When the leading ladies of Mad Men rocked the Golden Globes red carpet on Sunday night, two of the three wore sexy crimson gowns. Even though January Jones showed more skin, many might argue that redheaded bombshell Christina Hendricks was the real scene-stealer, thanks to her signature super-curves.
But word on the web now is that her wow-wow-wow booty and pow-pow-pow boobies might have been ... gasp! ... store-bought.
Last week, Playboy tweeted pics of Hendricks from their July 1999 issue. If you love yourself some Joan Holloway, you probably did a "What the heck?!" double-take when you got an eyeful of old-school Christina. There is our retro-licious hottie-patottie (it's her face, for sure), but her body ... where did it go? She's veering dangerously into waif-ish Kate Moss territory in that metallic bikini!
We were left with our heads spinning, wondering, did our beloved curvaceous Christina have some kind of alien-esque body transplant in the last 12 years or was that just a typical skinny-on-steroids Playboy PhotoShop botched-up job?
Although some have concluded it's possibly the latter—sigh of relief—that's not necessarily the "teachable moment" in this reality-wracking incident ...
Instead, we should see this as a wake-up call that nothing in Hollywood is necessarily real. So why are we fawning all over it, comparing ourselves to it, and most dangerously, aspiring to model ourselves after it? A recent article in the BBC Magazine made such a valid point on this very issue: "Christina Hendricks ... has been identified as the woman with a body others should healthily aspire to. But how realistic is it for women to look like her?"
I don't care if she used to be a flat-chested twig, and then went to a plastic surgeon to ring the cash register for a butt, hip, and boob implants. Or if she somehow gained weight in all the right places, in order to be a 38-32-38—which would still require a mega-rigorous diet and boot camp-ish workout regimen. Either way, it's pretty much crazy for us mere mortal women to think we could or should look like Christina Hendricks—in 1999 or in 2011!
Sure, it's still OK to consider her a glamo-sexy superstar, but come on ... enough already with this infectious idea that the ideal body is a celebrity's—whether it's buxom or barely there. As much as I appreciate that society is sniffling over the possible loss of ONE genuinely curvaceous, talented actress (sorry, Kim Kardashian, you don't count), there's a problem with putting any star's body—real or fake—on a pedestal.
Image via Twitter