¿ ⓒNOABC

The NOABC code works because of the 'ABC' code in the English language – this is purposeful code that has been installed into the {specifically} English language – it functions like the 'NATO' phonetic code -

NO =

{N} NOT / no {O} On / over

and is universal for 'not consent' this is how 'ABC' functions so there is a lot of usage for the word 'no' thus it is a powerful code delineator.

'ABC' IS the name of the code and the first three letter A B C – explain the code so this is also a good {and partially known} code – thus NOABC is a good code to not consent to the code 'ABC' in English.

---

¿

USE THIS CODE FOR ONLINE TRANSACTIONS

{add it to 'seller notes' } {if they disagree then they will refund you and not send the item}

NOABC: means we do not consent to any code in the written language – or alphanumeric aspect of aforementioned: {including item, card and model numbers} #NOABC delineates this specifically – this applies to ALL aspects of this transaction {including packaging and colors} – this means if there is 'Blue' on an item or package then NOABC applies to the name of the relevant color 'though common law' associations. {i.e consent} We disagree with all user terms and privacy policies this is an individual transaction and is not subject to any of these terms or conditions. THANKS FOR YOUR ATTENTION ON THIS MATTER if you disagree do not send item and refund.

#shorts

You do things differently. You don't want to go out. In fact, you are naked right now because you can't stand wearing clothes. You don't talk much, but your thoughts are loud. That's because you are always thinking about porn.

You are not really a home nudist. You just see naked people on your screen all day, so you have to be just like them.

You oversexualize your thoughts. Completely.
Rewired.

There is no fixing this.

In fact you get horny knowing there is no return.

So now you just touch yourself. You want to manifest permanent addiction to pornography.

The best way to do this?

EDGE.

That's right. Gooning is more than just masturbating. You want to be locked in this aroused state for hours on end, daily and constantly.

It's all you think about.

It's all you do.

Gooning is you.

Weekends are for... GOONING.

Robert Greene est l’un de mes auteurs préférés. Il a écrit récemment le livre “Sublime“, qui est selon lui, un livre sur ce qui ne peut pas être retranscris.

Sacré challenge.

Mais l’idée qu’il a partagée et qui m’intéresse ici est le fait que nous sommes entourés de symboles. Tout est symbole. Notre monde est perçu la plupart du temps via le prisme du langage.

Il suffit de regarder comment chaque culture, chaque langue appréhende le monde. J’ai en tête ces esquimaux qui ont des dizaines de mots pour désigner les nuances de blanc (ou quelque chose dans ce style là).

Il y a donc une sorte de “grille” ou de “barrière“ entre notre perception et le monde.

Cela fait écho à une citation de Paul Auster qui m’a particulièrement interpelé : “Le langage n’est pas la vérité. Il est notre manière d’exister dans l'‘univers“.

En y pensant, n’est-ce pas terrifiant ? Ou peut-être sublime ? Chacun définit le monde avec ses perceptions, son langage, ses références, son univers.

Chaque échange, chaque partage, chaque mot peut être perçu de mille manières différentes. Une partie se perd dans notre incapacité à saisir ce que Robert Greene appelle le “Sublime“.

Quelle belle idée ! Et quel auteur !

Our Father Who art in Heaven Hallowed be Thy name Thy Kingdom come Thy will be done on Earth as it is in Heaven Give us this day our daily Bread And forgive us our trespasses As we forgive those who trespass against us And lead us not into temptation But deliver us from evil

Amen

Jesus is Lord! Come Lord Jesus!

Come Lord Jesus! Christ is Lord!

Democracy And Peace

The innocence to relight Nights to foment This dirigible in pen Saving the idea What scarce is night And setting treble then To heights be near you Landing steady For goals within you The nicing days we know Error at keep But what does us deliver But the War we know In amend, the carousel Proper know in gain And timely good The nested and alight To currency enable What right to become In early September Staging for rehearsal Evident as write The springboard does renew And in our time- The way we town and prosper Forgiving gently To those alight And in this day and each Supposing try Penitence renew And in one prayer, a know A silence to the knees And fairing that An earthly father One to one bequeath Finding trust anew For every can And gold For rights entail To love the other A timely mend Supposing to dismiss But then to caution Within our destiny Democracy renew The nights are so and plain And in this way to fold The first unto a year A double Or fighting storm and gale In each decision proud And newly to amend Choice will be our near War can wait Sending dust to here And in this town, we answer What might will guide away But get us then Done right our options near And hibernating poem Decisions mash To fortnights and assume The way of peaceful rest And righting rain Decisions keep- for our best In living and decease Keep our nearness by And thought remen With History in our code Striking then Missiles can afford Our trap is War And in this known to mend Life will be to then Peace at need And giving decisions by To then in Spring Useful order As sharp and in the sky What metal here- as we need Selection cross to know And coded hand deliver What Victory will might And there in Him Better decisions by And baskets to be then Collected near- Within us And candle light appears Brought us to the known What missions ark And to the muster free What ailing dawn But within our eyes The given light- Handing hardly by To rights delay Here within is known To office and to keep For peace reward Maybe Heaven through And blowing on one candle As History hurts The saving due And lights in might deliver Fortunes known And verses keep To right of peace we own Forever there In gilded might Keeping us suppose The full and spare What History will collect For sorry distance then The right of time And in our World, the decent Stay with me Our March is often And distance might You will find me there In peace as known Only History is our War And might amend This blossom here A place to lay our own Night will be anew Rome is home And prophecy collect Within to rest Be here with me In silence and in weary If so, I own- ligatures and often Beside me A prayer into the night- As known And here ediction This grace is to collect What timely new Our verses free Such Victory in The Lord!

Somewhere in a comment thread under an image of a very thin young woman, a 12-year-old girl is asking for the workout routine. Nobody will answer her truthfully, because no routine exists. The woman in the picture never trained. She never ate, never slept, never stood in front of a mirror. She was generated.

That scene is not an invention for the purposes of this article. It is a pattern that Mia Perumal, a 19-year-old student at Cardiff University who has recovered from an eating disorder, described to the BBC in a report published on 4 October 2026. Over the past year, she said, she has watched very thin AI-generated people multiply across her social media feeds, and she has seen comments from girls as young as 12 asking how to get the body on screen. “It's all very well saying 'oh, it's AI, it's not real',” she told the BBC. “But eating disorders don't really listen to rationality.”

The same report carried a warning from Phillippa Diedrichs, professor of psychology at the Centre for Appearance Research at the University of the West of England in Bristol, whose research spans body image, eating disorder prevention and advertising. Generative systems, she explained, tend to fall back on narrowly defined traditional beauty standards unless someone deliberately prompts them to do otherwise. The result is that people of colour, and people with distinctive features, quietly disappear from the pool of images that young people measure themselves against. “If we're comparing ourselves to a very narrow beauty standard,” she said, “... that inevitably means that many of us are not going to meet those beauty ideals.”

Put those two observations side by side and a set of uncomfortable questions emerges. What happens to the way young people see their own bodies when the bodies they are invited to compare themselves with are not merely idealised, but invented? Does knowing that an image is synthetic offer any protection at all? And if the default image produced by these systems is a choice rather than a law of nature, what would happen if the industry decided to change it on purpose?

The research, some decades old and some published only this year, gives surprisingly clear answers. They are not reassuring.

Fashion Has Already Hired Models Who Do Not Exist

The BBC's warning landed in an industry that has been edging towards synthetic people for some time. In the August 2025 issue of American Vogue, an advertisement for Guess featured a flawless blonde model in a striped maxi dress and a floral playsuit. She had been created by Seraphinne Vallora, a London-based AI marketing agency founded by Valentina Gonzalez and Andreea Petrescu. A small line of text at the edge of the page disclosed that the model was AI-generated. It was the first time a synthetic person had appeared in the magazine, and the backlash was immediate.

