I think Cecil should update his classic column from 1983 on breast size (reprinted 4/23/09). Like the author of the orininal question in 1983, I have also noticed an apparent increase in breast size especially among college age women (I have been a faculty member for many years so have had an opportunity to observe this particular age group). 25 years should make an interesting comparison.
Sherlock is referring to Am I imagining or are women’s breasts getting bigger? - The Straight Dope (it’s considered kosher to post the link to the column in question, Sherlock).
In that column, Uncle Cecil said
And all I can say is: THANK YOU, LADIES, FOR THAT DECISION! 
Before reading Cecil’s response, I thought that bras may seem to be getting bigger because more women are wearing comfortable bras, rather then bras that smash things down. I understand it was common, decades ago, to minimize the appearance of the breasts in favor of showing off the hips and thighs. Thus is might be normal for a women with a C cup to wear a B or A sized bra. IN more modern times, many women stopped wearing bras, or started wearing them for comfort and support, rather then to appease society.
f course, today, augmentation is common, and so bra sizes are no longer a good indicator of the average women’s breast size. I think this is a shame, as there is great beauty in natural small breasts.
I would think that breast size is ever increasing, simply because of rising obesity rates in this part of the world. Unfortunately, this is not how I wanted it to happen.
A 36B *is *a larger breast than a 34B. It’s the same size breast as a 34C on a larger back. So upward trends in back size with stable cup sizes *would *mean larger breasts, albeit on larger women.
I bet, though, that a 34B putting on weight is more likely to become a 34C than a 36B, even if she’s more likely to buy the 36B when the 34B stops fitting, because her self-perception is of a B cup. I’m fairly heavy, and I’m only one back size larger than I was as a slender teen, but a whole *bunch *of cup sizes bigger.
The UK bra etailer Bravissimo claims nearly all women are wearing too big a back and too small a cup, and the real current average is about 34E (a UK E, BTW, which is the size after DD).
Also, if AA and AAA (the latter of which I’d never heard of before) were as common as the person who wrote in believes, why are they given names that are quite clearly created to backfill after the ‘basic’ sizes of ABC?
IIRC
There was a recent article in Wired Magazine, that charted the measurements of Playboy Centerfolds from the Late 50s to today.
They found that indeed, Breast size is going up, waist size is going down.
IIRC further, the same article went on to state, or at least imply a connection to Anime.
The introduction of Anime into America has had some impact into why America, as reflected in Playboy, favors big breasts.
I had a look for this.
The downward BMI trend is *far *more obvious than the upward trend in cup size. In fact, the average is now clinically underweight, while the average cup size is smaller than Bravissimo’s estimate of the average bust, and only one size above more widely quoted averages.
So, while it is somewhat anime-like, the unrealistic expectation it promotes is more in regards to body size than breast size.
Yes, but that was the 1920s. In fact, bras, as such, were invented at that time for that purpose. But I believe the time frame of the question is meant to be a bit shorter. Large breasts and notable cleavage have been fashionable ever since the “flapper” look went out. (There are exceptions, of course, chiefly high fashion, “wholesomeness”, and some forms of feminism.)
As to breast sizes in Playboy, they have more to do with silicone than anything else. In the “glamor” industry, natural breasts are nowadays treated as a fetish.
While many Playmates have had implants, they are in fact highly unlikely to have the unnatural looking breasts of porn stars. Playboy still emphasizes the natural look, even if that may mean that very small breasts have been moderately enlarged.
And the actual Wired article clearly shows that the bust size of Playmates has been decreasing markedly in recent years. By far the largest average breast size was in the 1950s, when those breasts - breasts that would not look at all natural today even though they were - were in style.
Cup size always averages a C or D. And today’s frames are thinner, with somewhat smaller waists and hips than in the early days. That may indicate more implants or it may be the result of more exercise and diet and changing expectations.
The use of a simplistic indicator like BMI, something almost everybody working with obesity hates, makes the larger graph suspect as best.
Take Miss August 1978. 5’7" and 117 lb. A classic 36-24-36. BMI 18.2
Miss April 2000 is also 5"7" and 117 lb. Her BMI is 18.3. But she’s 35-24-34.
Miss November 1990 is 5’6" and 112 lb. So her BMI is an almost identical 18.1. Her measurements are 34DD-24-32.
Three different frames, three identical BMIs.
The BMI calculator shows how much tiny differences in weight swing the BMI.
5’7" and 125 lb. 19.6
5’7" and 135 lb. 21.1
The bottom end of what the “average” 5’7" woman should weight is 135, says one random link. Her 21.1 BMI would be higher than almost any Playmate in history.
What that chart really says is that Playmates have changed little over the years, although they are a bit slimmer and fitter, while the average American woman has gained a lot of weight. And that BMI doesn’t tell much about anything, so it shouldn’t be used. But it’s Wired magazine so what do you except?
There are Playboy Special Editions (monthly all-pictures, no articles) specifically featuring natural breasts; there are also Playboy Special Editions focussed on bare feet.
This is truly the Golden Age of the fetishist.
Sigh. Fifty years from now we’ll be looking back at the Good Old Days.
(And in post #9 that should be "But it’s Wired magazine so what do you expect?"Lysdexia of the fingertips.)
Can’t see what might be so unnatural-looking about the 50’s busts, frankly I think there’s been too much suspicion of implants in this thread. D+, even on a slender woman, is not automatically unnatural. I was *15 *the first time somebody asked me if I’d had implants, a question that came from somebody who was fully aware of my age, and still seemed to think implants was a better explanation for the 32D I was then than natural shape. In all honesty, I think probably even most 30HH bras are sold to hold natural breasts.
