a lady of 2010.
Main message, I have noticed you seem to give an awful lot of news space to women who have very thin limbs and very big breasts in comparison. I saw a picture of Christina Hendricks on the cover of a magazine entitled the New Yorker or New York..is she New York itself or a New Yorker, is that why you have featured her? Because she doesn't fit into your claim of the return of the voluptuous. There are only two things voluptuous about her unless you are her husband/partner/lucky thang and know better.
And she is very pretty with her red hair but quite often you seem to forget about women who neither fit into the tanned category nor the white, white category. I thought New York was multi cultural?
Your white, white or black skin or "latina" !FEATURES! remind me of that funny and awful habit of patting your head and rubbing your stomach at the same time.
Oh excuse me, it's my conscience. Oh hello? Yes..yes.. It appears this voice inside of me is saying they would like to see Christina Hendricks wearing an inspired 2010 outfit of jeans and a tshirt, casual and sexy. Instead of her two twin mounds of pale love, waist looking awfully pained (Ms Hendricks, do you have a doctor on all sets just in case?)..and perhaps she could tell us about the people that contributed to her presence on Mad Men and have more than one dimension without the usual sex sells cliche that was cute at first in particular with the nature of her programme but rather like her holly golightley's sort of needs to be freed from their trap....oh silly voice! I believe you are implying women can be sexy on the inside..Blush! I just don't think the world is ready for that yet!
Typed from the keyboard of a computer.
p.s. I do believe it is not the sweat that attracts men to movie and television stars and the women labelled "goddesses" outside the screen buisness and in the world which is moving forward and backwards at the same time..1950/2010.. and then there's the business of empowerment. Ooh stop it! But sweetie muffins, I must go.