Soft Natural vs Romantic in Kibbe System w/Examples

Hello and welcome ❤️ Image identities in Kibbe system don’t overlap – they are like planets in the Solar System and each one is absolutely unique and independent from others, but still exists by the same rules. The whole idea of comparing two image identities thereby can be considered nonsensical because how can one compare incomparable things? That being said, I think looking at two image identities side by side can be very useful in the process of learning them, in order to understand them. So consider this kind of post as not a comparison, but merely a closer look at these image identities that can be often confused because they share several important features. In my previous post I analyzed Soft Gamine vs Theatrical Romantic, now Soft Natural vs Romantic.

Before I begin, let me say that I’m not a Kibbe system expert. I am a passionate researcher and the goal of my posts about Metamorphosis is to share my understanding of the system with those who is interested about learning and using it. Since David Kibbe doesn’t certify or officially approves anyone to practice his system and/or offer typings (determining image identities), it goes without saying that the only expert is he himself when it comes to typing other people and theory behind his system. Besides, everyone interested in his system can become their own personal experts and use this system. You are free to study his system any way you prefer, but it’s my duty as a Kibbe’s system researcher to let you know that there’s a Facebook group called ‘Strictly Kibbe’ where David Kibbe himself explains his system. I’m simply informing you about it and if you choose to join it, there’s no way of knowing if your expectations will be met. In my posts about Kibbe’s image identities (aka Metamorphosis) I follow the theory David Kibbe highlighs in his book Metamorphosis (1987) the way I understand it. My goal is to share my own findings with everyone who wants to learn and use this system. I don’t offer typings (goes without saying – the reason is mentioned above) and always make sure that whatever I post goes in line with how David Kibbe himself presents his system. David Kibbe Official Website.

Why Soft Natural vs Romantic? These image identities can share several key features:

  • moderate to petite vertical line,
  • lush, full facial features,
  • curves and fleshiness,
  • limbs can be short,
  • width is there, but in different ‘amounts’ and of different kinds

When I read physical profile descriptions for these two image identities, I definitely understand the difference:

  • Romantic is delicate, SN is slightly angular
  • R is rounded, SN has slightly square/blunt contours
  • SN can have longer limbs and ‘leggy look’ as it says in the book, but a Romantic usually has shorter limbs because it’s Yin-dominant
  • SN can be up to 5’7” tall, R is usually more petite, up to 5’5” (from Metamorphosis (1987) book)
  • SN can be slightly curvy, but for R curves are the key feature
  • R are small and can be a bit wide, but for SN there’s width through the shoulder area (very important!)

However, it’s easier to discuss it than to actually tell in reality (as always 😊). Hopefully, this post will clarify the situation to a degree where you won’t have to second-guess width, curves, vertical line for Romantic and Soft Natural image identities.

For my primary examples I chose Betty Grable (SN) and Marilyn Monroe (R). The reason is because I’ve got a purrrrrfect example to present to you – a video from How to Marry a Millionaire (1953) where they both participate in the fashion show scene and you can see their shape very well.

For the record, reported height of Betty Grable is 5ft 3-5ft 4 (160-163 cm) depending on the source and Marilyn Monroe’s reported height is 5 ft 5½ inches (165-166 cm), which I’d say is about right judging from their photos and movie scenes alongside other celebrities.

Btw, this movie is quite charming and you get to see Lauren Bacall (a verified Kibbe Dramatic) too, so I’d definitely suggest it to anyone, but let’s move on to the SN vs R.

It seems like the most obvious difference between Soft Natural and Romantic image identities lies in the bone structure – slightly broad and angular vs rounded and small. Now, I find that the easiest way to see the width of a Soft Natural (and Flamboyant Natural for that matter) is in the shoulder area. Take a look at Marilyn Monroe as she turns around to walk to her seat:

Her core feature is curves – it’s hard to ignore them. Betty Grable, on the other hand, has width through the shoulders:

Also, I’d say that Marilyn has double curves (both bustline and hipline are curvy), which makes her curve-dominant, while Betty’s bustline is considerably curvier than her hipline, which means that her vertical line isn’t characterized by very pronounced curves.

In the powder room scene we can see how Betty’s shoulder line is stronger than Marilyn’s, while Marilyn’s shoulders look more delicate and smaller, even though she’s a little taller than Betty:

Seeing Betty and Marilyn side by side also shows the slightly wide and angular (thicker, broader bones) vs delicate and rounded features (smaller, more delicate bone structure):

Courtesy of Google Images

For the lack of a better word, Betty’s bone structure seems more ‘substantial’ as opposed to Marilyn’s delicate, small features, which is especially noticeable through the jawline and cheekbones. Soft Natural will always have a broader, thicker, and/or more angular bone structure than a Romantic.