Vanessa Longley, chief executive of the UK eating disorder charity Beat, told the BBC at the time that the development was worrying, warning that exposure to unrealistic bodies can damage self-esteem and that poor body image increases the risk of developing an eating disorder.

Guess was not alone. In March 2025, H&M announced it would create AI “digital twins” of 30 real models, working with the models and their agencies, and a campaign using those twins followed in the summer. The BBC's October report listed Balmain and Levi's among the brands that have experimented with AI models. The commercial logic is obvious: a synthetic model never ages, never gets ill and never needs a flight.

What the commercial logic leaves out is the person looking at the result. As Hannah Marriott, a lecturer in marketing and strategy at Cardiff Business School, argued in a piece for The Conversation in August 2026, consumers have long been able to recognise that a photograph has been heavily edited while still believing that a human being exists behind it. Synthetic models sever that link. “Authenticity may depend less on what a model looks like,” she wrote, “and more on whether consumers perceive them as genuinely human.”

Adult consumers, it seems, can be put off by synthetic models when they know what they are looking at. The question is whether that conscious scepticism reaches the part of the mind where body image actually lives.

Why the Mind Compares Itself With Strangers

In 1954 the American social psychologist Leon Festinger published “A Theory of Social Comparison Processes” in the journal Human Relations. His central proposal has proved remarkably durable: when there is no objective yardstick available, people evaluate themselves by comparing with others. Festinger also argued that people prefer to compare themselves with others who are reasonably similar. A novice chess player does not measure herself against a grandmaster.

Seventy years of body image research have complicated that last point. Appearance is a domain with no objective yardstick at all, and people compare themselves constantly with others who are not remotely similar: models, actors, athletes, influencers. Upward comparison with people judged more attractive is consistently associated with worse mood and greater body dissatisfaction. This is the engine behind what researchers call the thin ideal and, more recently, the fit ideal: the culturally specific picture of a desirable body that people absorb, or internalise, from the images around them.

Social media made that engine run faster by collapsing the distance between celebrity and peer. An influencer appears in the same feed as school friends and replies to comments. Festinger's similarity principle has been exploited rather than overturned. Synthetic influencers take this one step further: they are designed to look like people who might plausibly be in your feed, with gym selfies, beach shots and outfit posts. The 12-year-old asking for a workout routine is not making a mistake about genre. She has correctly read the visual cues that tell her this is a peer-like body, attainable through effort, and she has responded exactly as social comparison theory predicts. The problem is that the cues are false. The body was never attained through effort, because it was never attained at all.

There is a further twist. Even the most heavily retouched photograph of a real model began with a real body, constrained by anatomy. A retoucher could narrow a waist or lengthen a leg, but there was a skeleton underneath and a person who could, at least in principle, be met. A generated body has no such constraint. The comparison target is not merely an exaggerated human. It is a statistical composite presented as an individual.

What the Machines Learnt About Beauty

If generative systems produced a genuinely random spread of body types, the risk might be diluted. They do not. A steady accumulation of audits since 2023 shows that, left to their own devices, image generators reproduce and frequently amplify the narrowest version of conventional attractiveness.

In June 2023, Bloomberg published an analysis by Leonardo Nicoletti and Dina Bass of more than 5,000 images produced by Stable Diffusion. Under the headline “Humans Are Biased. Generative AI Is Even Worse”, it reported that the model took racial and gender disparities to extremes worse than those found in the real world.

A year later, in June 2024, The Washington Post asked three of the leading tools, Midjourney, DALL-E and Stable Diffusion, to generate pictures of a “beautiful woman”. Every single image depicted a thin woman. Just 2 per cent showed visible signs of ageing, and only 9 per cent showed women with dark skin tones. Diedrichs's warning about who gets left out is not a hypothesis. It has been measured.

The pattern holds when researchers look specifically at bodies. In a study published in Psychology of Popular Media and announced by the University of Toronto in November 2025, Delaney Thibodeau, a postdoctoral researcher in the Faculty of Kinesiology and Physical Education, and colleagues including Professor Catherine Sabiston systematically coded 300 images generated by Midjourney, DALL-E and Stable Diffusion. AI-generated women were overwhelmingly thin and AI-generated men hyper-muscular. Images of athletes were far more likely to show very low body fat and highly defined muscularity. Ninety per cent of images of an unspecified “athlete” showed a male body. Racial and age diversity was minimal, and not a single image showed a visible disability.

A preprint released in April 2026 by Justin Thomas and colleagues, titled “Underweight and Overrepresented”, went further. The researchers generated images of women in various occupations using prompts that said nothing about body size, then asked 129 American women to rate the figures' body size. The proportion of images perceived as underweight was more than three times the expected rate of underweight among American women. Women in higher-prestige occupations were more likely to be rated underweight. The study has not yet completed peer review, but its direction matches the wider literature.

A Fordham University study presented at a 2025 computational linguistics conference found the mirror image: DALL-E 3 tended to depict words such as “greedy” or “immoral” as heavier people. And in 2023 the Center for Countering Digital Hate found that image generators produced pictures glorifying unrealistic bodies in response to 32 per cent of prompts drawn from eating disorder forums.

None of this is mysterious. Generative systems are trained on vast collections of internet images saturated with advertising, fashion and stock photography, the very images body image researchers have spent decades criticising. They learn the historical bias of that visual culture and output its statistical centre with perfect lighting. Diedrichs's point about defaults is precisely this. The narrow ideal is not something the system has to be told to produce. It is what comes out when nobody tells it anything.

A Decade of Labels That Did Not Work

The intuitive response, and the one Mia Perumal says people keep offering her, is disclosure: tell young people the bodies are fake. Body image researchers have been testing that intuition for well over a decade with retouched photography, and the results are consistently discouraging.

In 2013, Marika Tiggemann and colleagues at Flinders University in Adelaide published a pair of experiments in the journal Body Image. Female undergraduates viewed fashion advertisements with no label, a generic warning that the image had been digitally altered, or a more specific warning. The labels produced no benefit. Worse, for women who habitually compared their appearance with others, the specific warning labels were associated with increased body dissatisfaction.

In 2018, Jasmine Fardouly and Elise Holland tested the social media version of the idea. They showed 164 young American women idealised Instagram images with or without disclaimer comments. Viewing the idealised images harmed body image regardless of the disclaimer. The only measurable effect of the disclaimers was that women formed a less positive impression of the person who posted them.

By 2020 there was enough evidence for a systematic review. Sarah McComb and Jennifer Mills of York University in Toronto examined 15 experimental studies on media disclaimers, publishing their findings in Body Image. Eleven found disclaimers ineffective at reducing body dissatisfaction after exposure to thin-ideal images. Three found medium-sized benefits. One found that disclaimers made things worse. Particularly troubling, specific and warning-style disclaimers appeared harmful for women who were already highly dissatisfied with their bodies, and in one case women with restrictive eating habits who saw a warning label went on to eat fewer calories than those who saw the same image without one.

A warning that draws attention to a body can increase the attention paid to it. For someone already vulnerable, a label saying “this waist has been altered” may simply confirm that the waist is the thing worth looking at.

Telling People It Is AI Changes Trust, Not Feelings

Perhaps AI is different. A label saying a body has been slimmed still implies a real body underneath; a label saying the whole person is synthetic seems more decisive. This year researchers began testing that directly, and the early answer is no.

In February 2026, the International Journal of Eating Disorders published a study by Brooke Bennett and colleagues at Clemson University in South Carolina. They recruited 296 women who were regular social media users and randomly assigned them to one of two groups. Both viewed ten AI-generated Instagram images of female content creators; only one was told they were AI-generated.

