Maybe There Are No Gay People In Fashion
1/19/2013
DR Williams
I'm usually a pretty big believer in letting the work stand for itself, but in the case of this strip I feel moved to write at least something by way of explanation.
I like Coco Rocha. I really do. She's probably my favourite model. She has very high personal standards about what she does - no nudity, no religious imagery, no government symbols, final say on how she's going to be posed with anybody else she's posing with. In fact, she's one of the few professional models to have publicly stated she has no intention of working with Terry Richardson again, which is refreshing and novel in an industry that seems to regard its number one rule as 'omerta'. Coco is also well-known for her charity work, between her fundraising efforts for Haiti following the 2010 quake and her ongoing efforts towards fighting for the rights of models. I am not questioning that Coco is a good person who does great work.
But - and I'm no model, so that's a big but - when it comes to things like this interview for DuJour, where Coco talks about being a practicing Jehovah's Witness, it raises an awkward question over the issue of gay people.
Jehovah's Witnesses are not completely anti-gay. They understand that gay people exist but consider acting on homosexual impulses to be sinful: essentially, you can be gay and a good friend of the Witnesses if you acknowledge that the sexual orientation that you were born with is wicked and sinful and do your best to never, ever, act on it.
Which, to my mind, at least, is all sorts of horseshit. It's like having absolutely no animosity at all towards left-handed people just as long as they do their best to conform by either never writing or drawing or else deciding to use their right hand, for everything, with which there is no problem.
The Jehovah's Witnesses explanation of their view of homosexuality uses some different comparisons than the metaphor I just employed: they compare it to liking a smoker but disapproving of their smoking, or to being supportive of somebody who is prone to anger but chooses not to act on their short fuse. The obvious difference being that being a smoker carries with it direct health risks, and acting on fits of anger is likely to involve physical harm either to oneself or to others. The same source notes:
"Most people (including homosexuals) have some ethical code that causes them to deplore certain things?—perhaps fraud, injustice, or war. The Bible prohibits those behaviors; it also draws the line at certain types of sexual conduct, including homosexuality."
You will, of course, note that fraud, injustice, and war all involve unwilling victims being harmed in some way. Two consenting adults of the same gender engaging in sexual activity is not comparable to any of these. Rape is comparable to fraud and injustice and war, but then again I don't know any gay people who are in favour of rape, either. (Something else people might disapprove of? Refusing a blood transfusion on behalf of a minor against the advice of medical professionals. See? That's an act that has a non-consenting party who is being potentially harmed in some way.)
At first I considered that just because one is the member of a religious faith does not mean one necessarily subscribes to all of the beliefs inherent to this faith. It is absolutely possible to believe that no religion necessarily has all of the answers and therefore go with the religion that most closely conforms to your beliefs in order to have your personal beliefs bolstered by a community. But the Jehovah's Witnesses are really, really, wicked specific about this issue. You don't question church doctrine. You don't come up with your own divergent beliefs to mollify any niggling doubts you might feel over the official line. Even if a Jehovah's Witness did decide that they were fine with sexually active homosexuals, they couldn't talk about it for fear of being disfellowshipped.
After I thought about it for a long while, I realised exactly what my position on this issue was: I really like Coco Rocha. I think she's a great model and a good, moral, person. And I think it's fine that she feels as though there are questions and moral needs that she has that are best fulfilled by being a Jehovah's Witness.
I just think she probably shouldn't act on it.