not to Ni because the whole point of Ni is seeing the bigger picture, not narrowmindedness, or having a personal belief that cannot be challenged. That is more in the domain of fi; but seeing how many fi self-type as ni-dom, specifically infj, it is easy to see how that misconception may arise.

  18. Yeah I think INxFJ ISxP tend to be very supisticious and big picture the world is doomed types soooometimes.

  19. David Kibbe has recommended 1940’s glam for TR and SD. at least that’s what I’ve seen other mention. And shoulder pads were an OG TR recommendation in his book in the 80’s. And I get major TR vibes from 80’s glamour shots. No clue if that’s still relevant but that’s why I placed them there. But I’m not a Kibbe expert and I don’t pretend to be so really it’s just my opinion which doesn’t have to be taken too seriously.

  20. Ahh okay, I guess 1940s glam is completely different now that I look at it. I think I would suit that. I probably need to look at more 80s stuff.

  21. 1920’s: D, FG 1930’s:SC, DC 1940’s: SD, TR, SC 1950’s: R, SG 1960’s: SG, FG, DC 1970’s: FN, SN 1980’s: FN, TR, SD 1990’s: FG 2000’s: SN

  22. Obvs I know this is just for fun so just saying this in a lighthearted way, but as a TR I feel I would look awful in 80s, everything is so baggy and big

  23. I’m thinking mostly about like 80’s glamour shots honestly lol. And celebrities like Morgan Fairchild, Joan collins and Morgan Brittany. But I get your point, fashion was kinda all over the place in the 80’s

  24. aaah cool, I was just imagining myself with that big hair and was like, naaah lol!

  25. I see no one has suggested TR yet. I feel like she’s very soft and delicate in bone structure, yin undercurrent, but slightly elongated. But I could be missing some G giveaways?

  26. It's like people completely ignore the fact that one of Kibbe's main examples of TR is Vivian Leigh, a woman who is petitie and soft, very narrow shoulders definetly a neat hourglass figure, but she definetly doesn't look extremely curvy, and neither do any of Kibbe's real examples. They are not very sharp either, just narrow.

  27. This is such a great post!! I’m a TR too and I basically quit this subreddit because of the misinformation (and erasure) of our type. There is sooo much false gatekeeping about TRs being traditionally “curvy” when it really isn’t about that at all!

  28. Thank you for saying this is a good post, I am glad that you agree.Yeah TRs are very specific type, a type that is mostly misunderstood especially because there is not as many people (celebs) who are TR, until you come on here and everyone is one of course lol.

  29. I think TR's look between average and small generally, I don't think they can really give the illusion of height in person.

  30. Not in real life, but perhaps due to their narrowness maybe from certain camera angles, but not in person.

  31. “It’s not like some people have extremely narrow shoulders like a cartoon”.

  32. I just mean, it's over used in the Kibbe community, and that most people don't have really narrow shoulders. I am a TR, my shoulder are pretty narrow tbh but I bet on her I'd still be typed as SN.

  33. Your theory is very interesting! I’m always for new ways to explain the width mystery. But I’m afraid it doesn’t work for some celebrities.

  34. heya awww thanksI think width is a thing, but what I am trying to say is that it is used too much for typing and the shape of the bones perhaps should be taken into consideration than sort of scanning people for are their shoulders width

  35. TR's are narrow, narrow limbs, narrow shoulders, narrow hands and feet. Think of an oval, in that isn't as wide as a circle (Romantic), but it is not sharp.TR's no matter what weight will be narrow in their bones and frame. Curves are the thing people always type themselves as TR with, they hear curvy and think that is what defines TR when actuallity, TR's are a narrow hourglass meaning their curves are very small, large hips are rare as their frame is narrow and doesn't therefor accomidate for larger hips. I think this is the very reason Salma Hayek is the most unique TR, and I think shouldn't be used as an example too often due to that.Romantics will be soft, Dramatics will be sharp

  36. Women’s bodies do go “in and out” of fashion, that’s something we can sadly both agree on. There are also not that many pure R actresses today—simply because pure yin hasn’t been “in style” for a while, some would say even since the 50s. SNs, FNs and SD are more or less the desired combination of yin and yang in Hollywood today, as it usually means a yang bone structure with either conventional or kibbe curve, or sometimes both. This isn’t to say that pure R actresses don’t exist or can’t succeed in Hollywood, Emilia Clarke is a potential R for example, just that they’re not that many, especially if you want them to play an iconic person like Marilyn. Marilyn’s proportions were also very special in that most other verified romantics had a more softly defined hourglass, that’s not as dramatic as Marilyn’s. If you were to try and cast a celebrity to play Marilyn from the verified romantics list, I think you’d also really struggle to find someone that has her proportions and looks similar enough to her in the face. This is why I don’t blame the casting directors, as I don’t think neither you nor I can find a Marilyn body double that’s also a pure R, fits the height requirement and has curves like Marilyn. That’s if we didn’t even consider the acting aspect, and went off of purely appearance…which isn’t exactly what you want when casting for a film, because looks aren’t everything and acting ability is very important to consider as well. Even if we were to time travel back to the 50s or something, I still don’t think we can find a Marilyn body double in the street, because again, Marilyn’s figure isn’t that achievable for most romantics, even though she’s the prime example. Also, even though being a pure Rs isn’t as popular in Hollywood as it used to, I don’t think this means that there are less pure Rs today IRL…just that they probably wouldn’t fit the requirements to be a “perfect” Marilyn, for some at least.

  37. I see where this has come from but this isn't an example of uper body V shape. They are just shoulders, eveeeeryone has that, her waist is defined by the dress so it is giving a certain look. But the shoulders are not broad or squared. So you could get an example of a FN with this dress and still focus on their shoulders because they are square.

  38. No matter what her height is, she has far far too much yang to be Tr. Nothing even close to TR.

  39. Personally, I see Jade as a SN. What are your thoughts after seeing this comparison?

Leave a Reply

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

Author: admin