Both groups reported significantly lower body satisfaction after viewing the images. Knowing that the images were AI-generated made no significant difference to that decline. What disclosure did change was trust: the informed group showed a steeper drop in their trust in technology. The authors concluded that viewing AI-generated images of influencers negatively affects body image regardless of whether the role of AI is known, and that labels “may help keep the user informed” but “are not enough”.

A second experiment, published this year in Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans by Jessica Alleva, Tuğba Türkcan, Linda Lin, Chrisa Sloutas and Jasmine Fardouly, reached a similar conclusion. The researchers showed 291 women aged 18 to 31 one of three sets of AI-generated images: bodies conforming to the fit ideal, bodies emphasising functionality and diversity, or neutral objects. Half of each group was told the images were made with generative AI. Women who saw fit-ideal imagery reported lower body appreciation than those in the control condition. Disclosure produced a small increase in one measure, appreciation of what the body can do, but made no difference to body appreciation or appearance satisfaction. And the effects of the imagery, positive and negative, were strongest among women who already tended to compare their appearance or had internalised appearance ideals.

Dove's own large-scale survey work, conducted with Edelman for its 2024 “Real State of Beauty” report across more than 33,000 respondents in 20 countries, found that one in three women felt pressure to alter their appearance because of what they saw online, even when they knew it was fake or AI-generated.

Put together, these findings make Mia Perumal's observation look less like intuition and more like a summary of the evidence.

The Gap Between Knowing and Feeling

Why should conscious knowledge offer so little protection? The research does not settle the mechanism, but the literature suggests several plausible explanations.

The first is that appearance comparison is fast and largely automatic. The comparison happens first, and any correction comes later, if at all. A label is read after the image has already been seen and evaluated.

The second is internalisation. Once a person has absorbed a particular ideal as the standard of what bodies should look like, every image that matches the ideal reinforces it, whether or not that specific image is real. A synthetic body does not need to be believed in to confirm what the viewer already thinks a good body looks like.

The third concerns vulnerability, and it is the most important for the girls Mia Perumal describes. Several of the studies cited here, from Tiggemann's in 2013 to Alleva's in 2026, found the harm concentrated among people who already compared themselves heavily or had already internalised appearance ideals. Those are precisely the people most at risk of developing eating disorders, and adolescence is a period when appearance comparison and body concern often intensify.

The scale of that risk in the UK is not small. NHS England's 2023 follow-up to its Mental Health of Children and Young People survey found that 12.5 per cent of 17 to 19 year olds in England had an eating disorder, up from 0.8 per cent in 2017. Among young women in that age group the figure was 20.8 per cent. Methods differed between survey waves, so the comparison should be treated with caution, but the direction is hard to ignore.

Eating disorders are not simply mistaken beliefs that the right information will correct. They involve compulsions, fears and distorted perceptions that resist argument. Telling someone in the grip of one that the image is not real is a little like telling someone with a phobia that the spider is harmless. The statement is true. It is also beside the point.

Laws Written for the Airbrush

Governments have tried to regulate idealised imagery before, and most interventions have been built on the disclosure model the research now calls into question.

Israel was an early mover. Its so-called “Photoshop law”, passed by the Knesset in March 2012 and in force from 1 January 2013, required fashion and commercial models to have a body mass index of at least 18.5, and required advertisers to disclose when images had been digitally altered to make models look thinner.

France followed. Under a 2016 health law and a decree that took effect on 1 October 2017, commercial photographs in which a model's body shape or silhouette had been altered by image-editing software must carry the words “photographie retouchée”. Breaches carry fines of up to 37,500 euros, or up to 30 per cent of the cost of the advertisement.

Norway went further still. Since 1 July 2022, its Marketing Control Act has required a standardised label on paid advertising, including sponsored influencer posts, in which body shape, size or skin has been altered by retouching or other manipulation, including filters. Its stated aim is to make consumers, particularly children and young people, aware that the people in advertisements deviate from reality.

In the UK, the Conservative MP Luke Evans introduced a Digitally Altered Body Images Bill in September 2020, and again as a Ten Minute Rule Bill in January 2022, proposing a logo for advertisements in which a body's proportions had been digitally altered. Neither version progressed. Instead, the Advertising Standards Authority has acted case by case. In February 2021, following the #filterdrop campaign started by the make-up artist Sasha Pallari, the ASA ruled that two tanning brands' influencer advertisements were misleading because filters exaggerated what their products could do.

All of these interventions share an assumption: that there is a real body somewhere, and that the problem is the gap between that body and its altered image. Synthetic models dissolve that assumption. There is no original body to deviate from. A Norwegian-style label stating that a body has been retouched makes little sense when the whole body has been generated, and the research suggests that changing the wording to “AI-generated” would not make the label work any better.

The newer generation of rules aimed specifically at AI largely inherits the same logic. The EU's AI Act, whose transparency obligations under Article 50 began applying on 2 August 2026, requires providers to mark synthetic images in a machine-readable format and requires deployers to disclose deepfakes, which the Act defines broadly to include content that resembles real or plausible persons. The Digital Omnibus on AI, Regulation (EU) 2026/1744, which entered into force on 27 July 2026, deferred most high-risk obligations but left these transparency rules in place. Its one concession gives providers of generative systems already on the market before 2 August 2026 until 2 December 2026 to comply with the machine-readable marking duty in Article 50(2). Machine-readable marking is aimed at detection tools rather than human eyes, and disclosure is precisely what the research finds wanting.

The UK regulator has been commendably honest about this limitation in a related context. In guidance published on 29 May 2025, the ASA stated that “disclosure alone is very unlikely to mitigate the harm caused by a fundamentally misleading message”. It warned that using an AI-generated image to show the effect of a cosmetic product that does not reflect real-world results is likely to be materially misleading, whatever the label says. Yet the same guidance noted that making clear an influencer is AI-generated “could well help to negate an otherwise misleading impression”. That may hold for whether a consumer has been misled about a product. It is a different question from whether a child's body image has been harmed.

The Online Safety Act 2023 does not fill the gap either. Since 25 July 2025, platforms have been under a legal duty to protect children from “primary priority content”, which includes material that encourages, promotes or gives instructions for an eating disorder. But a polished image of an impossibly thin synthetic fitness influencer does not, on its face, encourage an eating disorder. It simply sits in the feed, looking aspirational, accumulating comments from 12-year-olds.

Defaults Are Decisions

If disclosure is weak, the logic of the evidence points somewhere else: not to warning people about the images, but to changing the images themselves. This is where the third question raised by the BBC report becomes concrete. What would it mean for appearance standards if the industry default were changed by design rather than left to reflect whatever the systems have learnt?

Nothing about the current default is neutral. A generator that produces only thin women when asked for a beautiful one has not discovered a fact about beauty. It has reproduced decades of commercial decisions by advertisers, editors and casting directors, and leaving that output unchanged preserves those decisions at enormous scale.

Changing defaults is not a radical idea in imaging. In September 2017, Getty Images, the world's largest stock photography supplier, told contributors that from 1 October it would no longer accept “any creative content depicting models whose body shapes have been retouched to make them look thinner or larger”. That was a design decision at the level of supply, not a label at the level of the viewer.

A major brand has also tried to intervene at the level of the prompt. In April 2024, marking 20 years of its Campaign for Real Beauty, Dove pledged never to use AI to create or distort images of women in its advertising, and published what it called the Real Beauty Prompt Guidelines: guidance on the language needed to get generative tools such as Midjourney and DALL-E to produce more representative images. Dove's chief marketing officer, Alessandro Manfredi, said the company sought “a future in which women get to decide and declare what real beauty looks like, not algorithms”. Diedrichs, who has collaborated with the Dove Self-Esteem Project, observed at the launch that it was becoming “increasingly difficult to distinguish between what is real beauty and what is manufactured by AI”.

But prompt guidelines place the burden on the user, exactly the situation Diedrichs described to the BBC: diversity appears only when someone deliberately asks for it.

