Forum: Author Hangout

Isn't it mandatory to describe a penis as being at least 12" when it's balls-deep in a 4' 11" long-legged curvaceous redhead?

Don't forget the 6" diameter (when they probably meant circumference, at least, I hope so, and even then...)

Don't forget the 6" diameter (when they probably meant circumference

... or the even more radical 6" radius. OUCH!

You forgot to state flaccid or erect - or would that be too much information :)

And considering that breast size is constantly changing with eg time of day, time of month, whether the owner is looking at me, then stating a definitive size is surely something a male author would do.

Sure, it changes over time, but how much does it change over the course of a day/month. I rather doubt it's more than half a cup size.

And considering that breast size is constantly changing with eg time of day, time of month, whether the owner is looking at me, then stating a definitive size is surely something a male author would do.

Sure, it changes over time, but how much does it change over the course of a day/month. I rather doubt it's more than half a cup size.

There was a newspaper (one of the more reputable ones!) story recently about how bra sizes have changed over the years. It appears that what was a C cup after the war is nor an E cup (or thereabouts).

Personally I cannot see how anyone can make out the numbers and letters of some woman in normal cool weather street clothing. She may look small busted but you don't know if she is wearing an undersized bra or is otherwise holding herself in. Alternatively she may not be wearing a bra ....

Personally I cannot see how anyone can make out the numbers and letters of some woman in normal cool weather street clothing.

That doesn't stop some guys from trying.

There was a newspaper (one of the more reputable ones!) story recently about how bra sizes have changed over the years. It appears that what was a C cup after the war is nor an E cup (or thereabouts).

Rather strange if that's the case.

Each cup size is meant to be one inch larger than the one before it.

So for a 32", 38" and 44" chest, then the measured bust for a woman with A cup sized breasts would be 33", 39" and 45" respectively. For C cup sized breasts they would be 35", 41" and 47" respectively.

why would anyone need to do that, anyway?

No one needs to do it, but a lot of guys (and some women) are obsessed with breasts and breast size, so they do it a lot anyway.

One other complication in guessing bra sizes that AJ didn't mention.

Cup size is relative, based on the difference between the band size (under breast chest measurement) and the bust measurement (chest size measured around the breasts). That can mean that a C-cup on a 4'11" thin built woman can look proportionally larger than a D-cup on a 6' woman with a wider frame.

Cup size is relative, based on the difference between the band size (under breast chest measurement) and the bust measurement (chest size measured around the breasts). That can mean that a C-cup on a 4'11" thin built woman can look proportionally larger than a D-cup on a 6' woman with a wider frame.

In terms of volume/tissue alone, a woman with a 40" chest but "A Cup" breasts(more likely to be a correct description on an older male, but anyhow...) Would have as much, or even more "breast tissue" than a woman with a 32" chest and "D cup" breasts IIRC.

In terms of volume/tissue alone, a woman with a 40" chest but "A Cup" breasts(more likely to be a correct description on an older male, but anyhow...) Would have as much, or even more "breast tissue" than a woman with a 32" chest and "D cup" breasts IIRC.

True, but I'm taking about how she would be perceived by an on looker. A short thin woman with a C cup would "look" like she had bigger breasts than a tall wide(but not fat) woman with a D cup.

True, but I'm taking about how she would be perceived by an on looker. A short thin woman with a C cup would "look" like she had bigger breasts than a tall wide(but not fat) woman with a D cup.

Yeah, the "stocky frames" hide it better, even when they're a comparable or even larger cup size even after adjusting to the larger band size. More frame to distribute it across, and as a consequence, better odds of optical illusions coming into play and further masking things because of that larger volume/"spread." At least while viewing from a distance.

Kind of like a tsunami, but different principles in play, which makes it a bad comparison. Probably more in line with photography tricks where you can make an economy car look like it is nearly the same size as an 18 wheeler.

Edit: Although I think clothing in particular tends to play a role in this "optics" issue, clearly someone needs to volunteer to pursue further investigation, with plenty of topless women to compare against. ;)

Although I think clothing in particular tends to play a role in this "optics" issue, clearly someone needs to volunteer to pursue further investigation, with plenty of topless women to compare against. ;)

I'm in if you can find the women. :)

I can't think of any other occasion.

