# Does Christina Hendriks look bigger than normal in these pics? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [October 30, 2010, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-christina-hendriks-look-bigger-than-normal-in-these-pics/558884 "2010-10-30T16:59:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Sleeps\_With\_Butterflies](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@Sleeps\_With\_Butterflies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sleeps_With_Butterflies)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2010, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-christina-hendriks-look-bigger-than-normal-in-these-pics/558884/61 "2010-11-01T01:23:56Z")
To me she’s a lot like Beyonce in the way that it seems that every picture I see of her shows her at a different size. I’m assuming it has everything to do with how much shapewear she’s wearing. The OP’s pictures of her seem to be the middle range of how I’ve seen her. I’ve definitely seen her smaller (especially airbrushed in a few still shots and ads) and I’ve seen her significantly bigger as well. ---
**Author:** ![even\_sven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dfb087/32.png) [@even\_sven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/even_sven)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2010, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-christina-hendriks-look-bigger-than-normal-in-these-pics/558884/62 "2010-11-01T01:35:52Z")
> [@Gestalt](#): > > I don’t think she looks dowdy at all . . . her face is so stunningly beautiful that even dressed like that I think she’s very much a looker and would turn heads. Yeah, her face is gorgeous. But try scrolling down so that her face isn’t visible and you just see her body…it’s nothing special, in fact, it’s a bit on the “unattractive” side. ---
**Author:** ![rhubarbarin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/eb9ed0/32.png) [@rhubarbarin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rhubarbarin)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2010, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-christina-hendriks-look-bigger-than-normal-in-these-pics/558884/63 "2010-11-01T01:46:43Z")
Hmm, I think my reaction would be more like '[HOLY CRAP BOOBIES’.](http://cdn02.cdn.thesuperficial.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/1029-christina-hendricks-drive-12-480x720.jpg) ---
**Author:** ![Gestalt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/90ced4/32.png) [@Gestalt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gestalt)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2010, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-christina-hendriks-look-bigger-than-normal-in-these-pics/558884/64 "2010-11-01T02:05:55Z")
> [@even\_sven](#): > > Yeah, her face is gorgeous. But try scrolling down so that her face isn’t visible and you just see her body…it’s nothing special, in fact, it’s a bit on the “unattractive” side. I can definitely see what you’re saying. But I wonder if it isn’t an effect of her top being sort of baggy, once again. I think if she was wearing a form-fitting sweater, she’d look a lot slimmer. I also don’t think she has much of a belly. ---
**Author:** ![gravitycrash](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@gravitycrash](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gravitycrash)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2010, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-christina-hendriks-look-bigger-than-normal-in-these-pics/558884/65 "2010-11-01T02:17:30Z")
Some of the comments about her ugly feet on that site crack me up. So there are actually people who are fixating on her feet instead of her other ample assets? Takes all kinds I guess. ---
**Author:** ![Zsofia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/7bcc69/32.png) [@Zsofia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zsofia)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2010, 4:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-christina-hendriks-look-bigger-than-normal-in-these-pics/558884/66 "2010-11-01T04:27:29Z")
> [@pulykamell](#): > > Actually, in those pictures she looks a bit _smaller_ to me than on _Mad Men_. I think with girdles and such she’s just “more extreme” - more tummy fat shoved up and more shoved down. ---
**Author:** ![alice\_in\_wonderland](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alice_in_wonderland/32/176_2.png) [@alice\_in\_wonderland](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alice_in_wonderland)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2010, 4:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-christina-hendriks-look-bigger-than-normal-in-these-pics/558884/67 "2010-11-01T04:52:10Z")
> [@rhubarbarin](#): > > From Googling her I found out they sold a dress on ebay that she wore on Mad Men for charity, and it measured 39-30-39. Since she obviously wears a corset and shaping bra for the show, I assume that’s off from her normal measurements by a few inches. Not an ‘hourglass’ figure but a proportional and curvy one. > > ‘Bigger’ doesn’t mean ‘obese’ or physically unattractive. I think she’s beautiful and quite sexy. > > By her measurements she wears a ‘Large’, size 12-14, that’s about the average clothing size for a woman in the USA but most who wear it are also a few pounds at least ‘overweight’ by BMI. So yeah, she’s bigger than a lot of women, especially famous women (not that too many of them aren’t unnecessarily and unflatteringly thin). actually those measurements equate with a size 8 or 10 in US sizes which is about hoe she looks to me. And the ‘dowdy’ picture that \*\*even Sven[\b] linked to is hilarious - I guess it just shows that if you look long enough you can find a bad picture of anybody. Personally I wish I looked that bad on my ‘dowdy’ days. ---
