UCB 2013 Battle AK Sex Appeal!

  • This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies.
  • The alluring Olivia makes her debut on the Katbox After Dark (Mature audiences only) Click here!
  • Venture into the beautiful, mad world of The Sprawl! Look into it's darkness and the horror deep within! (Mature audiences only) Click here!
  • Katbox.net uses Project Wonderful ads to pay its server costs and artists can have their own PW ads to let them draw comics for a living. We humbly ask that you whitelist Katbox.net in adblock to support us. Thank you.
  • The Katbox developer Patreon helps us grow as a site! Show your support and earn special forum badges, or access the private subforum where we personally answer your questions or chat about whatever you want! http://www.patreon.com/Katbox
  • Don't miss an update, Guest! Follow us on twitter at @Katbox_Comics to stay in the loop!
  • Come chat with your favorite Katbox artists and fellow community members on our Discord server!

Who has more sex appeal?


  • Total voters
    38
  • Poll closed .

Mihari

Katbox Mascot
Administrator
Apr 24, 2011
2,780
246
38
Here or There
www.katbox.net
#26
Yah sorry, not quite totally awake here (haven't slept) and got confused with all the numbers, terms, etc hence why I retracted my post. You are correct than the number in the bra sizes are the band(number)cup(letter).

However, the problem with measurements and the numbers your using (from the original and since retracted bust sizes) are very inaccurate, it's entirely feasible that Taffy and Tiggs have the exact same cupsize, but have different band sizes. However, this is largely guess work cause we don't actually know the real measurements, and height alone doesn't give us much to go on. :cryMihari:
 

mobiusscarf

Katbox Forum Member
Nov 14, 2013
203
48
#27
Yah sorry, not quite totally awake here (haven't slept) and got confused with all the numbers, terms, etc hence why I retracted my post. You are correct than the number in the bra sizes are the band(number)cup(letter).

However, the problem with measurements and the numbers your using (from the original and since retracted bust sizes) are very inaccurate, it's entirely feasible that Taffy and Tiggs have the exact same cupsize, but have different band sizes. However, this is largely guess work cause we don't actually know the real measurements, and height alone doesn't give us much to go on. :cryMihari:
I don't claim to be 100% correct here, but there ain't no way in hell Taffy and Tiggs have anywhere close to the same cup size just based on their height difference alone. If Tiggs was the same height as Taffy... sure I could see them having roughly the same cup size, but not when Tiggs is a full 18" taller.

EDIT: And to help illustrate my point:

Granted, that's a different tiger character and I don't know how her proportions compare with Tiggs, but I think it illustrates my point nicely.

That said, if you'd like to check my work, my method was basically to use the full bust chart and this height chart to estimate that in the bust chart, 5.5 pixels is roughly equivalent to 1 inch. Then I used a measurement tool in GIMP and some basic geometry to figure out the rest. There's only so much one can do with a profile, but I think what I've got is at least in the right ballpark.
 
Last edited:

Mihari

Katbox Mascot
Administrator
Apr 24, 2011
2,780
246
38
Here or There
www.katbox.net
#28
I don't claim to be 100% correct here, but there ain't no way in hell Taffy and Tiggs have anywhere close to the same cup size just based on their height difference alone. If Tiggs was the same height as Taffy... sure I could see them having roughly the same cup size, but not when Tiggs is a full 18" taller.
You're likely right on that note, but it should be stated that height has little to do with interpreting bust, especially when it comes to fictional characters and artistic renditions of anatomy. The bust chart in particular features highly curving backlines which are rather abnormal and would definitely skew measurements based on how much the back's depth changes on some characters. :cryMihari:[DOUBLEPOST=1395769602,1395768989][/DOUBLEPOST]Actually it doesn't really illustrate your point, it actually goes against it, it just shows that height doesn't really matter as far as busts are concerned as they can be as proportionate or disproportionate to the body. My point is Tiggs could be 100 feet tall, and Taffy 2 feet tall. The cup is still just the measurement difference between the band and bust, well okay not just, but close enough, if they both have a difference of 5-6 inches they'd have the same cupsize, sure that cupsize on a 2ft woman would look silly, but the point is it can happen, and in the furry/anime/manga/etc world(s), DOES happen.
 