Here’s what David Kibbe wrote for Romantics in his 1987 book Metamorphosis:

If your bone structure is slightly wide or lush, you may think of yourself as having a large bone structure. This is actually deceiving to you, for the shortness of your limbs and extremities offsets the width. In the context of your overall voluptuous figure, your bone structure is definitely delicate

Metamorphosis, p.37

A perfect example of this is Madonna. Take a look at these pictures of hers:

Courtesy of Google Images

It really does look like her bone structure might be thicker, more angular, and it looks even more so since she’s started working out extensively – muscular and taut look makes her true shape unrecognizeable or at least hard to detect if you rely on pictures only. So let’s take a look at her old pictures from the 70s, 80s, and 90s (click on the picture to enlarge it in a new tab):

Courtesy of Google Images

It’s absolutely clear that she doesn’t have any width through her shoulder area and her bone structure is actually delicate, which makes her a Romantic.

I’ve noticed that sometimes the angularity of a Soft Natural is more noticeable even in facial features. The prime celebrity example for the Soft Natural image identity is Carole Lombard and her andularity and width is present in her facial features (they don’t look as rounded as Betty Grable’s, so easier to identify):

In this video you can see her body shape quite clearly (especially 1:09-1:28):

To sum it all up:

  • Soft Natural will have width through the shoulders as opposed to smaller, rounded shoulder shape of a Romantic
  • Romantics have a curve-dominated vertical line (usually it’s double curves – both bustline and hipline are curvy), while Soft Naturals won’t have very pronounced curves
  • Soft Naturals have a broader and/or thicker bone structure as opposed to smaller, more delicate bone structure of Romantics
  • The width of Soft Naturals is present through the shoulders and often facial features (jawline and cheekbones), while the width of Romantics is in the rounded width of their curves (as opposed to, say, delicate and narrow curves of a Soft Gamine or Theatrical Romantic)
  • Soft Naturals can be taller than Romantics and have a longer vertical line

Yin-Yang Balance

  • Romantic image ID is Yin-dominated: short to moderate vertical line, curves, short limbs, delicate and rounded features. Yang features can be present, but in tiny amounts – otherwise they can upset the balance of this Yin-dominated image identity
  • Soft Natural is Yang-dominated (but the Yang is soft as opposed to prominently angular frame): moderate to slightly small vertical line, width, slightly angular and/or slightly broad frame, slightly blunt or irregular facial contours, can have elongated arms and legs. Yin comes from the softness of the shape (flesh), soft and full facial features, some features can be small (e.g. nose, hands and feet, etc), limbs can be short.

One last thing I’d like to note: if you’re working on figuring your image identity out, I’d suggest to focus on the body features first (vertical line (short, moderate or long) and its characteristics – width, curves, or straight) than facial features.

Other posts you may find interesting:

Soft Gamine vs Theatrical Romantic in Kibbe System w/Examples

Waist Shape in Kibbe System. Waistline and Yin-Yang Balance

Misconceptions About Kibbe Image Identities (FG, SG, FN, D, TR, Classics, Gamines)

Why So Many Women Want To Be Theatrical Romantic (and Soft Dramatic) Image ID

Why Kibbe Image IDs AREN’T ‘Kibbe Body Types’

10 Myths About Kibbe That Ruin It For You

Why Rihanna ISN’T a Theatrical Romantic 

Meaning of Yin and Yang in Kibbe System

What Is Vertical Line In Kibbe’s System? w/Examples +FAQ

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

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

P.S. If you’d like to get notified every time I post, subscribe to my blog below. No spam guarantee – only notifications about my new posts

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!

2 thoughts on “Soft Natural vs Romantic in Kibbe System w/Examples”

  1. I’ve always liked having Carole Lombard as an SN, because most of the other examples are of actresses with very short limbs. I’m torn between SN and FN and seeing Carole with her long arms and slender waist (which is a lot like me) is comforting. I assumed for a time I had to be FN because of the shoulder width, but I really seem to have more curves and certainly NEED waist definition not to look ridiculous.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Couldn’t agree more about Carole Lombard – investigating the verified SN example list truly helped me understand this image identity so much better. To be exact, I’ve realized that every image identity can get Yin and Yang from slightly different features IF the overall Yin-Yang balance is maintained. For SN, Yang can come from angularity and width or elongation and width, but still the Yang is soft. It’s similar to how Audrey Hepburn gets all the Yang from being taller than a FG would be, but maintains the FG ‘formula’ by very small, delicate features.
      As for FN and SN, I’d say that FN has a generally broader and longer bone structure as well as broader and more prominent facial features, while SN is still slightly delicate. FN is strongly Yang-dominated, while in case of SN Yang is very soft and Yin features are quite prominent. Another good hint would be that a FN won’t have a curvy shape or double curves (both hipline and bustline). I think at a glance Carole Lombard might seem to be a FN due to the elongated limbs and her height, but then there’s definitely something delicate about her bone structure and slightly softer, curvier shape, that give her the Yin.
      Thank you for taking the time to read and comment!

      Like

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