**Author:** ![alice\_in\_wonderland](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alice_in_wonderland/32/176_2.png) [@alice\_in\_wonderland](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alice_in_wonderland)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2010, 4:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-christina-hendriks-look-bigger-than-normal-in-these-pics/558884/68 "2010-11-01T04:56:54Z")
Ggood grief - bad is supposed to be in quotes as in I wis my ‘bad’ was that good. Grrrrr - stupid iPhone. ---
**Author:** ![SciFiSam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/47e85d/32.png) [@SciFiSam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SciFiSam)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2010, 5:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-christina-hendriks-look-bigger-than-normal-in-these-pics/558884/69 "2010-11-01T05:06:32Z")
Her figure looks fine, but those clothes would not look good on anybody. ---
**Author:** ![AClockworkMelon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aclockworkmelon/32/10803_2.png) [@AClockworkMelon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AClockworkMelon)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2010, 5:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-christina-hendriks-look-bigger-than-normal-in-these-pics/558884/70 "2010-11-01T05:22:45Z")
> [@AutumnLeaves](#): > > I think the “victory”, if there is any, is adding another body type into the Hollywood mix, instead of just really thin or really thin with big boobs. I don’t see why it’s a victory to add one unobtainable body type to a group of unobtainable body types. I seriously don’t see the problem. The hottest among us will be lifted up and worshiped as gods just like the most athletic, most musically talented, etc. ---
**Author:** ![SciFiSam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/47e85d/32.png) [@SciFiSam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SciFiSam)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2010, 5:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-christina-hendriks-look-bigger-than-normal-in-these-pics/558884/71 "2010-11-01T05:31:57Z")
> [@AClockworkMelon](#): > > I don’t see why it’s a victory to add one unobtainable body type to a group of unobtainable body types. I seriously don’t see the problem. The hottest among us will be lifted up and worshiped as gods just like the most athletic, most musically talented, etc. I like that - the hottest among _us_. 😃 VG. The point is that her figure isn’t unobtainable. I know quite a few women with her body type. ---
**Author:** ![Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/brown_eyed_girl/32/3574_2.png) [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Brown_Eyed_Girl)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2010, 1:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-christina-hendriks-look-bigger-than-normal-in-these-pics/558884/72 "2010-11-01T13:27:16Z")
> [@AClockworkMelon](#): > > I don’t see why it’s a victory to add one unobtainable body type to a group of unobtainable body types. I seriously don’t see the problem. The hottest among us will be lifted up and worshiped as gods just like the most athletic, most musically talented, etc. I don’t see what’s so unobtainable about Ms. Hendricks’ body type. She’s about as close to ‘normal’ as ‘normal’ gets, even a little on the meatier side. That’s nothing that healthy eating and moderate, but consistent exercise can’t achieve.\* Unless you have some kind of hormonal issue or physical defect. - Of course, if you’re not naturally so well-endowed, you’ll need the talents of a plastic surgeon to achieve that aspect of her look. And a damn good bra. ---
**Author:** ![alice\_in\_wonderland](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alice_in_wonderland/32/176_2.png) [@alice\_in\_wonderland](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/alice_in_wonderland)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2010, 5:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-christina-hendriks-look-bigger-than-normal-in-these-pics/558884/73 "2010-11-01T17:34:59Z")
> [@Brown\_Eyed\_Girl](#): > > I don’t see what’s so unobtainable about Ms. Hendricks’ body type. She’s about as close to ‘normal’ as ‘normal’ gets, even a little on the meatier side. That’s nothing that healthy eating and moderate, but consistent exercise can’t achieve.\* Well, I agree that her type of look is much easier to achieve for most women than super-waif thin, she still has some genetics to thank as well. The ‘wasp waist’ look is fairly uncommon - generally most women tend to be a bit thicker around the waist than Ms. Hendriks. Not thick - just a smaller difference between bust, hip and waist, ifyaknowwhatimean. ---
**Author:** ![rhubarbarin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/eb9ed0/32.png) [@rhubarbarin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rhubarbarin)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2010, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-christina-hendriks-look-bigger-than-normal-in-these-pics/558884/74 "2010-11-01T17:56:27Z")
> [@alice\_in\_wonderland](#): > > actually those measurements equate with a size 8 or 10 in US sizes which is about hoe she looks to me. And the ‘dowdy’ picture that \*\*even Sven[\b] linked to is hilarious - I guess it just shows that if you look long enough you can find a bad picture of anybody. Personally I wish I looked that bad on my ‘dowdy’ days. Yeah, you’re right. I was thinking US standard sizes, most major retailers have departed from that to an extreme extent and aren’t even anywhere near catalog sizes anymore. ---
**Author:** ![DigitalC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ebca7d/32.png) [@DigitalC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DigitalC)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2010, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-christina-hendriks-look-bigger-than-normal-in-these-pics/558884/75 "2010-11-01T19:00:57Z")
She does look bigger than normal. ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2010, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-christina-hendriks-look-bigger-than-normal-in-these-pics/558884/76 "2010-11-01T19:50:43Z")