mobiusscarf

Katbox Forum Member
Nov 14, 2013
203
48
#29
You're likely right on that note, but it should be stated that height has little to do with interpreting bust, especially when it comes to fictional characters and artistic renditions of anatomy. The bust chart in particular features highly curving backlines which are rather abnormal and would definitely skew measurements based on how much the back's depth changes on some characters. :cryMihari:
Oh, I definitely noted the backline problem on the characters (the measurement tool doesn't have to go in a perfectly horizontal line). Also a number of characters obscure their backlines with their arms, making it even more difficult to be precise. The bigger problem, however, is that extrapolating a circumference based on a 2D measurement of a person's bust is really inaccurate since that circumference won't be a perfect circle, which is what the formula assumes. That said, I did the best I could with what I had (without getting TOO obsessed over it at least).

Also, height does make a pretty substantial difference in cup size, at least assuming a character's proportions remain the same (which is generally the case in Chalo's art style). That is to say, the height itself may not be all that important, but the scale it represents is. If you took Taffy and just measured her as if she were 7' tall, scaling everything up with her, her cup size would invariably become much larger simply because of the differences in scale. The ratio between her bust and underbust remains the same, but with a greater height, the difference between them continues to grow as the ratio holds steady. It's not necessarily realistic in regards to anatomy, but neither are anthropomorphic tigers and rabbits. Yes, in real life, if a woman like Tiggs existed, her frame would probably be wider to support her greater stature, resulting in a smaller, more realistic cup size, but that's not the way Chalo chose to draw her.
 

Mihari

Katbox Mascot
Administrator
Apr 24, 2011
2,780
246
38
Here or There
www.katbox.net
#30
Oh, I definitely noted the backline problem on the characters (the measurement tool doesn't have to go in a perfectly horizontal line). Also a number of characters obscure their backlines with their arms, making it even more difficult to be precise. The bigger problem, however, is that extrapolating a circumference based on a 2D measurement of a person's bust is really inaccurate since that circumference won't be a perfect circle, which is what the formula assumes. That said, I did the best I could with what I had (without getting TOO obsessed over it at least).

Also, height does make a pretty substantial difference in cup size, at least assuming a character's proportions remain the same (which is generally the case in Chalo's art style). That is to say, the height itself may not be all that important, but the scale it represents is. If you took Taffy and just measured her as if she were 7' tall, scaling everything up with her, her cup size would invariably become much larger simply because of the differences in scale. The ratio between her bust and underbust remains the same, but with a greater height, the difference between them continues to grow as the ratio holds steady. It's not necessarily realistic in regards to anatomy, but neither are anthropomorphic tigers and rabbits. Yes, in real life, if a woman like Tiggs existed, her frame would probably be wider to support her greater stature, resulting in a smaller, more realistic cup size, but that's not the way Chalo chose to draw her.
Actually no, if you scaled up a character, the band and bust would increase, but not the cup, because it is the difference between those two things, that's the point I'm trying to make.

Also, yes, I realize it's not perfect because extrapolating the width of the character is very difficult if not near impossible for some, Tiggs especially in this case is significantly thicker than Taffy and would be much bigger, another thing which can totally throw things off is fur thickness. Which just makes things even more complicated. XD But you are commended for what you have put together.
 

mobiusscarf

Katbox Forum Member
Nov 14, 2013
203
48
#33
Actually no, if you scaled up a character, the band and bust would increase, but not the cup, because it is the difference between those two things, that's the point I'm trying to make.

Also, yes, I realize it's not perfect because extrapolating the width of the character is very difficult if not near impossible for some, Tiggs especially in this case is significantly thicker than Taffy and would be much bigger, another thing which can totally throw things off is fur thickness. Which just makes things even more complicated. XD But you are commended for what you have put together.
I appreciate it, and I'm sorry if this is bugging people, but I'm sorry, you're just plain wrong about cup not increasing with scale. If you had a 100-foot-tall woman with a D cup, that means her breasts would only extend 4 inches out from her chest. A difference that small would barely be noticeable. If you looked at her without a frame of reference as to how tall she was, you'd probably assume she was an A cup.

