I don’t know your thumb, but mine measures about 2 - 2.3 cm (that is 20 - 23 mm), or just under an inch. And I don’t think my thumbs are particularly of large.
On the other hand, a standard CD-case is nearly 1 cm thick. I just measured it, a small tower of 10 CD-cases is 10.2 cm high, so one CD-case is 1.02 cm.
Nothing to to the nipple topic in the moment (unfortunately 
).
:rolleyes: minus “of” minus “to” plus “add”
…And why only two breasts? Most species get far more. Not fair. Not fair at all…
Hi - I’m DeVena and I have large areolas. {insert “Hi, DeVena!” here}
I’ve talked to my doctor about it and she says that there’s no problem having large areolas. She said mine where large, but she’d seen larger. I also asked her about a small protruding scar on my nipple, which she told me wouldn’t be a problem with nursing since milk comes from the entire surface of the nipple, not just the center.
Oh, and for those who need the measurements…
Breast size = DD
Areola = 3 inches (7.6 cm)
Nipple = 1/2 in x 1/2 in
Scar = 1 mm (It was a childhood injury that I wouldn’t let heal - no it doesn’t hurt - no you can’t see it.)
[QUOTE=Nils]
I don’t know your thumb, but mine measures about 2 - 2.3 cm (that is 20 - 23 mm), or just under an inch. And I don’t think my thumbs are particularly of large.
[QUOTE]
Compared to your brother’s… who must be the Hulk 
We are talking width of end joint here.
Your ruler is fine. It has the side with the MM (designating milimeters) marked with nine small lines and then a 1, nine more small lines and then a 2, etc. They should have marked the 1 as a 10 and the 2 as a 20, etc. However, each 10 MM is also 1 centimeter, that`s why the thing has a 1 instead of a 10 at the first mark. It is confusing in that it is labeled MM but each readable numeral is actually denoting a centimeter. Each small line is actually a milimeter (MM).
OK?
BTW, my thumbs are 25 MM wide. That`s 2.5 centimeters.
Or roughly 1 inch.
Maybe that only worked when they taught us in 2nd grade?
When I look at mine, I think 1 cm… But I’m only looking at the nobbly bit… or… if I turn it on it’s side… the width of the joint is just over a cm…
I’m hijacking my own thread damnit.
DeVena, so you actually thought something was wrong with you? I wonder if larger nippled women know they have larger nipples? When did they first start getting larger… with breast growth, or after… or before?
Average Areola size 3.5cm? There must be a LOT of women with 1cm wide areolae to balance out the larger ones.
There is only one unit on the metric side, and it’s labelled mm. As I said before, according to this ruler, they’re about 1.5 inches or 4 mm. Now, if 1.5 inches is 3.8 cm, I’m guessing that it should say cm not mm. Either way, they’re almost 4 cm.
I got the right measurement in the end, regardless.
<hijack> Well your ruler would be marked |…i…|
| being the cm mark
. being millimeters
and i being 5 millimeters.
Australians can convert to inches and back again in our heads… how come americans don’t learn to do the same? How many countries still use the imperial system anyway?</hijack>
I think the ring was too tight.
So far a C/D and a DD.
Seem to be some busty ladies among us.
[ducks for cover]
I think it’s just Americans that still use the imperial system. I didn’t have a problem converting the numbers, like I already said, I got the right measurements in the end. It’s just that I thought the lines marked 1,2,3, etc were milimeters because that’s what they were labelled. Since we don’t use the metric system over here, I have no concept of “centimeter” the way I do “an inch”. So when I measured 4 milimeters, then divided by 10, it made no sense. So I multipled the 1.5 inches by 2.5 and rounded up to the nearest 10th (in my head). So that’s 3.8. I can do the conversion, it’s just that I thought I was measuring in milimeters, since on the imperial side of my ruler, the line marked “1” equals 1 inch, so I assumed that the line marked “1” on the metric side (which was labelled mm) equalled 1 milimeter.
The way my ruler is marked, it would be like having a tape measured labelled “in” that had lines every inch but the 12-inch mark was labelled “1”. That doesn’t make sense to me. I’m sorry if I’m an ignorant American, but on every ruler I’ve ever used, the distance between the numbered lines has been whatever unit of measurement it was labelled. That’s not the way the metric side of this ruler is. The lines should either be 10, 20, etc. or be labelled cm.
I’m a C/D cup, and my areolas are somewhere around 2-3 inches wide. I hate it, and I’m all self-conscious about it. Needless to say, I don’t go flashing people anymore, heh.
Anyone know if there’s such a thing as areola reduction surgery? Heh.
Do we want to get into color contrast, too? I’m very fair skinned over all (‘ivory’ in terms of foundation) and my aureolae are barely a shade or two deeper pink. It’s hard to tell exactly where they begin when you’re looking close up, easier to spot at a couple of feet (as when looking in a mirror.)
