Linking to a past Trope Repair Shop thread that dealt with this page: Cut without explanation
, started by Discar on Aug 4th 2011 at 7:33:03 AM
Has anyone wondered if this is, y'know, actually a bit creepy? Or should be handled with some tact?
Hide / Show Replies
Part of it was Cut Listed before because of that, and not just because of the redundancy of two articles either.
Edited by SpellBlade
The Cosmopolitan Fictioneer
Is it just me, or did someone delete the TRS thread for this article?
Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.
"In brands of good quality, the underbust measurement of a bra will accurately reflect its size in inches/centimeters." Is this correct? In my experience, unstretched bra bands measure a few inches smaller than the stated size; for example, a 28 band will measure 22" or 23", but will stretch to fit a 27-28" ribcage.
Hide / Show Replies
Just measured two of my bras (one Panache, one Fantasie, 34 back as stated above), and I think you may be right. They were 30-31" unstretched, and could be fairly easily stretched to 37-ish"
Removed " * 28H = 30GG = 32G = 34FF = 36F = 38E = 40DD = 42D = 44C = 46B — Technically, these cup sizes are all roughly the same. So a woman who wears a 28H may be noticeably full-busted, but the actual mass of the breasts is comparable to a DD on a 40 inch ribcage. There are, of course, many, many small differences in structure between the sizes, such as the distance between the cups, and the higher ribcage measurements may not actually have as full a cup as the lower ones, but these differences only really show in the extreme intervals. Two or three of these sizes in a row will seem to have precisely the same cup volume."
As I'm not sure what it's meant to footnote, and it's covered well enough IMO in the existing sister-size paragraph.
"If you have to tighten the straps the whole way just to get enough support, you probably need a smaller band with a larger cup size; try going down one band size and up one cup size, for starters." I have to dispute this statement. While there are many indications a bra is too small in the back, as I stated in the topic above I'm wearing a 34 back despite measuring 35 inches, and I have very few bras where the straps adjust anything like short enough for me (they're usually also set too wide for me, leading to constant slipping off the shoulder). Mind you, the support per se is fine, it's just that the cups sit oddly without enough tension from above.
Hide / Show Replies
Then by all means, fix it. God knows we need more people who have actual experience/knowledge in the matter (i.e. more women; no offense, but one must admit that generally speaking, women naturally know more about bra sizes and measurment than men.) to contribute to this article.
Edited by MarqFJA Fiat iustitia, et pereat mundus.
I did a substantial edit just over a month ago, that statement was added since. But also I'm not quite sure what to change it too, since it contradicts my own experience, but it's not entirely wrong: clearly, if a somebody is wearing too big a band, the band will ride up in back, and the straps will need to be adjusted shorter than they would be otherwise.
The formula for band size in the US is incorrect. That was how bras were sized before elastic was added to them. Modern bras band sizes are based directly off of the individual's underbust measurement in inches.
Hide / Show Replies
Agree, as somebody who is wearing a size 34 back with a measurement of 35 inches. Think this could use some work.
Linking to a past Trope Repair Shop thread that dealt with this page: Heavy cuts, if not an outright cutlisting, needed.
, started by Neo_Crimson on Aug 4th 2011 at 2:05:59 AM
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard Feynman