We can even demonstrate this if you want to and our measurements don't even have to be right to illustrate this, they just have to be consistent. I just tested this out. Take the bust chart and measure Taffy's bust and underbust. I got 57 pixels and 39 pixels respectively. Then scale up the image of her to match the height of Tiggs. Take the measurements again. I got 72 for the bust and 49 for the underbust. This is very close to the same ratio from before, but there's now a difference of 23 pixels rather than 18 pixels. Try it yourself and you'll find similar results.

OK, I promise to stop ruining boobs with math and science now.
 
Last edited:
Dec 9, 2013
415
69
Personal Text
This text is personal to me
#34
Finally. You ladies are finished. Can get on with the actual battle? ( What's left of it, at least :cryTaffy:)
 

Sage

The Katbox
Jan 14, 2008
835
53
33
Watchtower
yosh.katbox.net
Personal Text
Please, I go through everyones trash. - The Question
#36
Can't let this go unsaid. Mihari is right. Cupsize doesn't change if the proportions are scaled because it's determined by the proportion. Think of it this way. If you have a character with a C cup and scale her up to 100 feet tall. Then you take a C-Cup bra and scale it up at the same rate, that bra is the right cup size and is still a C cup, just made for someone 100 feet tall.
 

mobiusscarf

Katbox Forum Member
Nov 14, 2013
203
48
#37
Can't let this go unsaid. Mihari is right. Cupsize doesn't change if the proportions are scaled because it's determined by the proportion. Think of it this way. If you have a character with a C cup and scale her up to 100 feet tall. Then you take a C-Cup bra and scale it up at the same rate, that bra is the right cup size and is still a C cup, just made for someone 100 feet tall.
Mind if you back that up with some sources because I've never heard that? I mean, yeah, proportions often account for some part of determining cup size (at least indirectly) and cup sizes for different band sizes vary a bit in terms of volume, but ultimately a cup size is determined by the difference in inches between band size and bust size, and I've already gone into how the difference between those two measurements increases as you increase the scale. I really don't want to drag this argument out again unless someone has some sources. It's starting to annoy people.
 

Sage

The Katbox
Jan 14, 2008
835
53
33
Watchtower
yosh.katbox.net
Personal Text
Please, I go through everyones trash. - The Question
#38
The difference cannot increase because you are scaling everything at the same rate. It's math. The difference remains the same. If the difference is 4, when you scale it up by 100x its now 400- which in scale is the same. Just because someone is gigantic doesnt mean their cup size is going to be a trillion J or something silly like that because its relative to the measurements of the person.
 

mobiusscarf

Katbox Forum Member
Nov 14, 2013
203
48
#39
The difference cannot increase because you are scaling everything at the same rate. It's math. The difference remains the same. If the difference is 4, when you scale it up by 100x its now 400- which in scale is the same. Just because someone is gigantic doesnt mean their cup size is going to be a trillion J or something silly like that because its relative to the measurements of the person.
Dude, you literally just contradicted your own point. You said "the difference cannot increase" and "the difference remains the same" and then you said "If the difference is 4, when you scale it up by 100x, it's now 400." 400 is larger than 4. The difference increased. That's because it does.

I was going to let this thing slide until you said, "It's math." I was a math minor. This is a matter of pride (albeit a minor one).

If a person has a band size of 28 and a bust size of 56, the ratio between the two is 1:2 and the difference between the two is 28. Then we scale everything up by 2x. Like you said, everything is scaled up at the same rate, so you get 28x2 and 56x2. The new band size is 56 and the new bust size is 112. The ratio is still 1:2, but the difference has increased to 56.

And while it might make sense logically for bra measurement definitions to scale up as well relative to the size of a person (a D cup is a difference of 400 inches on a person who has been blown up to 100x rather than 4 inches), I literally can't find anything that says that's how it works. Everything I've ever seen or heard on the subject says that you determine the cup size based on the number of inches between the band size and the bust size and that's it. If you find anything to support your suggestion that the rules for determining cup sizes also scale up with the size of the person, I'll entertain the notion, but unless you do, I'm just going to consider this conversation closed.
 

