The body-type fruit taxonomy — pear, apple, the produce aisle of prescriptive dressing — is quietly retiring, replaced by the proportion system: universal balance principles applied to YOUR measurements, by YOUR preferences. The system that asks what you want to style, not what shape to hide.

The Taxonomy’s Retirement

The fruit rules’ problems: bodies exceed four categories, the prescriptions assumed one goal (hourglass-approximation for everyone), and the ‘flattering’ language smuggled apology into styling. The proportion system keeps the useful geometry and drops the mandatory destination.

The Balance Principles

The transferable physics: volume plays against fit (the one-oversized rule works on every body), horizontal lines widen where they land and verticals lengthen (the styling geometry is body-neutral — where you APPLY it is personal), the waist-definition dial (a choice, not a duty), and the rise-line cartography (leg-starts are drawable at any proportion).

The Experiment Method

The system’s practice: the fitting-room photo protocol as the lab, one variable tested at a time (the same outfit at two rises; the tucked versus untucked trial), and the results logged as PERSONAL data (‘high rises + French tuck = my proportions’ vote) — style rules derived from your own evidence beat any inherited from produce.

The Preference Sovereignty

The system’s core upgrade: the goal is chosen (elongate, emphasize, balance, or simply please yourself — all valid outputs), the ‘flattering’ question rephrased (‘does this create the effect I WANT?’), and the fruit-box wardrobe advice archived with respect. The geometry serves the wearer now — which was the only correct direction all along.

Keep the geometry, drop the destination, test on your own body, choose the goal. The body-type rules weren’t wrong about lines — they were wrong about who decides where the lines go. You do.