This attitude *hurts *women, and I mean physically, because they think a over certain cup size, particularly with a small band, is unrealistic, and so they buy one that’s several band sizes too big and can’t support them properly. Even fully aware of my freakishness I fell afoul of this one for a bit. :o
Exercise and diet can make waists smaller, but it would affect natural breasts in a similar manner. And something I’ve noticed is the early ones appear to have similar bust and hip measurements, while the modern ones have large bust measurements and slender hips. Some real women are shaped like that, though. No individual playboy model is an impossible shape, it’s that they’re all a very rare shape that’s the problem.
Yes, BMI is horribly simplistic, but still, all those three women are from since the average dipped below the clinically underweight line and clinically underweight themselves. Their measurements only differ by few inches, and they all have exactly the same waist size. November '90, with the slimmest hips, has the biggest bust, and appears to have quite broad shoulders, while August '78, with the biggest hips, has quite narrow shoulders and slender thighs. Also, the article itself says we have no idea if the numbers given are true, or fudged to play into the fantasy.
I’m not quite sure what you’re trying to say, here. 21.1 is well within what’s typically quoted as the healthy weight range, usually the underweight line is put at 18.5. Oh, and look at the actual little pink dots, one 1964 model has a BMI of almost 24.
“Slimmer and fitter”? The average centrefold has been clinically underweight since '76. Slimmer, yes, but small measurements have little to do with fitness, and once you’re in the underweight range there’s a good chance they’re hurting it. Female *athletes *tend to look boyish and sometimes even rather chunky. Not like playboy models at all.
In the 50s-early 60s, they were not *much *smaller than the average young woman, and there are outliers shown at 23 and 24. Up until the early 70s, there are quite a few little pink dots above the BMI 20 line (20 is the underweight line used by the Australian government). Since 1990, the highest outlier was about 21.5 in 1999, and exactly three dots lie above the 20 line.
BMI was invented to measure populations, and for looking at trends like this I honestly don’t think it’s a bad tool. Certainly I don’t know how else you could do it. That said, the graph is actually somewhat misleading – there are pink dots below the BMI 16 line (that’s clinically severely underweight, and below the BMI considered practically diagnostic for anorexia nervosa) that forms the lower edge of the graph from the mid 70s on.
BTW, am I the only breast-owning person posting in this thread?
Okay, campers, and with all apologies to stevie…Screw it. I was going to make a tasteless joke, but I’m a guy of a certain age (as in '70s Playboy-ish) with a daughter who is thinking of reduction surgery to reduce back pain. (And, honest to God, I will track down and kill any guy who tries to make a joke. Ed is Italian and understands.) I can relate to my daughter, empathize with stevie, and still look with nostalgia at the Playmates of yore.
Not that it relates much with the column…
ETA: And yet, Stevie… 
Word. I’ve been measured multiple times as a 32F. No one makes 32F. They assume that if your cup size is that big, you need an enormous band size. The closest option I’ve found is a 36DDD, and I can tell it doesn’t quite fit right. And even for that I have to shop at Lane Bryant, which many normal size girls would just refuse to do. Luckily I’m not hung up on it. It sucks.
It did occur to me after the fact that somebody might take that to mean a sig. other’s breasts, but I couldn’t think of a decent alternative way to put it in time.
Your daughter might benefit from a better fitting bra. It’s quite possible, given what I’ve heard on the internets about the range of sizes available in the US, and in what type of shops, she doesn’t even *know *bras that fit her exist. Though, over a lifetime, the surgery will probably be cheaper.
And if you read 70’s Playboy, you’re probably at least as old as my father.
hugs As much as it sucks that you have to, I suggest shopping online. Your reasonably small cup might do all right with local etailers, but there is better choice from Europe, especially the UK, if you’re willing to pay the postage. Personally, I did all right in brick-and-mortar until last year, but the limit in Aussie stores seems to be higher than in the US.
In regards to the column, the column was about how sizes above C used to be rarely mentioned, and wondering if it’s actual change in the population or just changes in advertising pressure. Both women posting in this thread are DD+, one who says she’s ‘normal’ size elsewhere, and the other who is overweight now but was DD+ even when she was slender. It’s proven people are getting fatter and taller, so why not bustier?
I’ve got a pair of ultra-glossy, de luxe 19DDs with enhanced functionality.
I can remove them by inserting a screwdriver into the slots on the nipples and turning anti-clockwise. They come off quite easily.
I bet you can’t do that with yours.
Would or wouldn’t? In my case, at least, it seems I lost the fat around the chest (but not there itself). Bigger difference then between chest and under the chest… Higher bust size, lower band size. :smack: Not what I wanted.
And I echo the suspicion of faked breasts, although, since I don’t regularly look at Playboy pictures, nor at pictures of fake vs real breasts, I wouldn’t know what they put in Playboy.
What do Playboy centerfolds have to do with anything? Even if they’re not augmented (whether by silicone or airbrush), they’re still highly selected, and in no way represent an average or other cross-section of the general population. At most, records of Playboy centerfolds will tell you what sorts of breasts or bodies are popular in any given era.
Well, the point of the Wired article is to discuss how Playboy is not representative of reality, but shaping desires.
steviemutton said:
Can I get a more detailed explanation, for a “non-breast-owner”? How are cup sizes determined? Why is a C not a C?
There is exactly zero evidence in that article that Playboy is shaping desires rather than reflecting desires or responding to other trends or finding that its applicants have self-selected their bodies or something else or some mix of these. The article doesn’t say anything or make any case. All it does is take the worst possible statistic and put it onto a pretty graph. There’s no discussion, no comparison with other trends, no look at the size of models or movie stars over the years, nothing that would would make any sensible argument. We are given one line. Because it’s about Playmates they got people to discuss it. The discussion should be about how statistics and graphic presentations are misused to con a gullible public.