Rihanna Kibbe ‘Body Type’: Why She’s NOT a Theatrical Romantic

If you’re wondering what’s Rihanna Kibbe image identity this post will explain why she’s not a Theatrical Romantic

What is Rihanna’s Kibbe ‘body type’? Understanding why she’s not a Theatrical Romantic can help you understand your own image ID better.

Note: I’m not a Kibbe expert (only David Kibbe is – he doesn’t offer certifications or authorizations for anyone to practice his method). I’m a humble learner with a passion for sharing useful information. I follow only David Kibbe’s teachings and find them valuable.

Kibbe’s Metamorphosis isn’t about ‘body types’ – it’s about image identities. This post is for those who are researching Kibbe system and want to know whether Rihanna is an example of a Theatrical Romantic (TR). There’s been a lot of information about Rihanna being typed as Kibbe TR – she’s used as an example of TR and her features are being analyzed as TR, allegedly relying on that David Kibbe himself typed her a TR.

A few words on celebrity typings here: they aren’t helpful as much as many YouTubers and bloggers would make you believe. Celebrities often lie about their height and measurements, not to mention the amount of plastic surgery they’re having. Even if Kibbe typed Rihanna as a TR, it means he was unaware of how she looks like in real life – that’s all. David Kibbe never recommends using celebrity image IDs as reliable source of infomation.

Celebrity image ID identification is fun unless you compare yourself to them. The real question you need to find an answer to is not how many A’s or D’s you got answering the Kibbe quiz, but your place on the Yin-Yang scale. To do that, I consider the quiz still valuable for understanding what Yin and Yang features are, but focusing on the quiz probably won’t give you all the answers.

I made a whole post about Yin and Yang meaning in Kibbe that explains why it doesn’t mean masculine vs feminine and how to differentiate between Yin and Yang.

So why can’t Rihanna be a TR?

This all starts with height – she’s simply too tall to be a TR. TR are on the Yin-prevalent side of the Yin-Yang spectrum and, as you probably know, Yin means softness, roundness, and shortness. Self-proclaimed Kibbe ‘experts’ would probably tell you quoting Kibbe’s Metamorphosis book that ‘one feature shouldn’t throw off your image ID’ and this quote truly exists, however NOT in relation to height. I’ll explain why not.

Think about a tall person. Tallness in Kibbe = Yang. Let’s take Taylor Swift (who, in fact, is a pure Dramatic). She’s 178cm tall (5’11”). Tallness means having a lot of other Yang features. Can she have such height and then short arms and legs, small and delicate hands and feet, short flesh on upper arms and thighs, etc? Certainly not – her limbs will be proportionate to her body length, same as her arms and feet and flesh on her bones. This comes naturally because a human body isn’t a math formula (or body geometry) to have a mixture of features that don’t belong to one another. So along with tallness a person gets a great deal of Yang.

David Kibbe is very clear on the overall bone structure of TR, saying that it’s  ‘Small and delicate. Slightly sharp edges (shoulders, jawline, cheekbones, or nose). Small hands and feet (in proportion to height). Facial bones are small, delicate, and slightly sharp‘. I’m quoting his book, which I still consider a legitimate source for overall guidance to his system, even though he’s changed his system quite a bit since it was published.

Now let’s take a look at what Kibbe says a TR will not be:

  • be extremely tall
  • have large or wide bones
  • have large hands and feet
  • have extremely prominent facial bones or features
  • have small, narrow eyes, and thin or straight lips
  • have a boyishly straight figure devoid of a defined waist

Rihanna is reportedly 173cm tall (5’8”) – that’s considerably more than 5’5” that Kibbe says is the approximate height limit for TR image ID.

What do we have? A tall Rihanna (in many regions of the world she’d even be considered very tall), with a long gorgeous vertical line, with a lot of Yang in her, but at the same time she has a bit of Yin which is obvious – soft lips and cheeks, a bit wide and rounded nose, etc. Her eyes are more narrow than round, they are exotic and prominent. Her waist isn’t completely straight, but it isn’t very defined either (see images below):

bad gal RiRi.jpg

Her hands and feet are proportionate to her height and bone structure – elongated and a bit wide:


The truth is in the pudding, my friends: Rihanna isn’t a TR, because she’s everything that Kibbe says a TR won’t be. If we’re analyzing her following Kibbe, then she isn’t a TR. If she’s called by someone a TR, this has no relation to Kibbe at all.