> [@Zsofia](#): > > I think with girdles and such she’s just “more extreme” - more tummy fat shoved up and more shoved down. I think that may be it. She’s always looked a bit big to me on _Mad Men_, but in editorial shots I’ve seen of her and her co-stars (I’m talking non-publicity stills, stuff from Getty and the like that has been un-retouched), she’s really not that big at all. Chunkier than your average TV actress, but not “big” by my definition. Like [this image from October 17.](http://www.gettyimages.com/detail/105666943/WireImage) ---
**Author:** ![Hello\_Again](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/85e7bf/32.png) [@Hello\_Again](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hello_Again)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2010, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-christina-hendriks-look-bigger-than-normal-in-these-pics/558884/77 "2010-11-01T20:17:51Z")
> [@AClockworkMelon](#): > > I don’t see why it’s a victory to add one unobtainable body type to a group of unobtainable body types. I seriously don’t see the problem. The hottest among us will be lifted up and worshiped as gods just like the most athletic, most musically talented, etc. If her measurements are as described, (39-30-39) then not only is her figure not unobtainable, I have in fact obtained it, chiefly by eating too many jellybeans+the genetics to have a small waist-to-hip. I’m an 8, or a 6 if the garment is cut loose over the hips, and I could be a hell of a lot smaller than I am, and still be nowhere near “movie star” thin. Hendricks is basically a whale by “movie star” standards, and an “average-on-the-slim-side” woman by the standard of American women. Her waist - hip is actually not that extreme. She of course uses foundation garments in order to achieve the extreme-hourglass style of the day, but that was quite expected, even at the time. ---
**Author:** ![Sleeps\_With\_Butterflies](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@Sleeps\_With\_Butterflies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sleeps_With_Butterflies)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2010, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-christina-hendriks-look-bigger-than-normal-in-these-pics/558884/78 "2010-11-01T20:48:37Z")
> [@rhubarbarin](#): > > Yeah, you’re right. I was thinking US standard sizes, most major retailers have departed from that to an extreme extent and aren’t even anywhere near catalog sizes anymore. All anyone has to do is buy vintage garments at a consignment/vintage shop to see how different vanity sizing/new sizing is. Two of my friends and I spent the afternoon shopping these store recently and had a good laugh at the difference. One friend wears a 6 by today’s sizes and couldn’t begin to squeeze herself into size 10 clothing from previous years. ---
**Author:** ![Fried\_Dough\_Ho](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a88e57/32.png) [@Fried\_Dough\_Ho](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fried_Dough_Ho)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2010, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-christina-hendriks-look-bigger-than-normal-in-these-pics/558884/79 "2010-11-01T21:31:08Z")
> [@Hello\_Again](#): > > If her measurements are as described, (39-30-39) then not only is her figure not unobtainable, I have in fact obtained it, chiefly by eating too many jellybeans+the genetics to have a small waist-to-hip. I’m an 8, or a 6 if the garment is cut loose over the hips, and I could be a hell of a lot smaller than I am, and still be nowhere near “movie star” thin. Hendricks is basically a whale by “movie star” standards, and an “average-on-the-slim-side” woman by the standard of American women. > > Her waist - hip is actually not that extreme. She of course uses foundation garments in order to achieve the extreme-hourglass style of the day, but that was quite expected, even at the time. My current measurements are 42-31-42. When I drop 20 pounds, those will all go down by an inch or so and I don’t even wear the extreme foundation garments to achieve the natural hourglass. Its just how I’m shaped. When I do strap into a corset, I can get my waist down to 26 or 24, but THAT just looks obscene… ---
**Author:** ![lindsaybluth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/90db22/32.png) [@lindsaybluth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lindsaybluth)\ **Post date:** [November 1, 2010, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-christina-hendriks-look-bigger-than-normal-in-these-pics/558884/80 "2010-11-01T21:38:02Z")
> [@Zsofia](#): > > I’ve always found J Crew not curvy enough on bottom - Victoria’s Secret has a lot of slutwear, but I’ve been LOVING their pencil skirts for work this year. I look megafine in them - they fit my curves and aren’t too tight. You are not the first person to tell me that, actually. I have a friend with the cutest suit - from Victoria’s Secret! I have two pairs of workout pants that fit me better than the usual Nike/Adidas/etc. I actually may put a VS skirt on my Christmas list now, thanks! > [@zweisamkeit](#): > > Disagree. “Huge boobs” doesn’t always equal “hourglass”. She’s definitely busty (and gorgeous), but her waist/hip difference isn’t all that much, as **rhubarbarin** said. She curves in a bit at her thighs, but everyone does. It’s the corsets, shapewear and photoshop that really whittle her waist down in pictures. Mmm, on second glance, you seem to be right. But none of us genuine hourglass girls would win points if we said we look like hourglasses in jeans an a tshirt :p. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-christina-hendriks-look-bigger-than-normal-in-these-pics/558884.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-christina-hendriks-look-bigger-than-normal-in-these-pics/558884.md?page=5)