Chelsea Handler Looks Like A “Playmate,” Says NY Times

“Below the neck, Ms. Handler is arranged along old-fashioned lines. Writers have described her as a California surfer type, but the truth is closer to the fantasy. In person, without makeup, her body has the pre-silicone lushness of a ’60s Playmate.”

WTF? Regardless of your opinion on the comedienne Chelsea Handler (I love her, mostly), writer Cathy Hornyn’s third paragraph of her profile in Sunday’s New York Times is aggravating as all get out. Yeah, Handler is attractive. But what’s the point of describing her body? Is the author trying to imply it’s helped Handler in her success? (Whether it did or not is debatable.) Even if one does think Handler’s attractiveness is salient to the article, it really pisses me off that Hornyn referred to her subject as “Playmate”-like before even mentioning her successes as an author and TV show host. Would an attractive male comedian’s body be mentioned in the third paragraph of a NYT profile — or at all? [Personally, I thought the entire profile was snide. -- Editor] [NY Times]Want to contact the writer of this post? {encode=”jessica@thefrisky.com” title=”Email her”}!

Posted Under: , , , ,
  • Zergnet: Simply Irresistible

  • HowAboutWe

  • afc-right-ad

  • Popular
  • afc-right-ad-2

  • We’re Loving