So what Image ID does Rihanna belong to? 

That’s a question that only Rihanna herself and David Kibbe would be able to answer with 100% confidence. Kibbe’s system is designed so that every person can determine their image ID themselves.

In Kibbe’s system, people with moderate height or short height can have a long vertical. However, being tall automatically means having a long vertical, meaning that Rihanna could belong to the ‘tall’ image IDs like Flamboyant Natural, Dramatic, or Soft Dramatic.

In my opinion, saying that Rihanna is a TR is ridiculous if you’ve seen her real unedited pictures or seen her on stage (even on videos). Her Yin-Yang balance contains a lot of Yang – way too much to put her in TR image ID. To make her, for instance, a Soft Dramatic – maybe, but never a TR. If anyone tells you otherwise, they have no clue about what Kibbe’s Yin and Yang are all about. Take a look at her in the pink outfit above – the thin soft fabric and soft gathers just look not enough for her, because it doesn’t correspond with her natural Yin-Yang balance. 

Hopefully this post will further clarify Yin and Yang for you as well as remove one serious misconception about Kibbe’s system.

See you in my next post!

If you’d like to get notified every time I post, subscribe to my blog below. Quality of my content is very important to me and the only way I’ll develop this blog is by contantly improving it. I sincerely appreciate every subscriber and will deliver the best posts.


More on Kibbe image IDs:

Soft Natural vs Romantic in Kibbe System w/Examples

Soft Gamine vs Theatrical Romantic in Kibbe System w/Examples

How I actually use Kibbe’s system w/examples

How I got to know & love Kibbe’s Metamorphosis: My story (feat. ‘Soft Gamine syndrome’)

Meaning of Yin and Yang in Kibbe theory

5 Reasons why you struggle to find your image identity in Kibbe’s system

Height in Kibbe: why Taylor Swift, Lily Cole, and Zendaya aren’t Gamine

What Kibbe gets right and the ‘fruit body types’ get wrong

The philosophy in Kibbe’s system

Author: Alexandra @YouAndMeAndCupOfCoffee.com

Passionate researcher and writer. Coffee maniac. Pilates enthusiast. Makeup and skincare junkie. Occasionally - movie and book reviewer. Come join me on my quest!

19 thoughts on “Rihanna Kibbe ‘Body Type’: Why She’s NOT a Theatrical Romantic”

  1. Rihanna is on his verified list of celebrities as a Theatrical Romantic. He said that her height is reported as being much taller than she actually is. Just check his FB Group.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Thank you for commenting! I’ve addressed this point in the post – about that Rihanna is on his list, however I also explained why I stand for Kibbe’s statement that guessing celebrity image IDs is nothing but a ‘parlour game’. In case of Rihanna and her height as well as her overall body line, I’d suggest you check out any of her live performances, desirably alongside other celebrities. For instance, here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VnQ8tZosP0 she signs alongside Britney Spears, who’s a SN and reportedly 163cm – you see that Riri is so much taller than Britney. I’d never publish a post without verifying every detail and every fact. The only two sources I trust are David Kibbe’s teachings (through the FB group) as well as blog of one of the group’s admins Style Syntax. I checked the posts by Style Syntax before posting this and coincidentally found that she mentioned Rihanna too, check 3rd paragraph here http://stylesyntax.com/blog/2019/11/28/does-david-kibbe-contradict-himself/
      My motivation for publishing this post, as I’ve mentioned in the post and I’m sure you’ve read it, was that I saw many videos comparing Riri to Halle Berry as TR vs SG, which I found extremely confusing for Rihanna’s body line and Yin-Yang balance is WAY off the TR image ID ‘recipe’. Hope it answers your concerns! Have an awesome day ahead!

