How ironic that the capstone of God’s creation should become a portion of his work we so despise and want so desperately to reinvent.

Thank you for this extraordinarily well-written piece, Amy. And I'm sorry that so many have chosen to focus on one small piece of it at the expense of the whole thing. Whether we live in a small village or a metropolis, we will always be human - blessed and cursed in that reality. Competition and insecurity and shame will always be issues we must work through as part of our following after Jesus. What I appreciate about your thinking here is the emphasis on personal and communal accountability. Our 'predilection for plastic' needs to be named, and gentle acceptance of our bodies needs to be taught. What troubles me about some of the comments is a sort of shrugged-shoulder, this-is-the-way-life-is, we-can't-change-it sort of worldview. Isn't that why Jesus came? To show us the way it could be? So, I thank you for calling us to think/pray/work/move towards changing the way it is. Well done.

I think many of us struggle with a covetous and jealous heart when it comes to the male gaze - we are conscious of its judgment, and do not want to be found wanting.

i think the focus on the hypothetical (and yes, i think she did mean it hypothetically) is at the expense of the heart of amy's article. i don't think she's recommending that we all move to an isolated island/community and shut off out all media. and i don't think she's saying that doing this would create a utopia, at least in terms of body image. as i read your article amy i thought of a billboard for a plastic surgeon that i drive past regularly--"creating beauty, one face at a time." what a concise way to sum up the negative messages prevalent in our society/media. i as an individual can choose how i respond internally and externally to these messages. will i accept the body i have, choose to be content or complain, choose to believe my husband loves me as i am or superimpose what media tells me a man desires onto him? will i accept my husband as he is--will i look at him as MY ideal, or will i fantasize about the media's ideal sort of male? what will i communicate to my children--will they hear me complain about my body, or will they see me taking care of it and sense my contentment? as you said amy, with the Holy Spirit's help, i can choose to resist the media's sexual ideals and focus on my reality, my gift from God. i love what you said about your hubby. my sister and i have talked about essentially the same thing--our husbands choose to focus on us...i am his ideal, he doesn't dream of me being any different.

@Bethany E, All I was trying to do was explain the village idea differently. I understand that vying to be the best can be wrong. But it is not always wrong. I do not believe it is wrong to be the best at an activity when you have been gifted with something by God and strive to serve God by doing that. I even think that it is possible to do that with beauty (although beauty is not really an activity and I think that the concept falls a bit short.)

oh boy. Well: at least a bunch of other folks fixated on the "wasn't it just ducky when we lived in little villages!" issue as well. So, right up front: in general, I'm very much in agreement, as all of them are, I think. Now on to the point: Re: Bethany E.: I'm a professional singer—and quite a good one (if you care to judge yourself, check out James-Joyce-Music.com and hear the sound clips, but my argument isn't really based on personal technique; nonetheless, I think the fact that I am, personally a very good singer does give my comments a certain slant they might not otherwise have). I agree entirely with Adam Shields' point. Let me tell you—being a good singer is ANYTHING but less subjective. Good singing—being "the best singer in the village" is about communication...and that means communication—authentic communication—of self. Some of the finest singers I have ever had the privilege of listening to could barely carry a tune, and I'm not kidding. But when they got up to sing, they had no shame (which—back to the original post—in this day and age takes an amazing strength of character) and gave unstintingly of themselves: they showed you exactly who they were through the medium of their singing. And I would rather hear that, any day, than the most perfect technical singing with no meaning behind it—which, I assure you, you can hear any day on just about any stage in the world. People, being imperfect, will always judge: put three people together, and you have the makings of a clique and an outsider. It is the job of each and every one of us to understand that the only judgment that counts is our own, under God's; and—in so far as we can exert an influence in the circles we inhabit—to witness to this truth. Or so I think. It was ever thus; it ever will be thus, until the Lord comes again.

But, Adam, isn't the issue here that the vying in and of itself is wrong? When what you're vying for is something that's subjectively defined like beauty. (I'm not sure singing really works as an analogy because singing ability is a less subjective quality. Everyone can tell when someone is tone deaf, well, except for other tone deaf people). There's still going to be someone who ends up feeling inadequate. Having more of a chance to win doesn't make you feel any better when you lose; in fact, I think it actually makes it worse in many cases, that you got so close and just weren't quite good enough. And that one person who wins is still going to be the standard of beauty and others will be judged based on how close in appearance they are to him/her. The point that I and the other posters are making, I think, is that people don't need the media to feel bad about themselves, though it certainly inflames the problem in modern society.

Think of the village problem this way. Once upon a time, when you lived in a village and did not have mass media, every village had good singers that were known for their singing. There were 10,000 villages and 10,000 best singers. Now we have a a mass culture and even though the idea of specialization means that the best singers really are better than the average best singer in the village, now you have a few hundred that are really considered 'world class' singers. It is not a lack of competition, but a flattening of the field to compare with. So if there are 100 young women to compare with, many of them really are capable of vying for most beautiful. If there are 10 million to compare with, then you have no real chance.

I like this post. I also don't agree too much with the idea mentioned in the little village thought because when you get a bunch of people together unfortunately there will be a lot of comparing each other to each other. It is what we are not to do but our sinful nature loves to do it. BUT, we wouldn't have the bombardment of our senses with airbrushed images that only mess with everyone's minds. I'd say even the women in the airbrushed images find them getting insecure with them because they realize they don't even look like those images. I do like the new media blast of "Healthy is the new skinny." I hope it takes hold in a godly way...We shall see. And Bravo to Ms. Welch for saying what she did. She is a wise woman.

What would you and I find sexy if we lived in a small, isolated community with no exposure to media? Our cultural ideals would be formed by the characteristics of the people we knew. And without constant exposure to processed images, we would be largely free to develop our own ideas of beauty within the context of relationships. Attraction would be defined relationally rather than imposed by outside forces. We would all believe we were surrounded by the hottest people on earth. And we would be right. I disagree. Media is not the issue; the issue is people. We pay too much attention to others and allow ourselves to grow envious of them far too easily. We don't accept our own bodies as they are, or as they should be; we want ourselves to be bigger in the bust, or smaller in the waist, or shorter, or taller. (Funny story: I was watching Game of Thrones last night, and observed that "at least I wasn't as tall as the actress playing Brienne". I then looked her up, and I'm actually taller...) It's a human nature thing: The grass is always greener on the other side. It's always better to be someone else, rather than oneself. If a person escapes this trap of feeling inadequate, we don't even congratulate them - we call them narcissistic! -Just Karen