A scene in the story where the female character in question is being measured for bra size.

Saying she has 44DDD breast is more definitive.

Yes, it's more definate, but it raises the question of how the narrator knows what her bra size is.

3rd person omni

And it would only work in 3rd person omni.

The first size is measured under the breasts, hence anything over 38" (in my opinion) is getting on for a large woman.

*Edited.

That's not quite true.

For US/UK, the bra size is the underbust measurement in inches + 4 inches + the cup size

But that's just for bra size by itself.

When giving full measurements (with or without cup size) as in xx-xx-xx or xxD-xx-xx

It's Bust-waist-hips where the bust measurement is the chest measurement around the breasts, not the undebust measurement used for the bra size.

Cup size is determined from the difference between the bust measurement and the band size .

If you know the general formula given either band + cup or bust + cup you can estimate the other measurement.

There is a site http://www.85b.org/bra_calc.php that does bra size calculations based on measurements in inches or cm

A 32 inch underbust and 40 inch bust gives a 36D bra size US.

The first size is measured under the breasts, hence anything over 38" (in my opinion) is getting on for a large woman. The letter is the cup size and that's what most guys notice.

Yeah, but as a guy who wears 46Rs, and having sisters who also picked up that larger frame(female edition), I can attest to their existence.

Although I have no clue on what their measurements are in that department, I'd expect upper 30's at a minimum for two of them all the same(before getting into cup sizes). They're nearly as tall and broad (shouldered) as I am, slightly smaller, and certainly different enough to tell a gender difference, but not much past that. Their torso (less bust) is still larger than some men. In the case of one, I think she wears the larger shirt(blouse) size between herself and her husband.

Could a woman be a 32 C/B

Yes; and in even rarer cases the discrepancy can be greater.

What if the breasts (cup sizes) are lopsided? Could a woman be a 32 C/B, or in extreme cases 38 GG/B?

Breast Cancer Mastectomy.

Otherwise, breast asymmetry is normal. In fact, it's so normal that if you did find someone with perfectly symmetrical breasts, they probably had a blob job. Or they were genetically engineered/cloned, or they're actually aliens. ;) (in the case of photos--Photoshop is in play, or they know a really good makeup artist)

But then that goes for human appearance in general, although the bias is towards more symmetrical body parts being perceived as more attractive--probably as an unconscious indicator of good health.

What if the breasts (cup sizes) are lopsided? Could a woman be a 32 C/B, or in extreme cases 38 GG/B?

While perfect symmetry doesn't exist in humans, I would think that, barring a mastectomy, a difference as large as a full cup size would be extremely rare.

While perfect symmetry doesn't exist in humans, I would think that, barring a mastectomy, a difference as large as a full cup size would be extremely rare.

I don't know about being extremely rare, but it is certainly rare.

My favorite was always "built like a brick shithouse",

I would interpret that as they are short, large & very solid overall.
A large lump of a person.

It was originally intended to infer: quality built, sturdy and they 'get the job done'! (Hence the reference to the tone of their ass, as they could kick yours if they wanted to.)

I generally held to that. Basically a "highly athletic" physique, but still feminine--not to an extensive bodybuilding degree. So muscular, not muscle-bound, and a little body fat to soften the edges. As well as "well proportioned" well, "physical assets"(boobs, butt) and a "decent face" to go with it.

So yeah, not a "girly girl" because she probably can kick the ass of more than a few guys, and just generally pin-up material all around.

So in some respects, the prototype for a stereotypical cheerleader that is seriously involved in "competitive cheerleading" rather than the high-school power politics and "look pretty at games" type. (Which isn't to say they can't do that too) But the competition cheerleaders are not girls to piss off, they're a lot tougher than they look.

So in some respects, the prototype for a stereotypical cheerleader ... look pretty

WTF???
This may just be the Australian interpretation, to me it means built like a (rugby) front-row forward.
We'd usually only use it to describe a man, and it suggests something like maximum height of 5'10", minimum weight over 200 pounds, and it's all muscle!
For women it suggests - probably does play rugby as a front-row forward, wears designer overalls when going out dancing, and has 'LESBO' tattooed across her forehead!