      Liked by 1 person

  2. I can see where you’re coming from but I still think Rihanna is a theatrical romantic. I think it would be more accurate to compare people within the same race and ethnic groups. People of the African diaspora tend to have more yang features and for someone who is of African descent she has a more delicate features. I saw you compared Halle Berry but she is African American while Rihanna is Caribbean and their features are usually very different.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Thank you for your comment – you’ve brought an excellent point up! Let me address everything in order.
      Firstly, I’ve never compared RiRi to Halle Berry – why would I do that if I already see a flaw in the video’s representation and analysis of Kibbe system and these women’s features? I merely mentioned that they got compared in some YouTube video and it struck me as unbelievable that someone would make such a comparison at all, and it motivated me to write this post.
      Second and MOST IMPORTANT: in Kibbe system, you shouldn’t compare anyone to anyone else. The whole point of the system is to determine each individual’s place on the Yin-Yang scale and this then becomes the basis for building a wardrobe, creating outfits, etc.
      Third: Kibbe is as universal as it gets and it’s true that some regions or ethnic groups will have more people in specific categories due to maybe being taller or shorter or the bone structure. If you check the data on the average female height in the Caribbean (as you suggest it’s important to ‘measure’ Rihanna to) then you’d see that it’s 15cm SHORTER than our gal Riri – 159cm (see data here). It simply shows that even in her ethnic group Rihanna is on the taller side. As for ‘delicate’ features I simply refuse to dwell on such an offensive argument and even the idea of that some ethnicities have generally more ‘delicate’ features than others is an ignorant generalization that diminishes whole ethnic groups, refutes the idea that every type of feminine beauty is equally valid and can be proud of it. The myths about Theatrical Romantic and Soft Dramatic being the most feminine image IDs are making women desire to be in those categories and think less of their own beauty. The idea that some image IDs are more feminine than others makes women in other categories feel that they aren’t ‘enough’ to be feminine because they aren’t delicate or hourglass or something… I’d never agree with any generalization like this. Once again, I completely reject the idea of comparing anyone to anyone else in Kibbe – it’s simply preposterous and goes against the whole Kibbe system that celebrates individuality and unique beauty of everyone. I’ll stand by that 100% of the time because I see real value there. I see only negative value in generalizing whole etnic groups like that, in trying to promote these myths, in trying to squeeze beautifully tall people into image IDs that celebrate petiteness among many other things!
      The image identities will never be all equally represented in each region or ethnic group and that’s the whole point – celebrating YOUR unique beauty and not comparing yourself to others (be it other people in your region/ethnic group or celebs). And a practical question: if the assumption that everyone’s descent should be taken into account while determining the image ID, how would you do it with someone 50:50 Caribbean and African descent? I’m not even talking about people of very mixed descent and ALL the possible genotypes and ethnicities.
      In my opinion, the beauty of Kibbe’s method is that it can be applied to everyone and it’s equally easy for everyone – it doesn’t discriminate or makes it harder for someone just because of their descent (this would be borderline discrimination from where I stand because everyone should be given equal opportunities here, equal resources, and equal access to the value that any system provides!).
      Another important point in Kibbe is not focusing on each feature in particular, but learning to the body as a whole – this is what I’ve learned from Kibbe’s method and it makes all the sense in the world.
      Finally, I’m not trying to change anyone’s mind! My goal is simply to clarify an obvious error that prevents people from using Kibbe’s system correctly. If a person promotes the ideas of tall Soft Gamines or tall Theatrical Romantics, it is clear as day that they don’t understand the basic concepts of Kibbe’s system. I comment exclusively is Kibbe’s system as he explains it – not anyone else’s ‘version’ of Kibbe’s system. I believe Kibbe’s system works only if you understand the Yin and Yang, otherwise it doesn’t function. Being tall as Rihanna automatically makes a person Yang-dominated, while Theatrical Romantics are Yin-dominated with a slight Yang undercurrent. To see this, you need merely to look at celebs who are on the list as TR – Susan Slavin, Jean Harlow, Vivien Leigh – and think what they have in common (the best would be to see them in film – in motion instead of still images). That’s the delicateness that has to do with being TR, their petiteness and roundness with a tiny bit of sharpness.
      And one more thing I’d like to mention: if you would like to learn about the true Kibbe system I am referring to, then I’d suggest joining Strictly Kibbe Facebook group – I’ve heard an overwhelmingly positive feedback about learning from David Kibbe himself (and for free btw).

