What Kind of Petite Are You?
Please tell me I’m not the only Shortie who has gone a little crazy trying to figure out what her petite body type is in the hopes of getting some style guidance – only to end up feeling even more lost.
The choices tend to come from the conventional body-shape typology, largely based on the relationship among our shoulders, waist and hips. It most commonly includes five categories: Hourglass, Triangle, Inverted Triangle, Rectangle and Round.
By looking at my shoulders and hips, I’m an inverted triangle petite, but my relatively straight torso makes me wonder if I’m a rectangle petite. So which body-shape guidelines am I supposed to follow? And what happens when the advice for one contradicts the other?
While developing the Shortie Style System, my personal style program for petites, I started to realize that the problem wasn’t that I was in between shapes. The body-shape typology itself was trying to account for too many aspects of my body at once.
By grouping several dimensions of my frame into a single shape, the typology makes overarching assumptions that may, or may not, apply to the person standing in front of the mirror.
As tempting as it might be to dismiss the typology altogether, it’d be reckless not to acknowledge how it can help us better understand our frames. A deeper understanding of our frames is instrumental in closing the gap between how we dress and the style we hope to embody.
The key is acknowledging the typology’s blind spots and distilling what it can actually tell us.
Lucky for us, I’ve done just that. Let’s jump in!
Petite Body Shapes
If you’ve ever searched “petite body type” looking for style guidance, chances are you’ve come across the conventional body-shape typology adapted for Shorties. Here’s how its most common categories are typically described:
Hourglass Petites (Guitar Petites / X-Shape Petites)
The petite hourglass is known for a noticeably defined waist with shoulders and hips that are similar in width. Conventional descriptions often pair this frame with a fuller bust, hips and thighs and a rounded bottom. The general styling advice is to emphasize the waist.
Triangle Petites (Pear Petites / A-Shape Petites)
Triangle petites have hips that are wider than the shoulders. This shape is commonly associated with a smaller bust, defined waist and fuller bottom and thighs. The conventional protocol is to add visual interest to the upper body, emphasize the waist and keep the lower body relatively simple.
Inverted Triangle Petites (Strawberry Shape Petites / V-Shape Petites)
With shoulders that are wider than the hips, inverted triangle petites are often described as having a fuller bust, slightly defined waist, subtle bottom and slim legs. Styling guidance generally recommends keeping the upper body simple while adding more visual interest below.
Rectangle Petites (Ruler Petites / H-Shape Petites)
Rectangle petites are distinguished by shoulders, waist and hips that appear relatively similar in width. The category is also commonly linked to a subtle bust and bottom and slimmer limbs. The usual advice is to choose shaping styles that create the illusion of curves.
Round Petites (Apple Petites / O-Shape Petites)
For round petites, the midsection is typically described as the widest area of the torso. Conventional descriptions often include a fuller bust, narrower hips, a subtle bottom and slimmer arms and legs. The styling advice tends to direct attention toward the neckline or legs.
Where Body Shapes Fall Short
Some stylists take issue with comparing women’s bodies to fruit and geometric objects. I’m sympathetic to that argument, but I also recognize why these metaphors have endured. They’re easy to picture, easy to understand and nearly impossible to forget.
What I see as more problematic is what gets bundled into those shapes – the generalizations, the assumptions and the perpetuation of a narrow beauty standard.
Five Shapes Can't Tell the Whole Story
The first problem is the idea that the full diversity of women’s bodies can be captured within a set number of shapes. Shoulders, waists, hips, curves and other dimensions can occur in countless combinations.
Research reinforces this complexity. Studies have produced different numbers and distributions of body-shape categories depending on the population and measurements being studied. The categories can help describe patterns, but they shouldn’t be mistaken for the boundaries of what women’s bodies can look like. In reality, women’s body variations are effectively limitless.
Even without getting scientific about it, plenty of Shorties, myself included, sit somewhere between shapes. Yet there’s rarely any instruction for what to do when one part of the body points toward one shape while another points toward another.
Body Mass Presumptions
This is where the typology really loses me. Why are skeletal and structural relationships presented as if they automatically tell us about curves and the distribution of body mass?
What about narrower hips tells us that someone has slim thighs? Why would broader shoulders determine bust fullness? And when a description says “fuller” or “slimmer,” fuller or slimmer compared to who or what?
The Hourglass Ideal
Then there’s the comparative nature of much of the styling advice attached to these shapes. If you read between the lines, or the lines themselves, the assumed goal is to look like an hourglass figure. It encourages those with a defined waist to show it off and those who don’t have one to put together outfits that make it appear as if they do.
The goal of understanding a frame shouldn’t be figuring out how to make it resemble another one.
As someone who has worked in fashion for almost 20 years, let me reassure you: killer personal style does not require a cinched-in waist.
