I knew it was going to be raunchy. This is, after all, MTV. Music Television. Moron Television. Mindless Television. Whatever you call it, you know what you’re going to get: R-rated perversion masquerading as entertainment. So I had certain very low expectations when I sat down to watch the 2002 MTV Movie Awards—a lot of filth, a few surprises, and, if Jim Carrey or Will Smith won something, some fairly decent belly laughs.

But what I didn’t expect to see was a beautiful, talented young woman degraded, humiliated and objectified for our amusement. And, more than anything else I’ve ever regretted seeing for the sake of review, it left a pretty awful taste in my mouth.

The show was hosted by Jack Black — this generation’s answer to Jack Nicholson, gifted but creepy — and Sarah Michelle Gellar, a.k.a. Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Sarah’s “performance” included costumes that left little to the imagination, simulated sex acts and suggestive dialogue. In my opinion, she walked away from the show with her dignity smeared across the minds of the millions of viewers who had tuned in.

And it broke my heart.

It broke my heart because Sarah, like so many young women today, has allowed herself to be publicly shamed for the sake of fame. It’s feminism turned upside down. Instead of trying to become equal by becoming more like a man, they’ve chosen to give men exactly what they want — or, at least, what the world says they want. No secrets. No morals. No virtue.

We know Sarah has talent. Critics have said so and I’ve seen enough of her acting in Buffy to agree with them. Her turn in the new Scooby-Doo movie probably won’t win her an Oscar nomination, but she seems to be choosing parts for exposure, not to stretch herself as an actress. While it’s not a career path I would follow if I had the option, she’s young and, as far as I can tell, is simply trying to build a fan base.

Then she agrees to be trashed as co-host of the MTV Movie Awards.

What I have a hard time understanding is why? Surely not just for fame. That same night Mandy Moore won the award for “Breakout Performance: Female” for her beautiful and godly portrayal of Jamie Sullivan in A Walk to Remember. Many actresses and musicians have found success without resorting to immodesty. So why do girls like Sarah — or Christina, Britney and Shakira for that matter — feel compelled to push boundaries and willingly place images of their young bodies into the sweaty, perverted minds of, well . . . anyone? Don’t they care about the kind of stuff they’re encouraging through their suggestive lyrics and dance moves?

I suppose they would call it freedom. Freedom to be whoever they want to be and do whatever they want to do. Maybe, for them, it is. The MTV mantra is, obviously, “my body, my choice.” But for all their talk about free choice, it would seem the only choice they find acceptable is unrestrained immorality. The possibility of purity as a Power Choice is ridiculed and mocked, and the ones who pay the price, for the most part, are women. Degradation, humiliation, and the constant pressure to give their bodies without limits to whoever stakes a claim.

And MTV is far from the only guilty party. Cable TV is the worst offender — though Fox seems to be trying everything it can to catch up. But with shows like Son of the Beach on FX and The Man Show on Comedy Central, they have their work cut out for them. Women are not honored on programs like these. Far from it. They are sexually assaulted. And, to further the indignity, it is all done for laughs. The amazing thing is that for all our supposed enlightenment and equal rights and tolerance, women are vilified as much as ever — in fact more so, thanks to video and the unlimited debauchery available through the Internet.

It shouldn’t surprise us that women are an object of attack. In his book Wild at Heart, John Eldredge tells us the damsel is, indeed, in distress. He continues: “If masculinity has come under assault, femininity has been brutalized. Eve is the crown of creation, remember? She embodies the exquisite beauty and the exotic mystery of God in a way that nothing else in all creation even comes close to. And so she is the special target of the Evil One; he turns his most vicious malice against her.”

How can we even doubt this is true? From the high rate of single motherhood to pornography to rape, women are under attack in ways men can rarely understand. I’ve never heard a female say she spent an evening surfing the Web for porn; men rarely suffer the horror of rape; and, more often than not, it’s the mother who raises the children after divorce. I am not speaking statistically here, but we all know which way the scales tip.

Men are not the enemy and that is certainly not what I’m saying, but there are those who would take advantage of this attack on women, and their apparent vulnerability. As Eldredge says:

Most men want the maiden without any sort of cost to themselves. They want all the joys of the beauty without any of the woes of the battle. This is the sinister nature of pornography—enjoying the woman at her expense. Pornography is what happens when a man insists on being energized by a woman; he uses her to get a feeling that he is a man. It is a false strength, as I’ve said, because it depends on an outside source rather than emanating from deep within his center. And it is the paragon of selfishness.

But the answer is not, as the feminists so adamantly insist, in women becoming more like men. Our unique strength and beauty is in our ability to embrace what makes us female. Nor is the answer to vilify men. The answer is found in learning to enjoy being women and, in return, reveling in the masculine qualities of men.

So I guess what I would say to Sarah, or any of these women, if I could, is that there is only one person who sees her true beauty. Only one who loves and respects her for who she is, not what she can give in return. Only one who would never hurt or humiliate her, but died to give her true freedom.

How surprised she would be to discover that the one person who can give her what she longs for and who set the standard for how women should be treated lived 2,000 years ago, wore a dusty robe and sandals and was, by today’s standards, a pretty intolerant guy. You can bet He wouldn’t have stood by and watched as Sarah’s beauty was demeaned and used for laughs. No, but perhaps He would have responded much like He did with the Samaritan woman He met at the well. He never condemned her, but treated her with respect. He reminded her of the sins of her past, yet still freely offered her hope and eternal life (John 4:1-26).

Perhaps you think I’ve romanticized the situation too much. You may even wonder why I care. After all, Sarah Michelle Gellar is an adult. She made her choice. If it doesn’t bother her, why should it bother me? I suppose it’s because I’m realizing more and more that we do have an enemy and he is out to belittle what God created lovely and good. And he succeeded at the 2002 MTV Movie Awards.

But maybe, just maybe, the next time a young woman is faced with a choice between immorality and purity, she’ll take a look in the mirror of her heart and see herself through Jesus’ eyes: beautiful, holy — and pure.