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Thank you. I’m West African and kind of still trying to understand the whole Kibbe system. People tend to type the features that any black person has as more yang, and Rihanna is one of the only people I saw that was typed on the yin side. I thought it was almost impossible for her to be anything but a theatrical romantic. and I haven’t seen too many examples of them who are black. I’m a teenager and I’m not allowed to have social media, so I’ve relied on blogs and youtube videos to understand Kibbe’s system. This really interests me so I’ll make sure to look at the Facebook group when I’m allowed to get Facebook. Also, I’m sorry that I was so quick to say that you were wrong. I get too defensive whenever anyone says anything about black people that deals with femininity because I’ve been told I can’t be feminine my whole life.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. Thank you very much for commenting – I appreciate it a lot! I wasn’t offended by your comment at all – please don’t worry about it! I know that the majority of the info online (especially YouTube) is simply not what Kibbe’s system stands for, so this is truly the main motivation for me to write these posts. I think only the true Kibbe’s system can bring value to people – not those fake self-proclaimed ‘experts’ who charge for typings by photos or create videos about ‘makeup for X type’ – this is simply exploitation of his name.
        Feeling defensive is a completely normal reaction, especially if you’ve encountered vile people who had the nerve to tell you that black women can’t be feminine (as I’m writing this, I literally feel my hands shaking with anger). I hope my long response to your comment shed some light on the use of Kibbe’s system as a whole for you. The key thing about Kibbe’s system is that it celebrates femininity in general, while different image IDs reflect different kinds of feminity. I’ve noticed that Yin in Kibbe is often wrongly associated with feminine and Yang with masculine (I wrote about it in my post about the meaning of Yin and Yang in Kibbe), so truly many women subconsiously want to be those Yin-dominated types. This is where the my main issue with these ‘experts’ lies – their wrong ideas make women feel somehow mad about themselves and I wholeheartedly hate it. Like the society and other people don’t bring us down enough – now let’s say that freaking almost all women are masculine, so that they would feel even worse about themselves! But in Kibbe, Yin simply stands for roundness and Yang for angularity – not feminine vs masculine (I don’t know who started this myth, but I’d gladly slap that person, all dramatic movie-like style 😂).
        As for linking ethnicity and Yin/Yang balance, off the top of my head I can give several examples: Jada Pinkett-Smith – she’s 1.52m tall and quite Yin-dominant, Viola Davis also looks Yin-dominant (at least from pictures), and the gorgeous Dorothy Dandridge with quite a lot of Yin too. So there’s no other way to apply Kibbe’s system to anyone except for just focusing on the features of every individual person.
        I think the real power is to accept and love what we have – it brings confidence in being a woman. I feel like Theatrical Romantic is often considered the most feminine or something (same as Soft Dramatic) – this is simply proposterous and not true. I think the most feminine thing is self-acceptance and confidence, being comfortable in your own skin as a woman – not the body shape or measurements. I also think femininity comes in different shapes and forms – for some it’s dressing in a traditionally feminine outfits, for some it’s being nurturing, for some it’s being flirty, for some it’s competing in sports, for some it’s collecting vintage things. But the truth is that it’s never the same for everyone and every woman can (and should) embrace her feminity in her own way. For instance, I adore Rihanna and I think that her experiments with style and the way she carries herself is feminine. I also adore Dita Von Teese (I even made a post about her), her polished style, and the way she carries herself in an elegant yet confident way. For sure these women have one important thing in common – they both embrace their womanhood and they both are comfortable in their own skin, despite that they are so different. Truly, every woman is free to express her femininity the way she wants and every woman has the right to do it. To me, saying that femininity depends on skin color is like the new low and a form of racism. Such people don’t deserve to be listened to or paid attention to – their words are noise that has to be ignored. It’s easier said than done for sure, given all the stereotypes that are being forced on women, but in the long run very much worth the effort. I think that’s what Whitney Houston was singing about in her iconic song ‘I’m Every Woman’ – about that every woman is so different, but we all have that treasure of being feminine, embracing who we are.
        As always, my response is longer than the original post, but I hope I answered your comment to the full. I have a lot of ideas to write about, because the issue of femininity hits home. Thank you for subscribing to my blog and have an awesome day ahead ❤️

        Liked by 1 person

    2. Really? African American women tend to be 5’3″ on average vs White American women 5’5″ according to wiki. So African American women are actually more petite = more yin. I wouldn’t agree that women of African descent have more “coarse” vs “delicate” features either. They have such a varied range of facial features that covers each and every possibility. I think you might be holding on to some old stereotype there. If you want to see Rhianna in concert with other singers like Beyonce (reportedly 5’5″), and Fergie (5’2.5″) she indeed looks to be at least 5’7″ here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBJxmEVqZ40