Sage

The Katbox
Jan 14, 2008
835
53
33
Watchtower
yosh.katbox.net
Personal Text
Please, I go through everyones trash. - The Question
#40
The reason you aren't finding anything is because 100 foot tall people dont exist. If you are a math minor then I am shocked you don't understand this. Cup size is relative to the other measurements and the proportions. If you want proof, then you have to create a 100 foot tall woman and take her to a seamstress.

The cup size changes when that ratio changes, not when the numbers expand at the same rate. Cup size is relative. If their is no relative change, there is no cup size change. If all you see is "4 is less than 400!" then you missed the point entirely. the 1:2 needs to change. We use inches and cm to give a general estimate because we dont have people that are 100 feet tall. The average person is going to be between 5-6 feet tall so inches and cm/mm are the prefered measurements. That all said- the methods of breast measurements in bras today are all screwed up. a 34DD from one company most often isnt the same as a 34DD from another company. The entire measurement system for bras is flawed and one of the reasons is they dont take into account all the different body sizes. But most women will tell you- breast size is relative. A 5 foot tall woman with DDs and a 6 foot tall woman with the same size breasts- who do you think would look bigger? The smaller girl, because its relative. The only reason you think a woman that is super big would have bigger breasts cup size is because she is physically bigger. The truth is there arent enough letters in the alphabet even if you double or triple them up to count for all the inches added. It is completely impractical to develope a size chart to accommodate women by the inch when you have women that measure in the feet to meters far easier.

So ask yourself, if you were in a world where women ranged from 3 feet to 400 feet, would it make more sense to measure their cup size based on their body proportion, or by inches? Here's a hint, if you say by inches you are really stubborn.
 

ScorpDK

The Thread Ender
Mar 4, 2011
1,821
116
31
Personal Text
Welp
#41
-_____- *raises finger* this may be remembered in the annals of the Katbox as "The Braban incident"
 
Likes: Cobrez

mobiusscarf

Katbox Forum Member
Nov 14, 2013
203
48
#42
The reason you aren't finding anything is because 100 foot tall people dont exist. If you are a math minor then I am shocked you don't understand this. Cup size is relative to the other measurements and the proportions. If you want proof, then you have to create a 100 foot tall woman and take her to a seamstress.

The cup size changes when that ratio changes, not when the numbers expand at the same rate. Cup size is relative. If their is no relative change, there is no cup size change. If all you see is "4 is less than 400!" then you missed the point entirely. the 1:2 needs to change. We use inches and cm to give a general estimate because we dont have people that are 100 feet tall. The average person is going to be between 5-6 feet tall so inches and cm/mm are the prefered measurements. That all said- the methods of breast measurements in bras today are all screwed up. a 34DD from one company most often isnt the same as a 34DD from another company. The entire measurement system for bras is flawed and one of the reasons is they dont take into account all the different body sizes. But most women will tell you- breast size is relative. A 5 foot tall woman with DDs and a 6 foot tall woman with the same size breasts- who do you think would look bigger? The smaller girl, because its relative. The only reason you think a woman that is super big would have bigger breasts cup size is because she is physically bigger. The truth is there arent enough letters in the alphabet even if you double or triple them up to count for all the inches added. It is completely impractical to develope a size chart to accommodate women by the inch when you have women that measure in the feet to meters far easier.

So ask yourself, if you were in a world where women ranged from 3 feet to 400 feet, would it make more sense to measure their cup size based on their body proportion, or by inches? Here's a hint, if you say by inches you are really stubborn.
OK, now we're getting somewhere. To answer your question... yes, that would make perfect sense. In the world of Las Lindas, I'm sure it would be more than reasonable to have relative cup sizes given the very wide range of individual heights.