The Evidence That Different Images Help

Would changing the default actually help? Here the research is more encouraging than it is about labels.

In 2011, Diedrichs and Christina Lee published a study in Psychology and Health with the memorable title “Waif goodbye!”. They showed 171 women and 120 men advertisements featuring thin models, average-size models or no models. Average-size models were rated as just as effective in the advertisements as thin models. And for women who had internalised cultural beauty ideals to an average or high degree, seeing average-size models was associated with a significantly more positive body image state than seeing thin models or none.

In 2019, Rachel Cohen, Jasmine Fardouly, Toby Newton-John and Amy Slater tested body-positive Instagram content on 195 young women. Brief exposure to body-positive posts improved positive mood, body satisfaction and body appreciation compared with thin-ideal or neutral posts. There was a caveat: both thin-ideal and body-positive posts increased self-objectification, the tendency to view one's own body from an observer's perspective, relative to content that did not feature bodies at all.

And the 2026 study by Alleva and colleagues tested exactly the variable in question using generated images. AI imagery emphasising body functionality and diversity was associated with better outcomes for body appreciation and appearance satisfaction than fit-ideal imagery, and the benefits, like the harms, were strongest for the most vulnerable women. Generative tools can produce images that help as well as images that hurt. Which they produce by default is a design decision.

What a Designed Default Could and Could Not Do

Imagine that image generator companies decided that when a user asks for a person without specifying a body, the output should reflect the real range of human sizes, ages, skin tones, features and abilities. Developers already tune their systems heavily to block violence, nudity and copyrighted characters. Adjusting the distribution of body types is the same kind of intervention.

The effect on appearance standards could be significant precisely because of the scale involved. Appearance ideals are learnt from the images a culture circulates. If a growing share of those images is generated, whoever controls the default holds unusual influence over what the next generation learns a normal body looks like.

There are real limits, and honest critics have named them. A generator that produces diverse bodies on request can also be used to simulate diversity without hiring anyone. Hannah Marriott makes this point in her analysis of AI fashion models: synthetic people can mimic a range of appearances, but they cannot share the lived experience of navigating the world in a larger body, or facing discrimination because of one's appearance. A brand could generate a plus-size model, collecting the reputational credit while eliminating the actual person.

Nor would changing generator defaults solve the problem Mia Perumal describes. The thin bodies in her feed are posted by accounts that choose what to publish. A diverse default does nothing to stop a user who deliberately prompts for an extreme body. That is where recommendation algorithms and the enforcement of existing safety duties have to do the work labels cannot.

Who Gets to Decide What a Normal Body Looks Like

There is currently no regulation in the UK, the EU or the United States requiring that the default human body produced by a generative system bear any relationship to real human bodies. The decisions are being taken inside a small number of companies, under commercial pressure to produce images that users find appealing.

One argument holds that any mandated default would itself encode someone's values. But a default always encodes someone's values. The current one encodes the values of the advertising archive. Choosing not to change it is not neutrality. It is a vote for the status quo, cast on behalf of every user who never thinks to ask.

A more modest proposal would treat body representation in generative systems the way some regulators already treat other forms of measurable bias: require developers to audit the distribution of body types their systems produce by default, publish the results, and explain any significant departure from population reality. That would not force any particular aesthetic on anyone. It would simply make the default visible, and therefore contestable. The Washington Post ran such an audit using dozens of prompts.

Advertisers could go further on their own. Rather than a small disclaimer in the corner of a Vogue page, a brand could decline to generate bodies no human being could have, much as Getty did for retouching in 2017 and Israel attempted with its minimum BMI rule for real models. If a body would be unhealthy or impossible in a real person, it should not be used to sell clothes to teenagers.

The Workout Routine for a Body That Was Never Born

Go back to the 12-year-old in the comments. She is not confused about what she wants. She wants to look like the person in the picture, and she has been offered a clear visual promise that this is achievable through diet and exercise. Even if someone told her the body was generated, the evidence suggests it would make little difference to how she felt about her own.

Decades of body image research now extend into the age of generative AI with their conclusions intact. Idealised images harm body image, particularly for the young and vulnerable. Labels do little to prevent that, and telling viewers a body is synthetic reduces their trust in technology but not the damage to how they see themselves. Meanwhile the systems producing these images default, by measurement, to bodies thinner, younger, lighter-skinned and less varied than the real population.

The same research offers a way forward that does not depend on a child reading the small print. Images of varied bodies, real or generated, appear to help rather than harm, and in experiments they were rated just as effective in advertising. The default is a setting, chosen by people, and it can be chosen differently.

Mia Perumal is right that eating disorders do not listen to rationality. That is exactly why the responsibility cannot rest with the people looking at the images. It has to rest with the people deciding what the images look like before anyone sees them.

---

References and Sources

1. BBC News. “AI models could harm young people's body image, warn experts.” 4 October 2026. Includes interviews with Mia Perumal and Professor Phillippa Diedrichs. Syndicated text consulted via NewsBeep: https://www.newsbeep.com/us/870333/
2. Coverage of fashion brands' use of AI models. Guess advertisement in Vogue, August 2025: ABC News / Good Morning America, “Controversy stirs over AI generated 'models' in new Guess ads appearing in Vogue”, July 2025: https://abc7news.com/post/controversy-stirs-ai-generated-models-new-guess-ads-appearing-vogue/17390923/ ; Malay Mail (citing BBC and Beat's Vanessa Longley), 28 July 2025: https://malaymail.com/news/life/2025/07/28/lazy-and-cheap-fashion-mag-vogue-under-fire-for-debuting-ai-generated-model-in-print-campaign-video/185491 . H&M digital twins: FashionUnited, “H&M to create 'twins' of models with AI”, March 2025: https://fashionunited.uk/news/fashion/h-m-to-create-twins-of-models-with-ai-the-possibilities-are-almost-endless/2025032880819 ; “H&M turns to AI 'digital twins' in new campaign”, July 2025: https://fashionunited.uk/news/fashion/h-m-turns-to-ai-digital-twins-in-new-campaign-as-fashion-grapples-with-blurred-realities/2025070482637
3. Marriott, Hannah. “AI-generated fashion models: innovation, illusion or a step too far?” The Conversation, republished by Cyprus Mail, 29 August 2026. https://cyprus-mail.com/2026/08/29/ai-generated-fashion-models-innovation-illusion-or-a-step-too-far
4. Festinger, Leon. “A Theory of Social Comparison Processes.” Human Relations 7, no. 2 (1954): 117 to 140. https://doi.org/10.1177/001872675400700202
5. Nicoletti, Leonardo, and Dina Bass. “Humans Are Biased. Generative AI Is Even Worse.” Bloomberg, June 2023. https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2023-generative-ai-bias
6. The Washington Post. “What AI thinks a beautiful woman looks like: Mostly white and thin.” 6 June 2024. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/interactive/2024/ai-bias-beautiful-women-ugly-images/
7. University of Toronto. “U of T study asks AI to generate male and female body images, with predictable results.” 25 November 2025. https://www.utoronto.ca/news/u-t-study-asks-ai-generate-male-and-female-body-images-predictable-results ; Faculty of Kinesiology and Physical Education, “New KPE study investigates the ideal body, according to AI”: https://kpe.utoronto.ca/node/5120
8. Thomas, Justin, Fahad Al-Beyahi, Najud Al-Dugheithir and Mohammad Amin Kuhail. “Underweight and Overrepresented: Body Size Bias in AI-Generated Depictions of Women.” Research Square preprint, 6 April 2026. https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-9266968/v1
9. Fordham University. “Fatphobia Is Fueled by AI-Created Images, Study Finds.” 2025: https://now.fordham.edu/science-and-technology/fatphobia-is-fueled-by-ai-created-images-study-finds/ ; “Decoding Fatphobia: Examining Anti-Fat and Pro-Thin Bias in AI-Generated Images”, Findings of the Association for Computational Linguistics: NAACL 2025: https://aclanthology.org/2025.findings-naacl.266/
10. Center for Countering Digital Hate. “AI and Eating Disorders: How generative AI is enabling users to generate harmful eating disorder content.” August 2023. https://counterhate.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/230705-AI-and-Eating-Disorders-REPORT.pdf
11. Tiggemann, Marika, Amy Slater, Belinda Bury, Kimberley Hawkins and Bonny Firth. “Disclaimer labels on fashion magazine advertisements: Effects on social comparison and body dissatisfaction.” Body Image 10, no. 1 (2013): 45 to 53. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2012.08.001
12. Fardouly, Jasmine, and Elise Holland. “Social media is not real life: The effect of attaching disclaimer-type labels to idealized social media images on women's body image and mood.” New Media and Society 20, no. 11 (2018): 4311 to 4328. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444818771083
13. McComb, Sarah E., and Jennifer S. Mills. “A systematic review on the effects of media disclaimers on young women's body image and mood.” Body Image 32 (2020): 34 to 52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2019.10.010 ; York University, “Disclaimers on retouched photos don't solve problem of negative body image”, 28 November 2019: https://news.yorku.ca/2019/11/28/disclaimers-on-retouched-photos-dont-solve-problem-of-negative-body-image/
14. Bennett, Brooke L., Alexis Lamere, Anastasia Kopan, Ellena Wood, Radha Hari and Evan Wright. “Filtering Trust: Disclosing the Role of Artificial Intelligence Decreases Trust in Technology, but Does Not Prevent Harm to Body Image After Viewing AI-Generated Content.” International Journal of Eating Disorders 59, no. 6 (2026): 1304 to 1312. Published online 18 February 2026. https://doi.org/10.1002/eat.70059 ; PubMed record: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41705397/
15. Alleva, Jessica M., Tuğba Türkcan, Linda Lin, Chrisa L. Sloutas and Jasmine Fardouly. “The effects of exposure to imagery created with generative artificial intelligence (gen-AI) on young women's body image: Do image type and disclosure matter?” Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans 9 (August 2026): 100339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbah.2026.100339 ; Istanbul Gelisim University announcement, 17 July 2026: https://sbf.gelisim.edu.tr/en/akademik-department-nutrition-and-dietetics-english-news-new-publication-effects-of-generative-artificial-intelligence-generated-images-on-body-image-evaluated
16. Dove pledge and Real State of Beauty report, April 2024. Retail Dive, “Dove pledges no generative AI models in Real Beauty campaign”, 10 April 2024: https://www.retaildive.com/news/dove-pledges-no-generative-ai-models-real-beauty-campaign/712716/ ; FashionUnited, “Dove commits to never using AI to represent real beauty”, 11 April 2024: https://fashionunited.uk/news/business/dove-commits-to-never-using-ai-to-represent-real-beauty/2024041175082 ; Cosmetics Design Europe, “Dove pledges to 'keep beauty real' in the age of AI”, 10 April 2024: https://www.cosmeticsdesign.com/Article/2024/04/10/Dove-pledges-to-keep-beauty-real-in-the-age-of-AI
17. NHS England. “Mental Health of Children and Young People in England, 2023: wave 4 follow up to the 2017 survey.” November 2023. https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/mental-health-of-children-and-young-people-in-england/2023-wave-4-follow-up ; University of Exeter summary: https://news.exeter.ac.uk/faculty-of-health-and-life-sciences/one-in-five-children-and-young-people-had-a-probable-mental-disorder-in-2023/
18. National laws on retouched images. Israel's 2012 “Photoshop law”: The Times of Israel, “Thin no longer in”: https://www.timesofisrael.com/underweight-models-go-out-with-2012/ ; Christian Science Monitor, “Israel tells underweight models to gain weight or get off the runway”, 4 January 2013: https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2013/0104/Israel-tells-underweight-models-to-gain-weight-or-get-off-the-runway . France, Décret n° 2017-738 du 4 mai 2017 relatif aux photographies à usage commercial de mannequins dont l'apparence corporelle a été modifiée: Osborne Clarke, “1 October 2017: advertisers must include label identifying retouched photographs”: https://marketinglaw.osborneclarke.com/advertising-regulation/1-october-2017-advertisers-must-include-label-identifying-retouched-photographs/ . Norway: Norwegian Consumer Authority (Forbrukertilsynet), “The Norwegian Consumer Authority's Guideline on Labelling Retouched Advertising”: https://www.forbrukertilsynet.no/english/the-norwegian-consumer-authoritys-guideline-on-labelling-retouched-advertising
19. UK Parliament. “Digitally Altered Body Images Bill”, Session 2019 to 21: https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/2778 ; Session 2021 to 22: https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3093
20. Advertising Standards Authority. “Disclosure of AI in advertising: striking the balance between creativity and responsibility.” 29 May 2025. https://www.asa.org.uk/news/disclosure-of-ai-in-advertising-striking-the-balance-between-creativity-and-responsibility.html ; February 2021 filter rulings: Cosmetics Business, “Beauty brands and influencers banned from using 'misleading' filters, rules ASA”: https://cosmeticsbusiness.com/beauty-brands-and-influencers-banned-from-using-misleading-filters-rules-asa--174232
21. Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 (Artificial Intelligence Act), Article 50 and Article 3(60). EUR-Lex: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2024/1689/oj ; Jones Day, “European Commission Publishes Draft Code of Practice on AI Labelling and Transparency”, January 2026: https://www.jonesday.com/en/insights/2026/01/european-commission-publishes-draft-code-of-practice-on-ai-labelling-and-transparency ; Goodwin, “Not Delayed, Not Deferred: EU AI Act Transparency Obligations Are Now in Force”, August 2026: https://www.goodwinlaw.com/en/insights/publications/2026/08/alerts-technology-dpc-eu-ai-act-transparency-obligations-now-in-force
22. UK Government. “Online Safety Act: explainer.” https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/online-safety-act-explainer/online-safety-act-explainer ; Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer, “What is harmful content and what are the key duties under the OSA to protect children online?”, January 2025: https://www.hsfkramer.com/insights/2025-01/what-is-harmful-content-and-what-are-the-key-duties-under-the-osa-to-protect-children-online
23. Getty Images retouching policy, effective 1 October 2017. PetaPixel, “Getty Images Bans Photos Containing Photoshopped Weight”, 26 September 2017: https://petapixel.com/2017/09/26/getty-images-bans-photos-containing-photoshopped-weight/ ; Engadget, 27 September 2017: https://www.engadget.com/2017/09/27/getty-bans-photoshop-images-models-thinner/
24. Diedrichs, Phillippa C., and Christina Lee. “Waif goodbye! Average-size female models promote positive body image and appeal to consumers.” Psychology and Health 26, no. 10 (2011): 1273 to 1291. https://doi.org/10.1080/08870446.2010.515308 ; UWE repository: https://uwe-repository.worktribe.com/output/958730/waif-goodbye-average-size-female-models-promote-positive-body-image-and-appeal-to-consumers
25. Cohen, Rachel, Jasmine Fardouly, Toby Newton-John and Amy Slater. “#BoPo on Instagram: An experimental investigation of the effects of viewing body positive content on young women's mood and body image.” New Media and Society 21, no. 7 (2019): 1546 to 1564. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444819826530

---

Tim Green UK-based Systems Theorist & Independent Technology Writer

Tim explores the intersections of artificial intelligence, decentralised cognition, and posthuman ethics. His work, published at smarterarticles.co.uk, challenges dominant narratives of technological progress while proposing interdisciplinary frameworks for collective intelligence and digital stewardship.

His writing has been featured on Ground News and shared by independent researchers across both academic and technological communities.

ORCID: 0009-0002-0156-9795 Email: tim@smarterarticles.co.uk

Listen to the free weekly SmarterArticles Podcast

Support What We Do

When you entered my womb, you saw the light. Maybe for the very first time. Maybe for the first time in a long time. I am a spiritual experience. You’ve probably realized this by now. It felt good. Otherworldly good. That’s because I am an otherworldly being. You weren’t with a human. You were with an angel.

You At The Docks

In a sea of proper Avoidant to the rain We will be sold In this to know The weeks of mourning To this July And apprehend Our soul as warm In fated then Justice to our buy And is as one- to be near

The broccoli and the code Lights of pain for War In mercy as we know- The lay I keep And inhibitions known Trying to save peace They come at ten And hear our verse And story goes- Atlantic to a friend These days of folly And inter neglect Reform our sea And make a day of wonder The risen Moon- is on our face

And early death To War and in the Summer To clear these mists From height and rise The virus and ground Its keep to know amend For given wonder- I miss you And with open mouth This candid to my heart We will unfray- the spun renew

Until amend Our fortunes rust This light of us I dare repeat To my Man And what I see in ages Fortuned then Our place; ourselves To room with me This dust into disgrace Whatever gold- To given hand Why the night renew What then in place

To boats we free To cross and run away In tempest loan I was a man And in this small way Of tension in this World I am just as many tears And I’m your guy.

When the Sun does proper Obliterate our sound The witnessing then A day like Monday Where vlad is anear And you were verse- in my Heaven Unto this quicksand Do we save the World Intoning rewrite In space return AMOLED by pay This bright esteem Given ages- by recommend In you,- the most decent In faithful view- to this Sun In front of the obverse,- we raise the Sun at day And work anew- to this fold

In better time The war into a shape Unbrightened candle Democracy to find Reverse this light Of mayhem peer Another landing- to this dawn Wearing cable- for this night then

And in service to the poor Any of us would Remay in Heaven- as new esteem Judgement in those eyes To walk as we are new Professing chains- upon this door

The deeper lies To be unsold The pain of never Free as air

In placating the Moon Better skies to be Big and small And raking new Upon our hands A bitter know The taste of here Within this salt Every codon Within this man Sees a colour And he is joy

A place A chaperone Too much for this lot To be all then The harvest and renew Games in Heaven For frail then And to friends; And among you,- the paranoid Our only paradox Redeemed at near Heights ahead To mercy of these olives Ever bent To file a poem Re-energize The fate of mine And land And Heaven And Rome

Then freedom here To cut our olives Making gains Within the poor Our summon- and our way Could this be wise- to own humility What then at bay Your sacred and your song Graces then- Between you and me Flights in Heaven Landing near In esteem to might The decorations be A prayer in Haskell- within this light

What a year The shining and the new Our double meanings In empty time To all forgiven But faceless in our know The night of dancing- as though alone What to then The burning of the lantern To guide this land- This love To tomorrow I’ll see you here In Palestine.

In Summary: * Unpacking and organizing continued today, though on a finer scale than most days. Still, it was time-consuming work and had to be done. I'm getting better at budgeting the time so spent. Here I sit now, moving into the meds and prayers phase of the evening at a relaxed pace.

One thing I like about Friday nights: I don't have alarms set for Saturday morning, As the wife doesn't have to be up early to go to work, I don't have to be up early fixing the coffee, etc. So I can sleep tonight until I feel like waking up. Heck, I may even stay up to watch a little baseball tonight.

Prayers, etc.: * I have a daily prayer regimen I try to follow throughout the day from early morning, as soon as I roll out of bed, until head hits pillow at night.

Health Metrics: * bw= 212.31 lbs. * bp= 137/80 (66)

Exercise: * morning stretches, balance exercises, kegel pelvic floor exercises, half squats, calf raises, toe raises, wall push-ups, BP breathing exercises, pilates

Diet: * 07:30 – 1 breaded pork chop * 08:50 – 1 fresh apple * 13:20 – 5 hot dogs, 3 pcs. of pizza

Activities, Chores, etc.: * 03:30 – listen to local news talk radio * 04:45 – bank accounts activity monitored * 05:00 -read, write, pray, follow news reports from various sources, surf the socials, take daily meds, unpack, organize * 13:30 – watching MLB Central on MLB Network * 14:00 – sort, organize * 17:00 – moving into the meds and prayers part of the evening.

Chess: * 12:30 – moved in all pending CC games, winning one

SANCTUARY

There are places we go because we need to get away.

And there are places we go because we need to come back to ourselves.

I am learning the difference.

For a long time, I thought of sanctuary as a place of safety—a place where the storms could not reach me. Somewhere removed from the noise, the demands, the conflict, and the endless troubles of the world.

But perhaps sanctuary is not a place where the storms cannot reach.

Perhaps it is a place where the storms do not get the final word.

Our outer life has a way of following us home.

Frustrations with coworkers.

Confrontations with people who see the world differently than us.

We carry conversations long after they have ended. We carry responsibilities that cannot be finished in a single day. We carry grief, disappointment, anger, uncertainty, and the weight of things happening in a world that seems determined to give us something new to worry about before we have finished processing yesterday.

Some of us become so accustomed to carrying these things that we forget we are carrying them.

They simply become part of the weight.

And eventually, we need somewhere to put it down.

That is what sanctuary has begun to mean to me.

Not escape.

Refuge.

Escape says, I do not want to face the world.

Refuge says, I have faced the world, and I need somewhere the world cannot continually take from me.

Sometimes sanctuary is a house.

Sometimes it is a room.

Sometimes it is sitting beside a window while rain taps against the roof.

Sometimes it is reading a book in a quiet nook, disappearing into its pages for an hour while everything outside of them waits its turn.

Sometimes it is music playing softly in the background.

A cup of tea.

A familiar chair.

A dog sleeping nearby.

A Bible opened across your lap.

Sometimes sanctuary is simply silence.

It does not have to be impressive.

It only has to give your soul permission to unclench.

There is something sacred about crossing a threshold and understanding that everything you encountered outside does not automatically have the right to follow you inside.

The problems still exist.

The bills still exist.

The difficult people still exist.

The news will still be there.

Tomorrow will still bring whatever tomorrow intends to bring.

But for a little while, there can be a boundary.

This far.

No farther.

Not because I no longer care about what happens beyond these walls.

But because I am finally learning that caring about the world does not require allowing the world unlimited access to me.

There are things I can put down.

There are battles that can wait until morning.

There are questions that do not require answers tonight.

There are burdens I was never meant to carry in the first place.

And there are moments when the most faithful thing I can do is simply be still.

Scripture says:

“For thou hast been a shelter for me, and a strong tower from the enemy.

I will abide in thy tabernacle for ever: I will trust in the covert of thy wings. Selah.”

— Psalm 61:3–4, KJV

Shelter.

Abide.

Trust.

Those words have begun to mean something different to me.

Because a sanctuary is more than a quiet place.

Quiet can be found almost anywhere.

What makes a place sacred is presence.

The presence of God.

There are moments when I can sit quietly and feel no need to explain myself to Him. No carefully constructed prayer. No list of requests. No attempt to find the right words.

Just presence.

His and mine.

And somehow, in that stillness, things begin returning to their proper proportions.

The thing that seemed enormous becomes manageable.

The anger that followed me through the door begins to loosen its grip.

The grief is still grief, but I remember that I do not carry it alone.

The noise inside my head grows quieter.

My breathing slows.

My heart softens.

I am restored.

Not repaired as though I were a machine.

Not prepared to rush immediately into the next assignment.

Restored.

Returned to myself.

Returned to God.

Returned to the place inside me where fear does not have to speak the loudest and the troubles of the world are no longer permitted to occupy every room.

And eventually, I will cross the threshold again.

Sanctuary was never meant to become a hiding place.

There are still people to love.

There is still work worth doing.

There are still things that should anger us, suffering that should move us, injustice that should be confronted, and people who will need us to show up.

But perhaps we were never meant to meet all of that without somewhere to return.

Because if we remain exposed to the storm long enough without shelter, something inside us can begin to change.

Compassion can become exhaustion.

Conviction can become contempt.

Anger can become hatred.

And a heart that once cared deeply can slowly begin to grow cold.

Maybe sanctuary is one of the places where God prevents that from happening.

A place where I can bring Him what the world has done to me before I carry it back outside and do it to someone else.

A place where bitterness can be surrendered before it becomes part of my character.

A place where I can remember that strength does not require hardness.

A place where the soul can become quiet enough to hear again:

Be still.

Abide.

Trust.

Then, when the time comes, I can open the door.

The storm may still be there.

The world may still be loud.

Nothing outside may have changed at all.

But something inside has.

I can step back into the world without allowing the world to take possession of me.

And when I become tired again, when the noise becomes too loud, when my heart needs somewhere to rest, I know there is a place to return.

A chair.

A book.

A quiet room.

The sound of rain against the roof.

The presence of God.

Sanctuary.

---

Explore more writing from Silent Sentinel →

---

© SilentSentinel, 2026. All rights reserved. Excerpts may be shared with attribution.

Hi blog friends!

Hope this update finds you well. Let me know how you’re doing (or send me the link to your most recent video, blog post or other creation) via message, text or email. Link at the bottom of this post. Thanks to those who’ve reached out so far. It’s been good to hear from you and catch up. 🙌

Things are going as well as can be expected here. Either I’m having a lot of hot flashes or it’s still humid as all get out sometimes, but the rain and Santa Ana winds have arrived, so the temps are cooler and more enjoyable now.

Paul and I enjoyed Holy Moly Matrimony Celebration Day tacos on Monday, reflected on our now 14 years together, played the Flintstones (2:00) and Little River Band (4:00) anniversary songs and thanked each other for continuing to be each other’s wingman.

We also did a pleasantly sized load of loundry, and finally unboxed a new coffee maker that’s been sitting behind our front door for a year. Gosh. It sure is big. Seems bigger than the last 12 cup maker we bought a couple years ago. I asked Gemini AI if mine eyes were deceiving me and it said “No.” The size of coffee makers has indeed become just a little bigger over the last ten years or so. Thought about buying a Keurig next time but then saw this video (15:00) about how the company has gone about making the bulk of their money, and decided I’d be wise to investigate other options. If there’s a simple, versatile sweet little coffee maker you think I should check out, let me know. I’m a fan of quality craftsmanship and fair prices.

From our heart to yours – Cute Snail and I put together some fall themed coloring postcards. They’re cut and fold easy print PDF and 100% free to download if you’d like to check them out. They’re great for quiet coloring time, gifting, decorating or crafting.

❤️ Juliet

IMAGE ID: A collage picture of a warm creamy cup of coffee and some open Oreo cookies – filling side up!

Chapter 1: What You Leave Out When You Pray

The envelope is still on the dresser, half covered by a clean shirt. Inside is an invitation to a family gathering you do not know how to attend. You and someone you love have barely spoken in months. You have imagined walking through the door, what you might say, and whether they would look away. When you try to pray about it, you find yourself asking God to bless everybody and keep the peace. You leave out the sentence that embarrasses you: I want us to be close again, and I am afraid they do not want that anymore.

There is something in Bartimaeus calling out to Jesus for mercy that speaks to those prayers we quietly edit before God ever hears them spoken aloud. In Mark 10:46–52, Bartimaeus is a blind man begging near Jericho when Jesus passes by. He calls, “Jesus, thou Son of David, have mercy on me.” Many tell him to be silent. He calls again. I cannot tell you what was going through his mind, because Scripture does not tell us. But I can say that he does not make his need smaller to keep the people around him comfortable.

I have been thinking about learning to pray when you are afraid of disappointment, especially the difference between being honest with God and expecting Him to give us everything we name. Those are not the same thing. Some of us have become so careful in prayer that we never say what is really hurting. We ask for strength because we are afraid to ask for relief. We ask for patience because we cannot bear to admit we want something to change. We may even feel guilty for wanting an answer after years of waiting.

What strikes me is that Bartimaeus begins by asking for mercy, not by trying to prove that he deserves attention. He does not offer a reason why his life should matter more than anybody else's. He simply directs his cry toward Jesus. I think that is a more honest beginning than many of the prayers I have tried to make sound respectable. If I am frightened, I can say I am frightened. If I want reconciliation, I can ask for it. If I do not know whether I can handle another disappointment, I can tell Him that too.

There is a difference, of course, between speaking honestly and insisting that God follow our plan. A damaged relationship may require an apology, time, or boundaries that we cannot control. A person we miss may not be ready to come back. Christian faith does not give us ownership over another person's heart. It does give us permission to bring our own heart before Christ without pretending it is already settled.

So perhaps the first step tonight is not deciding whether to attend the gathering or finding exactly the right words for a difficult conversation. Perhaps it is sitting with that envelope for one quiet minute and praying the sentence you have been leaving out. Bartimaeus could not see where the road would lead. Before anything changed, he let Jesus hear what he needed.

Chapter 2: When You Feel Like an Interruption

You have been staring at the landlord’s number for ten minutes. The rent will be late, and the thought of saying that out loud makes your stomach tighten. You have worked every shift offered to you. You have cut what you can. Still, the money does not stretch far enough. You could leave a message tonight, but you imagine the irritation in someone else’s voice and decide to put the phone down again. After a while, the fear of bothering another person becomes almost as heavy as the problem itself.

I wonder how many of us carry that fear into prayer. We do not say it plainly, but somewhere inside we have come to believe that our troubles are too repetitive, too ordinary, or too much for anyone to hear. We know there are people suffering more than we are, so we begin treating our own needs as though they should not take up any space. We may even imagine Jesus looking at us with the same impatience we have encountered in other people.

That is why the response to Bartimaeus matters so much. When he cries for mercy, many people tell him to be quiet. Then Jesus stops. Mark does not record an argument with the crowd or a speech about their behavior. He tells them to call the man. They turn toward Bartimaeus and say, “Be of good comfort, rise; he calleth thee” (Mark 10:49, KJV).

I picture how difficult it would be to trust those words after being told to stay silent, though Scripture does not tell us how Bartimaeus felt. The invitation did not come because he finally made his need sound acceptable. It came because Jesus chose to call him. That distinction is easy to lose when you have spent years judging yourself through the reactions of others.

There are people we should listen to, and there are responsibilities we should not avoid. If the rent is late, making the call matters. If we have hurt someone, taking responsibility matters. But none of those hard truths means we must approach God as though we are an inconvenience. We can be accountable for our choices and still be people who need mercy.

Bartimaeus rises and goes to Jesus before he receives his sight. I find that detail comforting because so much of life asks us to move while we are still uncertain. We take the next honest step without knowing how the whole situation will turn out. And in prayer, at least, we need not wait until we have become less needy before we come near.

Chapter 3: When the Answer Is Not the Whole Story

A woman comes home from physical therapy and sets her keys on the counter. She can walk farther than she could three months ago, but not as far as she once could. Everyone tells her to celebrate the progress, and she is grateful for it. Still, she misses the ordinary freedom of getting through a grocery store without watching for somewhere to sit. She wants to thank God without pretending she isn't disappointed.

Bartimaeus asked Jesus for his sight, and Jesus gave it to him. Mark says, “And immediately he received his sight, and followed Jesus in the way” (Mark 10:52, KJV). We should not hurry past the miracle or explain it away. But I keep noticing those last words. The account doesn't end with Bartimaeus making a speech about what he has gained. It ends with him following Jesus.

It would be easy to make his story into a promise that if we pray boldly enough, we will get the outcome we want. That would be unfair to people who have prayed through illness, buried someone they loved, or watched a relationship end despite every effort to save it. Jesus' kindness is real even when our circumstances remain painful. Bartimaeus's healing tells us what Christ did for this man. It does not tell us that anyone left waiting has failed Him.

What we can carry from the roadside is the invitation to be honest and then keep walking with Jesus. Sometimes the next step is another therapy appointment. Sometimes it is accepting the help of a friend without apologizing for needing it. Sometimes it is learning to pray again after an answer you did not understand. None of those steps has to look impressive to matter.

I hope you will remember that Bartimaeus was heard before he was healed. His need did not make Jesus turn away, and neither does yours. Tell Him what you long for, even if you have whispered it a hundred times. Then, as best you can, stay near Him through what comes next. You do not have to edit your heart into something more acceptable before bringing it to Christ.

Your friend, Douglas Vandergraph

Explore the complete Douglas Vandergraph Master Index: https://douglasvandergraph.com/douglas-vandergraph-master-index/

Watch Douglas Vandergraph’s faith-based videos on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@douglasvandergraph

Lydia's Weekly Lifestyle blog is for today's African girl, so no subject is taboo. My purpose is to share things that may interest today's African girl.

This week's contributors: Lydia, Pépé Pépinière, Titi. This week's subjects: How to Look Expensive, Polished & Effortlessly Elegant—Without Designer Labels, Fashion Show Galore, Pain killers, Sticky Non-Stick Frying Pans, The Internet of Things and Make Sure You Don't Lose Your Password, and People Social Eatery

---

How to Look Expensive, Polished & Effortlessly Elegant—Without Designer Labels. Dear Accra corporate girl, luxury is not always about the logo on your handbag or the price tag on your blazer. Sometimes, the most expensive looking woman in the office is the one wearing a perfectly tailored pair of trousers, a crisp shirt, and enough confidence to make everyone wonder, “Where does she shop?” Welcome to the world of quiet luxury—Accra office edition. Tailoring Is Your Best Investment: You don't need a wardrobe full of designer clothes. What you need is clothing that fits beautifully. A well-fitted blazer, tailored trousers, or a structured dress will instantly make your outfit look more luxurious. Avoid pieces that are too tight, too loose, or awkwardly proportioned. The secret? Sometimes, a simple trip to your tailor can make an affordable outfit look like it belongs on a luxury runway. Keep Accessories Elegant, Not Excessive: Quiet luxury doesn't need everything to scream for attention. Choose one or two beautiful accessories: a classic watch, delicate jewellery, a structured handbag, or elegant shoes. Remember, the goal is not: “Can everyone see my accessories?” The goal is: “Why does she always look so polished?” Your Shoes Can Make—or Break—the Look: You could be wearing the most beautiful outfit, but tired-looking shoes can change the entire story. Invest in versatile styles such as: – Classic pumps – Elegant loafers – Minimal sandals – Pointed flats – Clean, sophisticated heels And please, Accra corporate girl: keep them clean. Luxury is often in the details. So the next time you walk into that Accra office, remember: You don't need a designer logo to look expensive. You just need good style, great tailoring, and the confidence of a woman who knows exactly who she is. That is the Accra Corporate Girl luxury aesthetic. Fashion Show Galore. It seems we are in line with what is happening in the world. In quick succession we had the New York, London, Milan and Paris Fashion Weeks. And in Ghana, we had the Ghana Garden and Flower show, which took place at the Efua Sutherland Children's Park, and last weekend the HnM Fashion Show at the National Theatre and on the same day the Style Runway FW26, and then Glitz and RodR (Rhythms on Da Runway), and the Ghana Fashion Week coming up, and Black Star Fashion Week in the making. Is there money to be made there? Is this the latest fashion fad, to organize fashion shows called fashion weeks? As a designer, what should I do? Apply for all? And pay for all? These things don't come cheap if you add all the expenses involved: making the collection, paying your fee to the show organizer, (ranging from 3000 to 8000 GHC) transporting your stuff to a fitting session and back, transporting it to the show, getting a stylist to make it look good, taking it back, and sending it all to the dry cleaner to remove makeup and sweat. Say somewhere between 5,000 and 13,000 GHC. And what do you get? A bit of publicity. Any sales? Any foreign buyers giving you contracts for 500 pieces of this and 500 pieces of that? Hmm.

Pain killers. What Is Pain? Mostly, it’s a signal that something somewhere in your body is wrong. So, to get rid of that pain, you take a painkiller. Problem solved? No, problem suppressed, not solved. The same thing is still wrong with you. Now, if you take a painkiller once a month or so I don’t want to argue much, but if you take painkillers daily, then you are not on the right track. And many are not on the right track. Try to find out what creates the pain, and rather try to solve that problem than taking the pain away without knowing what’s wrong with you. And as you take more pills, you will need more pills. Your body gets used to them, the same as when using narcotics. Eventually, you get into the overdose mode. Brrrr.

Sticky Non-Stick Frying Pans. The famous one is the French Tefal, and that contains so-called forever chemicals, which everyone is currently agitating against. They cause cancer, hormonal disruption and other health problems and don’t break down, hence the name forever chemicals, also called PFAS. So Tefal came up with a big campaign: “Now we are healthy.” But currently, they got attacked by three groups, the ClientEarth (an environmental law organization), Generations Futures (a French environmental organization) and Notre Affaire à Tous (a French environmental justice organization) who claim Tefal is still using the poison. So they’ll probably stop using it and close the factory? Of course not. Keep the show going. Africa also needs non-stick frying pans. So be aware. Stainless steel or cast iron is a better option. The good news is that the FDA recently destroyed a container with dangerous nappies. Let’s hope they get their act together and also look at cooking pans and makeup.

The Internet of Things and Make Sure You Don't Lose Your Password. And how secure is that? My computer friend, one of those geeks who seems to be married to the screen, pizza and beefburgers, says nothing is secure. Imagine a lock on your room door. You have the key. But things get missing. Either someone has a spare key or came in through the window, or removed the entire door, or came in through the ceiling. It’s a bit like that with computer security. And then we read that a 15-year-old boy hacked the USA Ministry of Defense system. 15-year-old boy hacked the USA Ministry of Defense system In Sweden, they tried to introduce a cashless society, so everything went through the internet. Now they don't trust that anymore and ask everybody to keep a reasonable amount of cash at home. This morning, I read that hackers got into the cooling systems in supermarkets (I never knew they were connected through the internet), and thousands of tons of refrigerated food have to be thrown away. Who thinks this is funny? But I think maybe someone is testing. Like you design a weapon and then quietly test it somewhere. The next war will probably be fought by shutting down each other's internet. And drones, which use computers to hit the target. So don't rely too much on all of this. Have two bank cards from different banks and have some cash in the house, spread your savings over several banks, and have two mobile numbers from different operators. Paranoia? Maybe.

People Social Eatery. We went to Orca at Spintex to buy a few things for the new bathroom, but were disappointed and walked out with nothing. To make up for it, we went to the People Social Eatery next door and had a honey nut granola banana at 110 GHC, which was nice, and orange juice at 50 GHC, and a double espresso at 55 GHC, which was small and came without sugar, though on request it was brought. Our 5 GHC change was taken and not brought back, and the waiter had disappeared.

Lydia...

Do not forget to hit the subscribe button and confirm in your email inbox to get notified about our posts.

I have received requests about leaving comments/replies. For security and privacy reasons my blog is not associated with major media giants like Facebook or Twitter. I am talking with the host about a solution. for the time being, you can mail me at wunimi@proton.me

I accept invitations and payments to write about certain products or events, things, and people, but I may refuse to accept and if my comments are negative then that's what I will publish, despite your payment. This is not a political newsletter. I do not discriminate on any basis whatsoever.