    3. Race shouldn’t matter its all about how your features relate to each other. For instance saying Africans have yin lips because they are often on the rounder volunous sode is wrong how do the persons lips look on their face in relation to their features? Like it doesn’t matter that one’s lips are bigger and rounder than another’s this is all about proportion. That’s why I still think Rihanna is a TR sure she is taller but she doesn’t have any other yang features I mean her face and body are soft round delicate but I would say because of her height and longer vertical line she can’t be classified as R.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Like we’ve previously agreed with the author of the original comment, Kibbe system is absolutely the same for everyone, independently from race. The misconception about that race has anything to do with image identity definition in Kibbe system comes from ignorant and arrogant ‘stylists’ who don’t understand the system to begin with, but spread these false ideas that are ridiculous.
        I’d like to add that in Kibbe system length=Yang and being tall makes a person Yang-dominated (for the reasons I’ve discussed in the post). TR can’t be tall – too much Yang, I’ve discussed TR in detail in this post https://youandmeandcupofcoffee.com/2020/05/10/soft-gamine-vs-theatrical-romantic-in-kibbe-system-w-examples/ – it is the most narrow and petite image identity that simply can’t have a large amount of Yang, which Rihanna has.
        At the same time, I think the most important thing is that if you feel like the way you intepret this system works 100% for you, then it’s all that matters. It has to serve you and your own needs. My goal is not to try and change anyone’s opinion – it’s to share my own understanding of it and findings.


  3. …about TR’s height… Rita Hayworth was 5’6” or 168cm, Hedy Lamarr was 5’7” or 170cm and Jaclyn Smith is 5’7” or 170cm 😉 so Rihanna is not too tall to be a TR.


    1. This is exactly the kind of approach that doesn’t withstand any criticism. Here’s why:
      1. Every theory, even in exact sciences like math, has exceptions. We can’t expect Kibbe system to not have any exceptions because human body shape can’t be put into boxes like math formulas can. If we’d accept this approach of yours, we could say that since Mae West is a verified SD, then any very petite woman can be a SD, which would mean ignoring all the Yin-Yang basic rules of the system. The system works perfecty in most cases and there can be exceptions, but understanding the system is a prioroty to nitpicking celebrity examples.
      2. About Jaclyn Smith: I know for a fact that several years ago David Kibbe stated that she could be a SD upon further examination. SD and TR are, in a way, easy to confuse if you don’t know how tall a person is. The bones are narrow, yet the shape is hourglass. I highlighted all the facts in the post, no need to repeat here. A TR CAN’T be tall, but SD can and usually is – that’s where SD get their extra Yang. Have you ever wondered if, maybe, David Kibbe was mislead about celebrity heights? David Kibbe refuses to ‘type’ celebrities because he needs to see them in person to tell. The celebrities in the verified list were for provided to demonstrate the points of the system, but in some cases the actresses in the list weren’t even alive at the time when the book was written. As for Rihanna, David Kibbe suggested she might be a TR because he believed she was 5’4” – not because he knew she was 5’8” and still said she could be a TR!! As far as I understand, David Kibbe is busy working with actual clients in person, unlike fake ‘experts’ who type by pictures for a fee – not guessing celebrity image identities.
      3. Did you know that Natalie Wood in the book is listed as a SN, which was simply a typo? Natalie Wood was actually a SG, while it was supposed to be Lana Wood in the SN list. Typos and mistakes exist, so I do my best to verify the information when in doubt. I think there’s no way Rihanna is a TR and I offer a set of facts to support my claim. I did th research myself – not simply Googled her height and then heights of a couple other celebrities.
      4. Finally and MOST IMPORTANTLY. Nitpicking the verified celebrity examples instead of trying to understand the system itself is shooting yourself in the foot. The real fact is that it DOESN’T MATTER what image identity any celebrity has. The real value of Kibbe system is being able to apply it in real life by learning its principles. which aren’t that hard at all.
      Everyone can nitpick the verified celebrity list for days on end, but is it truly helpful or reliable? I think using examples is good to demonstrate points of the system, but nothing more.
      😉 everyone can Google celebrity heights and try to refute the whole system simply by nitpicking. Another question is: does it really bring anyone any value? I rest my case.


  4. Kibbe has Beyonce typed as a romantic but when I compare her to Monroe – she is so much bigger boned and sharp. Is she is a soft dramatic? she looks good in some soft dramatic clothes.


    1. If you know for sure that David Kibbe himself has determined Beyonce’s image identity as Romantic, then it’s got to be so. I’ve gone through the verified list of celebrities several times and I must say that I’ve found at most few of them that I think were misplaced (e.g. in my opinion, Hedy Lamarr doesn’t look petite at all, especially alongside Judy Garland (SG) and Lana Turner (D) in Ziegfeld Girl, but this is just my own observation – other TRs on the list are very petite and narrow compared to Lamarr who was reportedly 170cm tall). As for Beyonce, I’d say her key features are curves and moderate vertical line, she’s Yin-dominated. A SD image identity implies a completely different ‘formula’ – it’s Yang-dominated because of the height, aka long vertical line. A SD also has larger bones compared to a Romantic. Romantics have smaller, more delicate bone structure. Take a look at other Romantics like Emma Samms, Madonna, Dolly Parton, etc. All of them have different features, but they share the key Romantic features – curves, moderate to petite vertical line. Same with Marilyn Monroe – she’s around the same height as Beyonce, so her vertical line is moderate, her key feature is curves (despite her being very slim). As for Beyonce, take a look at her alongside other celebrities to see her shape and size. I’m not a fan of hers and haven’t really paid attention before, but she doesn’t seem to have any width or large sharp bones that would add more Yang.
      Finally, clothes can’t be ‘typed’ – it’s about how head-to-toe looks are constructed. It’s important to differentiate between your own subjective view of certain looks or items and whether an outfit actually accommodates person’s features. Makeup artists and designers can make Beyoncé look awesome in pretty much anything, which fulfills the purpose – she’s an artist. However, dressing for art and performance is very much different from dressing for work, everyday life, etc. It can also be that the outfits that you consider SD simply accommodate her shape correctly, which makes them look harmonious on her.
      Bags and shoes can’t be typed either because same items can play along with various outfits for different image identities.
      Hope it helps!


  5. I am a Theatrical Romantic. I was typed by David Kibbe himself back in the 90s. At that time, he did typing in groups. (Maybe he still does.) There was one other TR in my group, and one of his receptionists, makeup artists or hairstylists (I can’t remember her exact position) was also a TR. Two of us appeared to be white and one of us did not. Based on what I saw in common among the three of us, I would be surprised if Rihanna is a TR. She is beautiful, but she doesn’t have the same look. There is almost something kind of “dainty” (I don’t like that word, but I think it conveys what I mean) about TRs. It’s kind of like having slender elegance on a small, roundish body. Honestly, I wish I looked as good as Rihanna in athletic wear. Leggings and sneakers are VERY unflattering on me. She looks amazing in that grey outfit above. I would look so dumpy in that. My feet are perfect for pointy-toe heels with ankle straps and embellishments, (which was fine back when I was twenty, but my knees don’t like it now.) I also wear a size 6 shoe, so that’s pretty small. Also, standard size face masks are almost always too wide for my face. I mention this to say, I think it’s less about height, and more about a kind of narrowness or “delicateness.” A lot of these height requirements are just guidelines. The overall impression is what matters. All of the TRs in my group were 5’2″ and under, but there was a Dramatic who was only 5’5″. She did not give the impression of being that short, though. I could see a TR looking smaller, but being taller. That said, 5’8″ seems like it would appear pretty tall no matter what.

    I am 5’2″, but people often think I’m taller than I am fwiw.