However, that doesn't really help me in terms of calculation for these stats. When I'm calculating a bra size for a character like Tiggs, rather than figuring out what a fictional bra company in a world I didn't create would determine her size to be based on reasonable proportions, I instead fit her as though she were a human getting fitted at a Lane Bryant or something. Would Tiggs probably be a 34N in her world? Nah, probably not since like you said, that probably wouldn't make a ton of sense. In our world, though? Assuming my measurements are roughly accurate, a 34N bra would probably be a better fit than a 34E, which would almost certainly be way too tight for her.

So that's all I've really been trying to argue. I'm not saying that relative cup sizes don't make sense, I'm saying that that's not the system we use in our world and it's not a useful system for comparing two different characters' physical stats when their height varies this much.
 
Apr 26, 2007
3,685
336
28
Arizona
#45
I'm...really torn on all this discussion. :pointsWT: I mean, technically, no rules are being broken and no harm's been done.

However, there is very little relevance between bust mathematics and this round of the UCB. Can we please cease it with the borderline-OT discussion of boob math?

If you absolutely have to continue this, please make an off-topic thread or take it to private messages.
 

Mihari

Katbox Mascot
Administrator
Apr 24, 2011
2,780
246
38
Here or There
www.katbox.net
#47
Okay, I was going to stay out of this further, but here we go, gonna sum this up, and then shut it up.

1) In regards to your scaling example and saying that the cupsize changes when being scaled up, your explanation was false, being if you directly and proportionally scale something up, while the numbers will increase, a difference between two points on the same image while might be larged now, the different ratio between them is not. In fact the fact you did scale something up, got a different ratio when you did it only tells me either you didn't scale it proportionally or you didn't use the exact same measuring spot and got a different number. When all you really had to do was just apply the % you scaled the image up to get your new numbers. It is true the volume of the breast obviously increased because of the scaling, but the ratio between bust and band would be the same. At least that was the point I was trying to send home.

2) Trying to assign a practical and universal bra system based on ours is extremely hard given how we really don't even have one. I do commend you for trying to apply one to these fictional characters.

With that being said if this is to continue, move it to PM or I can split the thread.

@Cobrez while you may not care for the discussion. It does not fall to you to do moderation. You could have reported the thread if you have that big of a problem with it. Groaning and complaining in the topic is even less acceptable for ANY topic.
 

Aeri

Resident Resident spirit expert
Gallery Volunteer
Nov 26, 2012
1,463
177
26
Spencerport
steamcommunity.com
Personal Text
Cat boobs ain't a spreadsheet
#48
This is indeed a long and well thought out discussion, I cannot envision anywhere else, or even here, Until it happened Although i was late to the huge discussion, One of the problems is if you look carefully at every LL strip and artwork, Some of the sizes fluctuate to a degree sometimes

2) Trying to assign a practical and universal bra system based on ours is extremely hard given how we really don't even have one. I do commend you for trying to apply one to these fictional characters.

Define "Ours"
LL's?
 

Mihari

Katbox Mascot
Administrator
Apr 24, 2011
2,780
246
38
Here or There
www.katbox.net
#49
This is indeed a long and well thought out discussion, I cannot envision anywhere else, or even here, Until it happened Although i was late to the huge discussion, One of the problems is if you look carefully at every LL strip and artwork, Some of the sizes fluctuate to a degree sometimes

Define "Ours"
LL's?
No silly, as in the one we use in our lives, I would never associate myself or anyone here as being apart of any Katbox comic's universe directly. I have a firm grip on my reality (most of the time.) :gleeMihari:
 

Aeri

Resident Resident spirit expert
Gallery Volunteer
Nov 26, 2012
1,463
177
26
Spencerport
steamcommunity.com
Personal Text
Cat boobs ain't a spreadsheet
#50
No silly, as in the one we use in our lives, I would never associate myself or anyone here as being apart of any Katbox comic's universe directly. I have a firm grip on my reality (most of the time.) :gleeMihari:
And unfortunately, I'm not so sure we're united on the subject here in "Reality" on the grounds that there's US and EU sizes (And i'm preeeety sure there are more n' a couple others)

But i did take that you might be speaking of LL because of the fact that we are talking about the bust sizes of LL characters, Simple misunderstanding but eh
 
Last edited: