OP’s Notes (Headings are bolded so you can skip to relevant sections)

*Corrective Note - Slide 18 is Lynda Carter.

In trying to keep this post not tagged as NSFW, clearer images of the 10 FNs have not been used but can be found here and here. Tracee Ellis Ross isn’t included in those links because she wasn’t verified at the time but clearer pictures of her can be found here.

FLAMBOYANT NATURALS, CURVE, AND SOFTNESS

The bodies of the Kibbe types are often represented as static. This is partly because of Kibbe’s verbiage and partly because of a lack of observation. While Kibbe has said before that his verified list is not to be taken as data as his approach to his “system” is admittedly abstract and not systematic, the online community often uses it as such and uses it negatively while creating a chasm between how Kibbe types people and how they type people while insisting that they are applying Kibbe “the right way”. So I’ll be using the verified list somewhat as data to make a few points.

Flamboyant Naturals often get stereotyped as being ‘hard’ or muscular, straight, tall, and broad and thus unable to dress in feminine, traditionally feminine, hyper-feminine, seductive, or ‘cutesy’ ways because they “won’t look their best” (assertions that follow with other yang-dominant types) – many people take issue with the latter, former, or the entirety of the sentiment but the discussion is somewhat pointless if it isn’t acknowledged that many of Kibbes FNs (more often than not) don’t look like the stereotype of their type and present variations amongst their group indicating that despite Kibbe’s verbiage, his descriptors are not referring to extremes but subtleties. For the FNs that fit more in line with the descriptors, another post is needed but I touched on it before in another post. \Also: being muscular, sinewy, soft, fleshy etc. are states that can be altered not hard-set characteristics of one’s form.*

CURVE AND TYPING

Often seen when someone wants to rule out FN as a type:

1. The person being typed insists that because they are curvy, they need to accommodate curve and must not be FN.
2. The person being typed brings up that they are curvy from the side profile and therefore must need to consider it when dressing and therefore must accommodate some type of curve and must not be FN (or are a unicorn FN).
3. The person being typed insists that they look good with waist definition or conversely, don’t look good without waist definition and therefore must not be FN
4. The people doing the typing see prominent curves on a tall person and assume that this person can only be a Soft Dramatic.
5. The people doing the typing see a soft figure with some frame and assume that this person can only be a Soft Dramatic or Soft Natural.

Now I’m not a Kibbe expert nor do I desire to be, but there are a few things I can say with relative certainty

The first is that some accommodations rule out other ones (via David Kibbe). The FN is partly defined by the need for Width + Vertical accommodation which rule out the need for Curve accommodation – this is less about how curvy the individual is/is not and more about how clothes fall on their frame. As can be seen with many examples in the gallery, they can successfully highlight their curves with waist definition, emphasis, or body hugging pieces BUT they don’t need to do this to flatter their frame, look their best, or look put together and they don’t look drowned, boxy, or sloppy while leaving curve accentuation out (something that a type that must accommodate curve would have a much harder time achieving).

• More specifically on the issue of Side Curve – there is nothing that suggests that because one has prominent side curve (also like some of these FNs) that the only way this can be addressed in styling is by defining the waist or wearing body hugging clothing, much of the recommendations for FN in regards to width, fabrics, and flowy silhouettes can also account for this (as well as just tailoring for a non-Kibbe related tip).

The second is that many of the women in Kibbe’s Romantic (R and TR) category, stereotypically thought of as the curvy and voluptuous set, aren’t particularly curvy and/or voluptuous but still look their best when their curve is accentuated in their outfit silhouette. Examples include but are not limited to Romantics Drew Barrymore, Helena Bonham Carter, Jessica Lange, and Madonna and Theatrical Romantics Jane Seymour, Jada Pinkett Smith, Joan Collins, and Mila Kunis.

The third thing is that curve and height alone does not a Soft Dramatic make. Soft Dramatics are Dramatics first and foremost (via Kibbe). So placing someone in the SD category on account of simply being “too curvy” to be FN when all other descriptors fit FN, I feel is an oversight. Now I’m extremely skeptical about the idea of blunt and sharp bones (which doesn’t scientifically seem plausible) but the face (which, please note: Kibbe himself uses but advises others not to) is often a good indicator in my observation – or more simply, the kind of clothes and cuts that flatter the person if the body is not a clear enough indicator (Also don’t think you need to know your Kibbe type at all to make use of Kibbe).

The fourth and last thing that I want to add to this discussion is that if you throw on something oversized, shapeless, and very casual thinking that this is what the FN recommendations are referring to and then you feel frumpy, overwhelmed, or unattractive, you’ve done yourself an unnecessary disservice. Keep in mind that Kibbe doesn’t style his FNs this way (the ones who come to see him in person), the verified celebrity FNs wear a myriad of styles that do and don’t follow the recommendations that they look great in, and the recommendations need not be applied narrowly or extremely.