Writing about breast size

it states 28GG-24-35

Basically, the number describes the size of the chest. A small number indicates a small frame around the chest and the other way around.
So a higher number can indicate more muscles around the upper body, a bigger rib cage or more weight.

 

unisol_gr44 & gene.sis, thanks for the knowledge and informative replies.

I get the logistics of it, but I still have a predisposed disbelieving reaction when I see any model that has a large cup size, but whose chest is under 36. 32DDD-24-36 just doesn't seem right. I still emotionally associate chest size with bust size. So it should be 32A, 34B, 36C, 38D, 40DD, etc., which I understand is wrong in the vast majority of cases. Of course, there are such curvy women as Julie Newmar who rocked a 37-23-37. For my Catwoman, I am going to go with 38DD-24-37, which more conveys voluptuous instead of a 30DD-24-37, at least for me.

 

Gotta be honest, I never put in Measurements unless I actually have a scene where a character is being measured.

I tend to go with general description, shape, how they feel in the hand, that kind of thing. It works better for my writing style. (Although I also admit that online gender analyzers consistently and frequently mistake my gender when given samples of my work, and common understanding is that no men write romance novels, even explicit ones.)

 

I totally agree (as I mentioned in an earlier post). It is much better to say "busty" and leave it up to the particular opinion of the reader to what "busty" might mean.

 

US DD -> US E
30E equals an overbust girth of 35 inches.
38E equals an overbust girth of 43 inches.
So with 38E-24-37, the woman would have measurements of 43-24-37 which can't be considered an hourglass as the top is too big. (Though that site seems to be inconsistent with the sizes.)
And you never know if the sizes are right. The model might lie to get more jobs or sth. And even if they are taken from the girls' bras, it isn't said that they wear a fitting size or if it is a fitting size, it can vary one or two cups and band sizes to create a perfect fit.

Well, why?
Imagine a woman with a band size of 30 and a cup size of AA. Now she goes plastic and increases to E... why should her chest grow if you just put more mass in front of it?

 

All valid points and I don't of course disagree with the facts.

I guess my final hangup is that I want to make the numbers easy. For example, Katee Owen's stats are:
Measurements: 38-25-37
Bra Size: 32DDD

I want to write her measurements as 38DDD-25-37, which seem more dramatic (and thus better for a story) than 32DDD-25-37, which seems smaller at first glance than the classic hour glass figure of 36-26-36 with a C cup. (Again, I understand the 32 in this case is far more busty.)

I get that the 38 and 32 are different numbers determined by bra size, however, it seems a bit more wordy to write "38-25-37 with a 32DDD bra size." In the end I conflate the numbers (as I think most guys do). Besides, there are women who have 38's in both measurements: Harley Raine. (Which adds to the confusion, unless you think about it.)

 

And if all that isn't complicated enough there is very little consistency when is comes to what sizing means in practice. You may assume a bra labelled 40D would always fit a woman with a 40D chest but depending on the cut, fit and fabric of the bra it may be several inches too large or too small in one or more dimension.
Small wonder women often struggle to find underwear that fits correctly

 

Amen. As one who once tried to buy lingerie for his girlfriend, I can testify to that. She still laughs at me about that attempt.

 

Well, it might be "38-25-37 with DDD cups."
Though for me that doesn't change anything as I can't imagine anything from that nor from the other notation.

Everything adds to confusion in terms of bra sizes. They don't match breast sizes and you have some different systems with similar naming conventions.

 

Sounds good. I like using other words. One of my characters, I consistently use the word "conical" which isn't precise but gives a general idea of general shape. I also like to talk about particularly amply endowed characters, or women with a prominent décolletage. Even the words ample bosom can work, provided it's in the right context. (Usually involving a "Milady" or "Milord" but there are exceptions.)

 

Fair enough, but does 38DDD-25-37 bother you?

 

I usually stop reading if just the cup size is stated, so I guess it wouldn't make things worse...

 

I'll take it!

 

Wow, I didn't knew of the existence of this thread.
You guys got pretty techinical along the way.

