What follows are the musings of an ex-lingerie designer. Side note: Humans, btw, are the only animals that sport full breasts all through their youth. Most mam

What follows are the musings of an ex-lingerie designer. Side note: Humans, btw, are the only animals that sport full breasts all through their youth. Most mammals, including all simians and apes, only sport enlarged breasts when feeding their young. Simplistically, cup-size is the chest-to-breast ratio, designed to compensate for the fact that radius of the cup is almost, but not entirely, independent of the chest circumference. It does not have a strong correlation to volume of the cup or to mass, although acute cup-sizes are more common at larger chest sizes. Human bodies grow very disproportionately at either extreme of size. For example, height is a very poor indicator of girth, although it bears a small correlation, and vice versa. Similarly, larger women have a higher incidence of acute cup-sizes, but the shape, consistency and mass of the breasts are very different from what you'd expect through linear scaling. Ultimately, larger women are a different market. It's common for a larger woman to have large breasts that have a small footprint on her torso. Most lingerie does not account for this. Most lingerie is also not built to bear the weight/consistency of larger breasts. You need to use load-distributing design, as well as resilient/soft materials to ease the stress on the back. And then, you have to put the whole thing together into a sexy package. It almost make it more fun to write code :)