WTF???

This may just be the Australian interpretation, to me it means built like a (rugby) front-row forward.

At least in the case of my usage, it may be due to picking it up via other parties who didn't properly understand its usage when they encountered it. I don't see/encounter it often as I recall, so hasn't mattered much anyhow. I'll defer to others as to the previous interpretation being wrong.

(It's possible the person involved, however far back that particular chain runs, may have been "set up for a fall" as it were, and never encountered the punchline as it were)

Edit: Which isn't to mention confusion with "brick house" rather than "shithouse"(outhouse)

We'd usually only use it to describe a man, and it suggests something like maximum height of 5'10", minimum weight over 200 pounds, and it's all muscle!

That is a little tall but the right weight for the now retired captain of Les Blues youth team when SHE was about 18

Basically a "highly athletic" physique, but still feminine--not to an extensive bodybuilding degree.

Not in Australia.
Being built like a brick shit house means they are short and squat & at the very least unattractive (if not downright ugly).
As Ross at Play posted, it generally refers to men. Were it to refer to a woman she would be short, solid, no breasts or bum to mention.
Just a solid lump of a human.

How you can consider something like that to describe a female that is considered in attractive I just can't get my head around.

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-union/international/rugby-world-cup-2015-stuart-lancaster-boost-as-key-men-win-fitness-battles-for-tournament-10147865.html
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/sport/rugby/rugby-news/wales-hooker-huw-bennett-hangs-4710272
Scroll down to the image below the headings to see someone built like a brick shithouse.

Describing someone as built like a brick shithouse will be interpreted as them being particularly unattractive here in Australia & New Zealand, and i'd expect the UK as well.

Describing someone as built like a brick shithouse will be interpreted as them being particularly unattractive here in Australia & New Zealand, and i'd expect the UK as well.

In Australia it always means broad shoulders and heavy.
It definitely means particularly unattractive for women.
It probably wouldn't imply a man was particularly unattractive. The expression would only be used by men, and no Aussie man would ever comment on how attractive or unattractive another man was - except those in the alphabet soup brigade!
I think for both it means muscular rather than obese.
* If describing a man it means someone you wouldn't want to get into a fight with, not a fatso.
* If describing a woman who was both ugly and obese, any Aussie man would get creative and find something much more insulting than merely "built like a brick shithouse".

think for both it means muscular rather than obese.

Neither muscular nor obese IMHO.
Just solid, like the stereotypical club Rugby front rower.

Neither muscular nor obese, just solid

Yeah. A formerly muscular front-row forward who is now out of shape with a beer gut (but not obese) would still be considered "built like a brick shithouse".

If describing a woman who was both ugly and obese, any Aussie man would get creative and find something much more insulting than merely "built like a brick shithouse".

"Built like a brick shithouse hippie feral bush pig."

Built like a brick shithouse hippie feral bush pig

No, that would be a hippie feral bush pig who smells like a brick shithouse. ;)

I assumed it meant someone relatively wide for their height, possibly desirable in rugby players (male or female or other) but not so in typical people.

That's close enough. The heaviest players in a rugby team are usually the front-row and second-row forwards. The front-row forwards are usually much shorter - and they are the ones who would be built like a brick shithouse.
For a woman it also means so ugly she could serve time in a men's prison and come out with her virtue still intact.

For a woman it also means so ugly she could serve time in a men's prison and come out with her virtue still intact.

'Who looks at the mantlepiece while poking the fire?' (Source unknown)

AJ

though I doubt ANYONE ever owned a brick outhouse in reality.

There are a still quite a few around, hence why when someone is said to look like one, it's not a complementary term.
Sure, many wooden ones were often run down, but only because they were no longer used. Those still in use were (and are) often generally well maintained. But even a well maintained brick shithouse is usually short, squat and unattractive, but very, very solid.