Hmmm. I bet I could elimate the color contrast complete with a layer of ordinary foundation.
Anyone into the ‘Barbie’ look?
<sigh> That should be “eliminate” and “completely”.
Off to experiment with make up… (Hey, I’m home alone and bored.)
I’m also fair-skinned, and mine are only a couple of shades darker too. So for you perverts out there, that means I have (kinda) small pink nipples on otherwise (kinda) large breasts. I’m not including pictures.
Tease! 
I am 15 years old, and i have 7 cm from the diameter of the areolas. Or about 4 inches for those of you in the U.S. That is fairly large if you ask me…
Plus i can barely tell where mine end, and start, they are barely darker, and i am olive toned.
If you say it’s the imperial system, OK, but I always thought it was the English system.
Short answer: we don’t learn because there would be no point. Unless one is a scientist or mechanic, it doesn’t come up. Ever. I remember when I was a kid in the 70s there was a big push to foist the French system upon us and it failed badly. Folks were perfectly happy with the feet and yards and inches and so forth. And anyway, how does one go about asking a neighbor for a cup of sugar? What’s the term? Deciliters? A bit on the clinical side, if you ask me.
Other possible (and I emphasize possible as these are laden with my opinions) reasons:
The length of a man’s (or some dead king’s – or emperor’s, if you like) foot is admittedly arbitrary. Then again, so is the distance a cesium ion travels at a certain temperature in a vacuum at a certain time. Much more obscure, too.
The English system is handier in everyday life, with more logical gradations and major units. Most especially, significantly, in cooking. Telling legions of American moms (and dads, yes, and dads, but remember, this was the 70s) that you’re switching things up on them can get a reaction more marked than you’d have thought. I don’t even want to contemplate a kitchen based on the French system. Very telling is that it seems that on the European cooking shows the Food Network shows, they often rely on ounces and so forth anyway, or have tried to approximate teaspoons, tablespoons, and so forth. Gives one the impression that they just made a lot of unnecessary work for themselves.
Changing the system was going to be very costly and it definitely struck people’s “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” alarm. If the scientists and cargo shippers wanted to do things the new way, let them. Nobody was stopping them. But regular folks weren’t really impressed with the NEED for the new ways.
Dividing everything in life by ten, decimalizing life, seems a bit sterile. Maybe practical, maybe not, but definitely charmless and almost non-human. Vague feelings of the cold table they make you sit on in the doctor’s office in your humiliating paper robe come to mind.
Here’s another big drawback, in my opinion. They also started yammering, at the same time, about that ridiculous celsius temperature system. The one where if it’s 19 degrees outside it’s warm but if it’s 15 it’s frigid (you get my point). That is just plain useless. Nowhere near enough gradations on that scale. Again, great for science class but in real life, sadly lacking. It’s like taking most of the colors off of the palette. What’s next, binary? It’s either 0 outside or 1? Wear a jacket or broil to death?
It was being foisted on us by the French and other Europeans and they were kind of snooty about it (I know, shocking) so maybe we got a bit stubborn. I’m glad, too, because I don’t know that what’s good for scientists and corporations is always best for everyday people. Or that life is divisible by 10.
You state that Aussies are able to convert in their heads. Why? If the French cesium vacuum system is a comprehensive system, why are any conversions necessary? The fact that nobody here outside of scientific circles is forced to convert anything tells me that ours is indeed comprehensive and addresses the needs of everyday life, if awkward in interstate trucking and shipping. Unless your conversion to the French system happened very recently, which would be a different story, this speaks of inadequacies in the new way.
I’ve rambled on a bit but wanted to get our side of the story out there. Living in New York and interacting with Asian and European colleagues a lot, they often make mocking remarks about our way of doing things and wonder why we insist on doing things this way. I hope this can help explain why we stick with what was good enough for Grandpa and Grandma and that we continue to befuddle our transoceanic friends, because I think we made the right call. 2 cups of flour, 1 cup of sugar, 1 egg, a teaspoon of vanilla, and you’re most of the way to very yummy cookies. Does a decagram of anything sound appetizing (I exempt drug dealers from this question)?
And even this is not adequate. I had to pump exclusively for one of my twins (who is still fed by g-tube at age 4 1/2) and if it weren’t for the Ameda Egnell ‘Flexi-shields’ I would have done so much tissue damage to myself that I’d have had to quit. (But I have very small nipples for a mature female - not that this has ever affected my ability to feed my other children). To wit: on the one side, not only the nipple but most of the aureola would by sucked beyond the shield into the tube, and there was tissue damage occurring. It hurt. A lot. I tried narrower-diameter inserts and only made the damage worse. With the flexi-shields I went on to pump for 21 months (and donated milk to the Mother’s Milk Bank in Denver also).
Which is only to say that everybody’s different. And nipple size, breast size, and for that matter body size, have very little to do with ability to lactate or provide adequate milk for a baby.