This may be a necro, but I was pointed to this thread and I felt like I wanted to say my own on the matter.

Using measure is still sub-optimal in most circumstances, but I still feel like using a reference to the cup size is very fitting in the mouth of a man talking about a woman.
Referring to double D breasts as kind of the optimum is common way of saying, it's everyday language in my experience.
The girl could be petite and look like she has enormous breast? Yeah, of course, and you can still specify that.

TL;DR

Talking about breast measurments, I only care about the cup size and leave the bust description to it's own.

 

The issue here is that your perception of what an X-cup means is going to very different to the next guy. If I say a character has C-cup breasts, then one reader might interpret that as average, another might think that's small, another might think it's large... None of them are wrong, exactly, since bras of a given cup size don't fit any particular size or shape. It's important to use words that both you and your readers understand to mean the same thing.

 

Yeah, of course.
But if you say "she has very big breast", from me it could mean a D cup for another could mean F.
When you describe something, how much of your description is objective and how much is subject?
Red is objective.
Sharp is objective.
Dark is subjective.
Towering is subjective or comparative.
Lots of adjectives are subjective, but when you are talking about physical sizes and features, you may want a little bit of objectiveness.

So you take another route and use a comparison.
Breast like apple? Sure, small for some, pitch perfect for others.
Melons? Never saw in person a girl with a pair of those. In my country, melons are way too big to serve a comparison for breasts.
Maybe it is intended an hyperbole?
Measures are the closest we can get to objectiveness.
Sometimes, you just need or want that.

 

If you write about John Doe admiring a woman's impressively large breasts you are telling the reader both that the woman's breasts are large and a bit about John's character (he is the kind of guy to be impressed by large breasts).
Subjective, yes but much more useful andengaging from a story tell perspective.
Where as simply listing the woman's measurements reduces her charecter to a stat block with nothing the reader can relate to. It also invites the question how does John know all this information? Is he a taylor, able to judge these things by eye? Does he routinely accosted women the street to ask them personal questions?
You aren't writing a sexy D&D guide but a story about human characters and their flawed subjective perception of the world

 

The problem - and this is really important, and a lot of men don't know this - is that cup size has little to do with breast size. It is a measure of the difference in the circumference of the bustiest part of the chest and the circumference of the ribcage just below the breasts. Band size is how you work out the size of breasts. For instance, a 40A bra will fit rather large breasts, while a 28DD bra will fit comparatively small breasts.

Writing just the cup size is the equivalent of saying someone is X feet and 5 inches tall. The inches don't matter when you don't know the feet. Are they 5'5"? 6'5"? Maybe even 4'5"? You've omitted the most important aspect of the measurement, rendering it meaningless. It's the same thing with saying a woman's bra size is C-cup. Do you mean 34C? 40C? 28C? Those are all wildly different sizes. There cannot possibly be a common understanding of what size a particular cup refers to when cup sizes don't refer to any size, at all.

 

I don't agree.
This is not a suitable comparison.
When you hold in your hand a breast, what refers to the size of that the cup.
That's all that matters.
The band size, is more a mesure of the body type or of the overall chest.
Of course when you buy a bra they are both important, but if we'are just talking about the just tactile sensation of holding a breast in your hnd, the band has nothing to do with it.

That is my point, it has nothing to do with opportunity to use this kind of description while writing.
I hope I made it clear.

 

But if you say E, it could actually be D or F...

See, you still don't understand the sizing system.

Assume you hold a single breast in your hand that would perfectly fit a C cup bra. Assume that the band size is perfect as well.
With a band size of 28, you will hold a volume of 240 cm³ in your hand
With a band size of 44, you will hold a volume of 1,180 cm³ in your hand

That's five times as much.
This is an exaggerated example but even if you go only one band size up or down, there will already be a difference of 20 to 30%

Do you really think that feels the same?

You can also do it the other way around
44C -> 1,180 cm³
28K -> 1,180 cm³
That's 8 cup sizes more but it's the same volume.