Taking What Serves Us
So, in the spirit of taking what serves us and leaving the rest, what happens when we strip the body-shape typology of its blind spots?
Forgo the Shapes
First, we must abandon the idea that women’s figures, in all their variety, can be captured within a set number of shapes. The body is a structure made up of multiple dimensions that don’t necessarily correlate with one another.
Anthropometric research supports looking at those dimensions separately. Length and circumference measurements tend to have low correlations, meaning one doesn’t necessarily tell us much about the other.
The key is to look at each aspect of our bodies individually rather than trying to account for them all as a single unit. In the case of the body-shape typology, that means doing away with the shapes altogether.
Curves on Their Own
The body-shape typology is absolutely trying to do too much by linking horizontal structure with assumptions about the bust, bottom and thighs. Curves deserve their own consideration.
Someone can have relatively narrow hips and fuller thighs, broad shoulders and a smaller bust, or a straighter torso and a prominent bottom. None of those combinations is contradictory.
Relationships Over Comparisons
Body-shape descriptions often reference fuller busts, bottoms or thighs, but the reference point isn’t always clear. Fuller compared to whom or what?
If our goal is to deepen our understanding of our frames for personal style purposes, the focus should be on recognizing the relationships between the different aspects of our own bodies, rather than how they compare to someone else or to a beauty standard.
Beyond the Waist
The typology’s fixation with a defined waist is pretty glaring. The fact that it’s the beauty standard is par for the course. Regardless, the width of our waist is just another factor, not our focus.
In my work with personal styling clients, I’ve found the torso to be a more helpful and less triggering reference point.
The Value Is in Horizontal Proportions
What makes this typology useful isn’t the shapes. You actually don’t need to identify with any of them to reap its benefits. The value is in understanding your horizontal proportions.
Understanding the relationship between your shoulders, torso and hips can empower you to make more informed decisions about silhouettes, design features and their placement.
The meaningful guidance distilled from the body-shape typology is incredibly simple – it boils down to this:
Narrower proportions: Accommodate more visual interest
Wider proportions: Accommodate less visual interest
What are your horizontal proportions?
Figuring this out is rooted in spatial awareness. Stand straight in front of a full-length mirror, either nude or wearing minimal, close-fitting clothing such as undergarments, a sports bra and leggings.
Then simply observe:
How do my shoulders, torso and hips relate to one another?
In my case, my shoulders are my widest point and my hips are narrower, while my torso also appears relatively wide.
Keeping this principle in mind, here’s what my proportions tell me:
My wide shoulders and torso accommodate less visual interest – think streamlined, no-fuss designs.
My narrower hips accommodate more visual interest – think detailing, volume and dynamic designs.
This simplified approach gives me practical insight into how different design choices interact with my frame without being prescriptive.
In Short
Our frames are the foundation for the way clothing looks so it only makes sense that we would want to have a full understanding of it.
The problem is that conventional body-shape typology bundles together overarching assumptions about women’s bodies. Narrower hips don’t necessarily mean slim thighs, just as broader shoulders don’t necessarily mean a fuller bust. Women’s diverse combinations of proportions and curves can’t be neatly captured within five shapes.
That’s why I’m a proponent of moving away from prescriptive shapes and looking at each dimension of the body on its own. In the case of body-shape typology, that means focusing on horizontal proportions: how do the shoulders, torso and hips relate to one another?
This narrowed-down approach encourages self-discovery rather than comparison to a beauty standard. Once you understand your horizontal proportions, you can make more informed decisions about design elements and their placement. The guidance is quite simple:
Narrower proportions: Accommodate more visual interest
Wider proportions: Accommodate less visual interest
Understanding your frame isn’t about finding a more precise box to put yourself into. It’s about having enough information to step outside the box altogether.
Your Frame in Full
If this guidance feels incomplete, that’s because it is. Knowing your horizontal proportions empowers you to make more aligned style decisions about silhouette and design feature placement, but that’s just one piece of the puzzle.
For direction on garment length and waist placement, you’ll want to understand your vertical proportions. Other aspects of your frame that influence how clothing fits, falls and appears on you include your scale and curves.
Putting all these pieces together, and understanding how each one influences clothing, can be tricky. We’re also often our own worst critics, which can make it difficult to remain objective when staring at our reflection in the mirror.
Since the fall of 2020, I’ve been studying how different aspects of the body influence the fit and fall of clothing, particularly for short women. Our short stature is what brings us together, but it isn’t the only factor to consider when it comes to personal style. These four dimensions work together, and while horizontal proportions may be the most influential for me, they might not be for you.
If you're interested in a complete assessment of your frame, please fill out the form:
COPYRIGHT NOTICEThis article required extensive research and is registered and protected by the United States and international copyright law. If you wish to make any use of any materials or contact me for further information please address your request here.How have body shapes shaped your style?
I’m curious to hear if body-shape advice has been useful, limiting or completely off base.
