Christina Hendricks' Husband Responds To NYT's 'Big Girl' Comment

peoplestylewatch.com:

And that New York Times blogger saying that's so ridiculous," he said, referring to the paper's fashion critic, Cathy Horyn offering the critique "You don't put a big girl in a big dress. That's rule number one." Arend contines, "What was nice was seeing the entire internet come after that blogger."

Read the whole story: peoplestylewatch.com

Comments

[Sabum]

01:05 PM on 03/17/2010

This is what a healthy curvy beautiful woman looks like. not like "Precious", who is obese, not curvy.

"baba booey"

[Sumocat]

01:17 PM on 02/02/2010

I tend to agree. I would prefer to see her in a smaller dress or most preferably no dress at all. Oh, or was the controversy over the "big girl" comment?

[annna]

03:47 AM on 02/02/2010

here r more pics
http://picturesvideosonline.com/christina_hendricks_pics

[onceler]

04:28 PM on 02/01/2010

Drool. So hot. Guh.

[snookie fan]

03:49 PM on 02/01/2010

what a beautiful women

here are more christina pics
http://picturesvideosonline.com/christina_hendricks_pics

[grimcity]

10:13 AM on 02/01/2010

True Fact: Christina Hendricks is totally slammin'. She's got the BANG and POW, thus she's full of win.
For real though, hotty Mchohot for sure.

[LeftLeanWing]

01:48 AM on 02/01/2010

Ladies and Gentlemen ( and Republicans)....

Introducing NYT fashion critic, Cathy Horyn

http://z.about.com/d/fashion/1/0/_/q/2/55327352_10.jpg

[seroquel]

11:56 AM on 02/01/2010

After seeing the picture of the blogger, I understand why she would be jealous of Hendricks.

[MorpheusXNYC]

11:08 PM on 01/31/2010

Sweet megegeny, she's hawt!

[mairs]

11:11 PM on 01/31/2010

She looks perfect to me! I don't see what the problem is. Glad to see that you guys like her!

[ECB]

12:02 AM on 02/01/2010

We do !

[LordByron13]

12:57 PM on 02/01/2010

Good lord, how could we not?

[Doc0976]

09:41 PM on 01/31/2010

I understand that the color is the wrong choice for her skin tone...or lack there of. That dress in black, a red or purple hue would have been much more flattering.

And yes, a curvy woman with implants...where have I seen that before? Oh yeah, Kim Kardashian...but at least Ms. Hendricks has talent.

[LordByron13]

12:58 PM on 02/01/2010

I don't think those are implants...I'm working on find out and will let you know...

[Doc0976]

01:23 PM on 02/01/2010

They are and it's ok if they are. They are flattering to her figure and even out her proportions. I think she may have had a chin implant, too, but it's subtle enough to blend with her features.

I'm not against cosmetic surgery. I think women should feel free to enhance their beauty in anyway they choose. That is how hair color was revolutionized in the sixties and seventies. They look natural because she was probably already busty to begin with. She probably wanted some extra uuumph. She got it.

[griggsville]

09:26 PM on 01/31/2010

The whole concept of Western beauty is so blatantly anti-women that having an intelligent conversation about it seems kind of ridiculous.

I personally think Ms. Hendricks is one of the most erotic women I have ever seen. And what constitutes "big" is a relative notion.

[TikiJak]

07:25 PM on 01/31/2010

Wait....because her breasts are large, she's fat? Jeez, these fashion columnists really need to get past the whole 'female models need to have bodies like sexless children'

[Jingo]

02:33 PM on 01/31/2010

Do a google search for photos of Cathy Horyn and you might see where the hostility comes from. Looks aside, a woman whose entire clothing pallete is limited to grey and black is probably not a reliable fashion critic.

[rabiddog6708]

12:27 PM on 01/31/2010

She is only "big" in the bosom and I see nothing wrong with that. A gorgeous woman with the body of a woman.

[Nancy Walker]

10:32 AM on 01/31/2010

I've been in a DD cup since I was 14 years old, and I am proud to see Ms. Hendricks's curves celebrated as gorgeous. The NYT fashion blogger is a lazy writer and obviously is prejudiced against female physiques that don't conform to her idea of beauty. That makes her shallow and narrow-minded. but what do you expect? SHE BLOGS ABOUT FASHION. And speaking the of the NYT, the "accidental" photo-widening incident is the final nail in the coffin for me about their credibility in general. I recently defended them as the American paper of record, and now, I'm really disgusted. They really are just another rag.

[LordByron13]

01:00 PM on 02/01/2010

1) Wow...we should be friends...and yes, Ms. Hendricks curves are gorgeous; I like her face too...
2) The writer seems more vindictive than lazy.
3) Don't let that little incident color your idea about NYT...they are still the paper of record, just choose another source for social stuff...

[cjsamms]

09:10 AM on 01/31/2010

Yeah, it was "inadvertant." The NYT was inadvertantly caught in yet another lie.

[TexasMike]

10:14 AM on 01/31/2010

I'm betting that you don't even care about the topic. Your sole purpose is to make insidious snarky comments here and there to try and undercut the NYT. Well, peon, the people around here are smart enough to make their own judgement call about the NYT and they certainly don't need some third rate peon spreading disinformation around.

Besides it was in the entertainment section, for god's sakes. Not too much world altering stories going on around there.

[honoursplendor]

04:39 PM on 01/31/2010

The Times is a well-established paper that for better or worse has been wrong many times in its coverage of new stories (as would any other news paper or news organization). However, since the NYT considers itself the "paper of record" the expectations are that the paper will hold itself to a high standard across the board. Who cares if this story is only printed in the style section? Did you read the poorly written post in the NYT? It was written like the catty diary post of a middle school teenager. The photo that accompanied the original post seems to have been manipulated to support the writer's argument -- although the NYT claims it was an error. The NYT undercuts itself each time it is caught out with poorly sourced or inaccurate information that makes it to its web and print pages. It should hold itself to a higher standard -- no matter what section the story appears in.