Do you know who Tom Hardy is? I knew he’s an actor, but that was about it. English dude. He was the bad guy “Bane” in the movie The Dark Knight Rises, but he wore a contraption that covered most of his face in the film, so I wouldn’t have recognized him based on that movie alone. Hardy has appeared in movies such as Bronson and Inception, which I’d seen, as well as Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy and Warrior. He also played the title role in Mad Max: Fury Road, which came out earlier this year. I haven’t seen that one yet. With dozens of movie and television roles under his belt and more to come, Hardy seems poised to become a lot more well-known in the near future.
Not that any of you care what movies I’ve seen or not seen. I’m actually leading into a topic. Of sorts.
FreedomRecon sent me a link a few days ago to a Huffington Post story from September 18th authored by its “Voices” Editorial Director Noah Michelson. The heading of the article was titled “If You Think Tom Hardy Shouldn’t Have Been Asked About His Sexuality, You’re Dead Wrong. Here’s Why.”
You’re dead wrong, you guys. The world must know which sexual direction this celebrity, one who in fact has a pregnant wife, swings.
Okay, this should be something.
It was something.
But first, I’ll explain the situation for those who don’t keep up on this sort of thing.
At the recent Toronto International Film Festival during a panel discussion about Hardy’s upcoming film Legend–a “based on true events” movie where he plays both roles of the gangster Kray twins, one of whom is bisexual–someone from a Canadian LGBT news organization posed a question to Hardy that didn’t go over so well.
The reporter asked, “In the film, your character Ronnie is very open about his sexuality, but given interviews you’ve done in the past, your own sexuality seems a bit more ambiguous. Do you find it hard for celebrities to talk to media about their sexuality?”
Hardy responded, “What on earth are you on about?”
The person asking the question referred to an interview Hardy gave to another publication a few years ago. “I was wondering if you find it difficult for celebrities to talk about their sexuality,” he said.
“I don’t find it difficult for celebrities to talk about their sexuality,” Hardy said. “Are you asking me about my sexuality?”
“Um, sure,” the reporter replied.
“Why?” was Hardy’s reaction as others in the room chuckled. He then thanked the reporter, effectively terminating the question.
Here is the video:
When asked about this afterward in an interview with The Daily Beast, Tom Hardy said,
There should be elegant ways to approach any topic, and there’s a time and place to approach anything and have a good, common sense conversation about anything…some things are private. I’m under no obligation to share anything to do with my family, my children, my sexuality—that’s nobody’s business but my own. And I don’t see how that can have anything to do with what I do as an actor, and it’s my own business. If you knew me as a friend, then sure, we’d talk about anything. But that was a public forum, and for someone to inelegantly ask a question that seemed designed entirely to provoke a reaction, and start a topic of debate… It’s important destigmatizing sexuality and gender inequality in the workplace, but to put a man on the spot in a room full of people designed purely for a salacious reaction? To be quite frank, it’s rude. If he’d have said that to me in the street, I’d have said the same thing back: “I’m sorry, who the [skun]k are you?”
What he had to talk about was actually interesting, but how he did it was so inelegant. And I appreciate that I could probably have more grace as a human being, but I’m just a bloke. I’m just a man. And I’m just a man doing a job. I’m not a role model for anyone, and you’re asking me something about my private life in a room full of people. I don’t want to discuss my private life with you. I don’t know you! Why would I share that with a billion people? Also, if you felt it was so important for people to feel confident to talk about their sexuality, why would you put somebody on the spot in a room full of people and decide that was the time for them to open up about their sexual ambiguity? There’s also nothing ambiguous about my sexuality, anyway. I know who I am. But what does that have to do with you?
Michelson, the aforementioned HuffPo columnist and author of other modern-day classics such as “This Man Identifies As ‘Graysexual.’ Here’s What That Means” and “If You Think ‘Straight-Acting’ Is An Acceptable Term, You’re An A**hole,” was having none of it. He wrote that he got queasy when he read the responses on social media from people, including homosexuals, who adamantly agreed with the “hypocritically self-righteous” Hardy that a person’s sexuality is nobody else’s business. From Michelson’s column:
Are we really still defending — and celebrating! — the idea that sexual orientation is akin to some deep dark secret to be discussed after dark behind closed doors in hushed tones with only our most trusted confidantes?
Apparently we are.
Yes, if we wish to keep our sex lives private, absolutely we should be able to keep that a secret. The act of sex (normally) occurs behind closed doors. So should the thoughts concerning the act if people want them to be.
According to Michelson, this is why who you desire is everyone’s business:
Because even though, sure, everyone should be “entitled to the right to privacy” regarding certain aspects of their lives, sexual orientation shouldn’t be considered private. Let me type that again and put it in boldface so that you don’t miss it: Sexual orientation should not be considered private.
Repeating your lame opinion in bold type doesn’t make the reasoning valid. So only “certain aspects” should be private. Who is this guy to decide what should and shouldn’t be private? Should job applications now have a list of checkboxes under a new “define your sexuality” subheading? Have we gone from “don’t ask, don’t tell” to “tell us–or else”? Such demands are incredibly preposterous, but Michelson considers everyone’s sexuality as “merely a part of who we are — like the color of our eyes or our height.”
Eye color and height are physical characteristics. Sexual disposition is not a visible, physical trait. Again, why is that anyone else’s business?