And just as you don't want to visit Australia because all the wildlife there wants to kill you (seriously, HOW big are your spiders?),

... and don't forget about the crocodiles, sharks, and the most poisonous snakes in the world!
Such is the myth ...
The total number killed by spiders, snakes, crocodiles, and sharks is LESS than the number by being thrown from or trampled by horses!
It's been over 30 years since ANYONE has died from spider bite, since an antivenom for the funnelweb spider was produced.
It is true our creepy, crawly, and slithery are the most venomous in the world. If you do get bitten by some of them you'll very likely end up in hospital, but the number of bites is low, and very few are fatal.

You are more likely to be killed in Redneck USA by police for behaving suspiciously ... tanned!

Did you ever see that mid-90s ABC production, "The Seven Deadly Sins"?

No. And I cannot find any torrents for it either.

It's been over 30 years since ANYONE has died from spider bite, since an antivenom for the funnelweb spider was produced.

Yes, Australia is infamous for those but nasties are spreading to Europe. I found a False Widow Spider in the UK kitchen - could be very painful but not fatal. Worse, at lunch in France a tiny spider fell onto my wife's head and she started itching. Straight to the doctor who immediately recognised that we had been sitting under a Lime Tree. The treatment was two months of a new antibiotic created for cases where the problem is resistant to normal antibiotics plus constant use of a cream used to sterilise the skin prior to surgery. Two months antibiotics? - apparently if we had not seen the doctor so soon it could have caused gangrene, surgery and an eight month recovery period!

in France a tiny spider fell onto my wife's head ... apparently if we had not seen the doctor so soon it could have caused gangrene, surgery and an eight month recovery period!

Isn't the only surgery for gangrene amputation?
If your wife was bitten on the head and then needed surgery, an eight month recovery period seems a bit optimistic. ;)

Isn't the only surgery for gangrene amputation?

It depends on where, and how soon they catch it. If they catch it quickly enough, it is sometimes possible to simply excise the dead tissue and then keep the wound clean until it heals.

@sejintenej

in France a tiny spider fell onto my wife's head ... apparently if we had not seen the doctor so soon it could have caused gangrene, surgery and an eight month recovery period!

Isn't the only surgery for gangrene amputation?

If your wife was bitten on the head and then needed surgery, an eight month recovery period seems a bit optimistic. ;)
Replies:
Dominions Son

Fortunately we caught it in time and before gangrene set in. Took about three months to finally "conquer" it and the marks disappeared after about 6 months.

We were too far south for the "Adder" seen in Britain and northern France but we had other varieties of Vipers (one killed our neighbour's German Shepherd Dog) even in the house and in the roof tiles, hornets, asps but in 18 years I never saw any scorpions though I know they had been seen around - those ones are not dangerous.

(OK, would you believe 4-5 inches, tip to tip?)

Actually, that sounds a tad small for a huntsman.

The Huntsman spider is really big. Its body can reach 1-foot long and its leg span can get up to 6-inches long. This spider is native to Asia,

http://www.conservationinstitute.org/10-of-the-worlds-largest-spiders/

I considered flattening it with a shovel.

Unless it's a steam shovel, I would be concerned about damaging the shovel instead of the spider. :)

(seriously, HOW big are your spiders?),

The big ones aren't a problem. It's many of the small ones that can be really dangerous.

But there's nothing quite as creepy as watching a group of tarantulas migrate across a field

A few years before I was born my parents were driving through a part of South Australia that was primarily wheat fields.
While driving at night, it looked as though the road ahead was moving in the headlights, then they realized what it was. There was a mouse plague and the ground for several miles was almost completely covered in 100,000s of mice scurrying about.

There was a mouse plague and the ground for several miles was almost completely covered in 100,000s of mice scurrying about.

My aunt once related a similar story about TICKS crossing the street in front of her house.

StarFleet Carl

(seriously, HOW big are your spiders?),

The big ones aren't a problem. It's many of the small ones that can be really dangerous

The one I saw in my wife's hair was about 1/4 inch across including legs. I simply have to assume that it was the thing which caused the problem.

When I was based in the City of London there was a passageway on the way to work which they had to close off during the summer, allegedly because of insects falling from the trees which "could cause allergic reactions". When I made enquiries at the council as to exactly what those insects were I got passed from pillar to post and never found out.

If Betsy went down to Bondi Beach when a certain ex-PM was there, she would know exactly what size condoms she will need. ;)