The only one who's Marilyn-ish is Christina Hendricks, and only because she's hourglass, not because she's fat. And seriously, Marilyn was what? a size 16 or so? None of those women get anywhere near that.

Also, and not to sound b*tchy here (or, actually, maybe that's exactly what I mean to be), just google image "Cathy Horyn." Glass houses, anyone?

The Marilyn comparison is probably not that far off, but I think it's just a reflection of fashion leaning more towards a certain type of silhouettes. Tlsgirl, it's surprising, but Marilyn actually claimed to have a 23 inch waist, which most people suspect was closer to 25 inches. So she would be thin by today's standards, it's just that dress sizes have been re-adjusted over and over to accommodate the growing number of overweight Americans. I think Jennifer looks curvier (not larger) than normal, but it's the design of her dress. Kate Hudson and Courtney Cox's look as tiny and toned as ever - that writer is way off base.

Wow, tlsgirl, you're so right about Ms.Horyn! No supermodel herself, and you know what? I don't feel an ounce of guilt saying that, seeing as she clearly has an ugly personality.

Also, Marilyn was a "larger" size for her time- but now, she would NOT be a size 16. Her measurements were very small compared to those of an overweight woman- something like today's size 6.

I think they all look great (although I HATE that Kate and Jen have been working with that swindler Tracey Anderson. Can't stand that fraud!). The all seem happy and healthy.

I do have to agree that I didn't like Christina's dress. I don't think I would have liked it only anyone though. Not Giselle, not Jen Aniston, not Rosie O'Donnell. It reminds me of a dress I had for a Barbie. I think she was called Peaches 'n Cream Barbie and it was that color with white sparkles and ruffles galore! What was Christian Soriano thinking??

How ridiculous. Each of these celebrities are fit because they're active, not starving themselves. They are nowhere near "fat". And Christina looks absolutely beautiful - I actually like her dress!

Oh this just makes me so mad. Thank God these ladies look more Marilyn than Twiggy...hopefully people will start to trend nourished in Hollywood. Christina Hendricks is freaking fabulous, she is beautiful, and anyone who says otherwise has some kind of insecure bias.

WTF?! This is so effing ridiculous. It makes me so furious. How dare this moron sit in her office and pull to pieces women who are regularly written about for their healthy lifestyles? These four have some of the most enviable bodies in Hollywood. It's just so absurd, I can't even get my words out.

And PS. I don't care if it makes me a b*tch either, I googled Cathy Horyn. And yep. Glass houses.

I've always thought Jennifer Aniston and Courteney Cox were prettier with a little bit more curves - the got leaner and leaner as Friends went on - not that they were ever "curvy."

Absolutely a ridiculous article...what a shame that stuff like that makes publications!

Jen looks fit as ever, Courtney is teeny tiny on her show and looked great at the Globes, and Christina is curvy but gorgeous! This is truly ridiculous for someone to write and think that people would relate to this article. It just shows how completely out of step with the public NYT is.

Jen and Courtney were too skinny the last couple years of friends. It made them look older. They look great now.

That dress rocks on Christina Hendricks, she'd look lopsided in something that didn't balance her out on the bottom. The color is pretty blah though.

hmm. so bella, i think you're being overly sensitive, and in criticizing their "bias" revealing your own. What the link says verbatim is below. What you take issue with is the phrase "put on a little weight" - you automatically assume that's a criticism? I don't. how else would you say it? maybe you want a cutesy euphemism? every other phrase was flattering -"sexier curves," "amazingly, a womanly roundness,"... and marilyn is considered sexy and beautiful, while twiggy is defintely avant-garde and interesting, but difficult to call her conventionally sexy. and the "upper arms" that you're taking issue with? that phrase is purely neutral, all the author is saying is that they tended to wear arm-revealing dresses, and thats where you saw the weight gain. i think maybe it's you that needs to rethink what you consider beautiful...

"Maybe it’s just me, but I could have sworn that some of the ladies who showed up at the Golden Globes on Sunday had put on a little weight. It’s almost criminal to name names, because the very actresses whose body-mass indexes have been the subject of endless tabloid speculation are the very ones now sporting sexier curves. You could definitely see the difference if you concentrated solely on the upper arms. Instead of a Barbie-doll circumference, there was suddenly, amazingly, a womanly roundness to their frames. More Marilyn than Twiggy, that’s for sure."

oops i meant fit...

I'm with the above poster - to me, the article mentions that the ladies who are looking rounder had in the past been the subject of concern due to their scary-low BMIs. Most of the language seems to actually be praising these new 'amazingly womanly' frames.

As a woman who praises Christina for making my own shape sexy again in the mainstream, I'm not sure if the dress is the best option, simply because the drape of the ruffles seems off to me. But dang...how can anyone looking at that tiny waist call her big? I am glad she's finally wearing a red carpet dress that's a little more balanced, though - a lot of her choices just have her top half taking over.

Marylin was hot. I think this writer should button it.

What I wouldn't give to look like Christina Hendricks. With enough exercise and serious dieting just about anyone can be thin, but there's nothing you can do to get curves like that.

Just to point out that MM weighed around 120 pounds and was, what, 5'5" 1/2 or something? So it's not as if she was a porker. As another poster has said, it's the sizing that's changed. Go into any vintage shop and try on your current size in a dress from the 50s/60s/70s. It'll never go on.

monroe was a size 12, but like a few other people said, that's a lot smaller than a size 12 these days. go to h&m where they have european sizing and are generally cut smaller -- that's the scale designers used back in marilyn's day. it's even in "pretty woman" when the saleslady who actually helps julia roberts looks her up and down and goes, you're a size six? when there is no way that julia roberts is anything bigger than a 2 in that movie. but aside from all that, i think kate, jennifer, and courtney are still as slim as ever -- and they look SO much better than rose byrne who showed up to that awards show looking awful and haggard.