    You are also right to say that you need to see someone in person. I know someone who met Angelina Jolie in person and, according to my friend, she appears much shorter and “boyish” in real life than she does in her photos/movies. Celebrities cultivate an image, and they often have hairstylists and fashion consultants who help them with that. It’s hard to separate their image from their body type sometimes.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Your comment is so interesting! Right off the bat I want to thank you for sharing it – I think it can be very useful for those who are interested in Kibbe system.
      You’ve raised some excellent points and I’d like to add to them:
      So true about athletic wear! As a SG I also have issues finding athletic wear that looks good. The thing is, mass produced athletic wear styles are chunky nowadays and it makes me wish that we’d have more sports shoe designs like in the 1930s – sleek, close to the foot, with delicate details (well, same goes for shoes in general actually!).
      I can definitely understand what you mean about the word ‘dainty’ – I think here it’s important to ignore its negative connotations and take it for what it is because it perfectly conveys the meaning. By the way, as a SG I find that all standard face masks are too large for me as well – I have to sew my own. It’s abslutely true that anyone can use Kibbe system with equal success, but for me it’s always a challenge to find things that fit – most of the items in stores are too wide (this is especially bad with pants – I have to both hem AND taper them because otherwise they just flop around my ankles in an unflattering way), the details are way too large, and even finding a size 6 gloves is a challenge.
      About height: I’ve come to an interesting conclusion after studying the verified celebrity list and image identities. I find that moderate and petite women have more ‘options’ when it comes to image identities than tall women. Like with Sarah Jessica Parker – she’s reportedly 5ft 2 ½ (158.8 cm), but a FN because of her elongated vertical line and width in the shoulder area. She doesn’t look petite and delicate – her bone structure is, so to speak. strong. and more ‘substantial’ than, say, any Gamine would have. At the same time, Audrey Hepburn was 5’7″ (170cm), but all of her features were delicate, small, and a little sharp. Her height gave her the Yang to make her a FG. “It’s hard to separate their image from their body type sometimes” – I couldn’t agree more. I think relying on celebrity pictures alone to learn about image identities is shooting oneself in the foot in a way, which is why I always try to find interviews and videos where celebrities are featured alongside other people to really see their build, their features. In many cases they look drastically different from how they look in professional photoshoots and movies.
      Once again, thank you so much for commenting! Have a lovely day ahead!


      1. I read somewhere that Audrey was not that tall, about 164 cm, so this is correct height for FG. This happenning with almost every actress. For example 2 TRs: Jane Seymour and Sherilyn Fenn “officially” are about 163. Sherilyn is very short (not more than 158) and Jane is a little bit taller (160). Actors often lie about their height because taller girls are more desirable in Hollywood. So I think that Audrey was presumably shorter than we my think.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. Exactly, that’s why I prefer to not simply Google the heights of actresses, but to look at them in movies and pictures alongside other actors. As for Audrey, I think she’d be a FG regardless of whether she was 164 or 170 because we simply don’t perceive her as ‘the tall girl’ – we think of her as the ‘delicately angular’ girl. Prominent height gives the sense of elongation, long vertical line, that just looks completely different from the slightly elongated, but narrow vertical of Audrey. I saw her pictures and movie alongside really tall people like Peter O’Toole (188cm) and Hubert de Givenchy (198cm) and she looks truly somewhere around 165-170cm (even if her 60s beehive hair gives her an illusion of extra 2 inches or so), but definitely not less than that (she’s not wearing heels either – she never did because she felt like she would ‘tower’ over other people wearing high heels, hence the kitten heels).
        She simply doesn’t look like the quintessential FG, which is why there’s always that sense of doubt that she can be a FG at all. The quintessential FG is Liza Minnelli, really short, but a bit broad, delicaltely angular, but has that slightly ‘tough’ look about her (I mean stronger, a bit muscular look). Almost all FG celebs from the verified list have a bit of width to add the Yang, but in Audrey it’s only height and delicate sharp angularity that gives her the Yang. She looks rather dainty, not broad. Her Yin doesn’t come from softness like Liza Minnelli’s Yin does – it comes from the extremely delicate features. Overall, it’s fascinating how Yin and Yang combine so uniquely in every person.


  6. I didn’t realize she was that tall, maybe Mr. Kibbe got her height wrong. I’ve seen her featured in a lot of theatrical romantic clips as well. Thank you for clearing this up! You’ve got an eye for detail.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Thank you for your comment ❤️
      Precisely, and Rihanna isn’t the only one who’s been placed in the wrong image identity by mistake. For instance, Rita Hayworth was TR in the book, but David Kibbe placed her in the SD image ID several years ago, Blythe Danner was reassigned from SC to FN, Natalie Wood was reassigned from SN to SG because her initial inclusion in the SN was a typo and it was supposed to be Lana Wood for SN, Jaclyn Smith, according to David Kibbe, is most probably a SD, even though in the book she’s a TR. So overall, I think we can accept the rules of this system, but we always have to keep in mind that ‘typing’ celebrities can cause more confusion than anything else – it can be useful to illustrate certain points, but can’t be relied on. I was confused for a while too, until I started questioning everything and trying to find logic. I’m very glad I could help!


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s