But Doug Wilson has been reflecting on the foolishness of a beauty pageant contestant, parading herself in a bikini as part of the contest, becoming a spokesperson for Christian values whom we're suddenly all supposed to look up to.
And in that process, Wilson has had a lot of good stuff to say about how we think about lust, body image, etc. The best of his posts so far is this one from today. Go read it. It's well worth your time.
Here is my favorite part:
After posting a picture of a woman in evangelical leadership in order to demonstrate some of the more obvious incongruities, many of the responses from the men showed that they were battling against lust (good), but appeared to have no awareness of where the templates of the current ideal were coming from (bad). A similar thing happens with Christian women. Christian women resent being held up to that as the ideal shape, but not for the right reason. They don't resent it because they think is a ludicrous ideal, they resent it (or feel insecure about it) because they don't believe they can measure up to it. They resent the failure, which is not the same thing as opposing the standard. Resenting the failure is actually a way of accepting the standard, in this case a standard crafted by homosexuals. But I don't think the ideal woman should be crafted by homosexual designers the same way that first graders play with Mr. Potato Head.NB: Wilson has gotten some flack for illustrating these "incongruities" by posting a picture of evangelicalism's spokeswoman in a bikini. I think it made his point well, but some suggested that he was fueling lust. Anyway, that's what that first sentence in the quote is about.
Christian men fail to oppose the standard also -- they hold that it is in fact the ideal shape but that they oughtn't ever look at it. And they might succeed in their battle against lust, never ever looking, while the entire time they freely allow the world to dictate to them the shape of the objectum prohibitum.