That was a sexist and very irresponsible article. It's ridiculous that in 2010 a supposed well respected newspaper would print such garbage. These women look fantastic just the way they are.

As a fan of Marilyn Monroe the writer of the NYT article is ridiculous!! I have never seen this women look better and more beautiful. It was nice to see the curves which I think makes all us more confident in our own body types regardless of how big or small we think we are!!

New York Times is notorious for writing without thinking.

omg those women (courtney, jennifer, and kate) are NOT 'portly' by any means!!! wtf is this article trying to say? they are still SUPER thin! i don't notice much if any filling out.

WHAT. THE. F*CK. These women are gorgeous, and also tiny. Way to say the complete wrong thing here, NY Times. By the way, remember how much flack Jennifer Aniston and Courtney Cox got when they were super skinny in the Friends era?

Y'all know that the New York Times never lets the facts get in the way of their reporting.

They all look incredible...better than ever, if you ask me. I gotta agree with you about Cathy Horyn, tlsgirl....maybe she should pay a visit to Jen, Courtney, or Kate's trainer. (Not to mention stylist...working in the fashion industry, you think you'd at least TRY to be fashionable! You're gracing the net alongside Anna Wintour and beautiful models for heaven's sake!) I'd LOVE to see a pic of Andy Port. I looked all over and couldn't even find a little one. Bet there's a reason for that, she's probably as fug as they come!

Courtney Cox looks a hundred times better these days then she did in her skeletal Friends days.

Check out her butt on "Cougar Town" in jeans...I'm less than half her age and I am way, way jealouse because she fills it out perfectly.

just found a picture of cathy horyn: http://www.observer.com/files/full/cathyhoryn.jpg

lol, she should not be one to talk. i think christina hendrick looks fab!

umm I'm pretty sure the writer was being complimentary......are we so brainwashed that now "sexier curves" is equal to "fat?"

The NYTimes is going to start charging for us to read articles in 2011. Maybe it will be the end of idiotic stories like this one that aren't worth a dime.

Marilyn was not exactly "fat", but Twiggy was pretty emaciated-looking. I'd rather look like Marilyn over Twiggy any day and I'm glad the celebs are looking like her. No one wants to see clothes hangers parading around in dresses.

I agree with many here. The NYT is using the word curvy for what it really means - sexy curves not rolls. Many people use curvy as an euphemism to fat. They are curvier, just like Marylin, who was also toned and not a size 12 for these days, but more like a 4.
And Christina is a big girl. she is not fat, but she is tall, and has very big breasts, and wide hips. All of this adds to volume, even if it is in all the right places. And yes, you need to out someone very small in that dress for it to work.
All these girls are sexy in their own way, and the NYT is not debating that.

Did anyone actually read the article, including Bella? If any of you actually had, you'd realize that the author actually meant the "rounder" comment in a GOOD way, not bad. But this highlights a very real and growing problem in our society - we all can me mislead by the media (in this case - Fitsugar) and lead to believe something and get all bent out of shape about something that is not TRUE, all because we don't check the facts on our OWN. Case in point.

Marylin was probably a 4/6 and could have (at one point) went up to an 8.

She wasn't bigger. Yes she was a 12 back in her day, but you have all seen pictures of her. We also know that sizes back then were ALOT smaller. Heck, even clothes i bought years ago were "bigger" sizes but fit smaller then their modern equivalents. When she dies she was teeny and i'd estimate at about 120.

Everyone needs to stop calling her curvy, and then refering to her weight. She was curvy because of her waist to hip ratio, not because of what her scale said! You can be slimmer and curvy (like the way models used to be)

If we're getting that nit-picky to judge the circumference of their arms, then here are my observations: Jen's arms, not as toned as they have been at time, though certainly not larger or more round, perhaps camera angle; Kate's arms, look at her, that's pure muscle; Courtney's arms, bad pose. You put your arm flat against your body like that and I don't care how skinny you are, it spreads your arm flesh out flat, making it look wider than it really is. Anyone who calls Christina Hendricks a big girl should hope not to meet an actual big girl in a dark alley, I'm just saying. Marylin Monroe was 115 lbs when she died, most of her career was spent between the weight of 120-125. A modern size 6 with considerable tailoring to allow for curves.

Instead of pretending very actresses who are often criticized for their small sizes have gotten more rounded, why not actually compliment the more rounded actresses?

I just don't understand why this is the focus of so many things nowadays. It's one or the other, thin or thick, fat or skinny. All three of those women above have COMPLETELY different bodies and also have figures nothing like Marilyn Monroe's. I just wonder...when will people finally be tired of talking about women's size and weight?! Who cares?! They all looked fabulous in their own individual way.

I want to clarify that I do not think anyone really "bashed" these ladies by saying they had sexier curves..that to me is a compliment. What I want to know is why are we writing articles about it? I mean is that all we have to talk about?

I can't fathom how anyone would take a comparison with the ultimate sex-symbol that it Marilyn Monroe as an insult.

Ditto what everyone else is saying! These bloggers need to have their eyes checked, none of these ladies are round or fat, they are all too skinny, even the girl from Mad Men. She's got a great pair of knockers, but she's plenty skinny!