Michelson continues,
What we do with our sexuality may be private (and even then, if I had my way, we’d all be a lot more open and honest about how and when we have sex too, but let’s save that for another blog)…
Whoa wait, no, let’s not save that. Let’s talk about that right now.
Screw you, dude. And I’m not saying that as though I’m harboring some repressed subconscious non-cis tendencies. I’m saying that in the obvious sense that Michelson is one nosy little bugger who I am astounded actually gets paid to write such creepy, self-indulgent twaddle.
Picking up where we left Michelson’s column:
…but our sexual orientation shouldn’t be. By claiming otherwise, you’re saying that there is something about how a person identifies — and who they choose to love and/or sleep with — that should remain secret.
But why would that be? If there’s nothing wrong with being anything other that [sic] heterosexual — as most people and I’m sure Hardy himself would claim — what exactly are we keeping private? And, again, why?
Why not? Why can’t we keep our sexuality private? Why is who we love and/or want to sleep with anyone else’s concern? I’m still waiting for the answer, which he said he would tell us in the title of his column.
Besides, there’s nothing wrong with a little mystery. As long as what I do does not affect others in a negative way, I decide what they should know about me, not them.
Michelson writes that homophobia keeps many celebrities in the closet out of fear of losing jobs, fans, and relevance because “queerness is still seen as shameful — and therefore damaging — especially to a male action star like Hardy whose masculinity serves as his mealticket.”
And writing unhinged columns about wanting the dirt on other people’s private lives is Michelson’s mealticket.
If someone feels shame, it means they see that something they’re doing is wrong. Instead of trying to fool themselves into thinking their thoughts and actions are always right, people can use their shame to examine themselves so they better understand who they are and why the rest of the world perceives them the way it does.
Shame does not have to be damaging. Shame can make someone stronger if they use that shame to improve themselves. I’m not saying that people should be ashamed of their sexuality. I’m saying that if you do feel shame about it, that’s your conscience telling you to consider what you need to do to become the type of person you (and others) can respect.
But I refuse to accept the “sexuality is private” lie any longer, and I refuse to accept Hardy’s outrage at being asked about his sexuality, especially under the guise of privacy.
Hardy told The Daily Beast that it wasn’t the question itself that bothered him–it was the venue in which it was asked, in the way it was asked, that he didn’t like. Michelson criticizes Hardy for giving interviews where he talked about other personal aspects of his life. But that was Hardy’s choice, under his own authority, without a microphone in a room full of media and the like.
Michelson whined, “So, apparently, it’s not his personal life that he doesn’t want to talk about — it’s just his sexuality.”
Except that his sexuality is part of his personal life. Some people don’t feel it’s mandatory to be known by how their genitals react to assorted stimuli. Again, why is it that someone should have to disclose their personal and intimate details to a bunch of strangers against his (or her) will?
Michelson:
And before anyone gets the wrong idea, I want to be clear that I’m not questioning Hardy’s heterosexuality. This is not about that.
If the HuffPo editor/columnist isn’t questioning Hardy’s heterosexuality, why does he need to know about it so bad? Why does Michelson insist that Hardy tells the world what his sexual orientation is if he doesn’t care what the answer is?!
Good heavens, and progs complain about conservatives wanting to know what goes on in everyone’s bedrooms. It would seem clear, based on the way this prog Michelson’s thinking, that it’s always been a matter of projecting their own vulgar, obtrusive behavioral characteristics onto others.
Michelson mentioned at the beginning of his column that Hardy had once told an interviewer about some youthful dalliances of sexual experimentation, so Michelson’s assertion that he doesn’t question Hardy’s sexuality is bogus. If Hardy’s sexuality isn’t in question, there’s no need for him to answer it, correct? It sure seems that Michelson wants to get to the bottom of Hardy’s sexual identity, wants to get Hardy to be honest and admit some unspoken truth. The columnist wants to put a precise label on Hardy. He wants all of us to have labels, to be classified under very specific headings. Because “heterosexual” and “homosexual” are too vague and general for the year 2015.
As much as I’d like to have my way with him…
That sounds rather oppressive, doesn’t it? More evidence of today’s rape culture, you guys you guys. It would be rather funny to see Michelson try to have masculine action star Tom Hardy his way.
Or maybe it’d be better just to read about it.
Or no. None of the above.
…I’m fine with him living a straight life. By all means!
Tom Hardy would be relieved to know that he has Noah Michelson’s approval to live as a straight person lives, with the binary sex and love and whatever else.
But I do want to point out that heterosexual people who are completely at ease with themselves have the luxury of not pulling the “my sexuality is private” card because being heterosexual isn’t seen as shameful — it’s our society’s default (and privileged) setting.
So like white folk are privileged because they are white, straight folk are privileged because they are straight. Straight folk have the luxury of not having to keep their sexuality private. But Michelson doesn’t question Hardy’s heterosexuality, even though Hardy kept his sexuality private from the questioner at the film festival. Didn’t privileged heterosexual Tom Hardy know that he had nothing to be ashamed of? ? ?
Then Michelson goes off the rails, becoming quite nonsensical.
We can’t keep saying that being queer isn’t a big deal out of one side of our mouths and then turn around and cry “How dare you!” and “Privacy!” out of the other side. For those of you who are championing Hardy’s little hissy fit, I’d love to know why and what you think is so precious about his — or your — sexual orientation that it should remain off the record. I wish Hardy had responded, “My sexuality? I’m straight” or “I’m only interested in being with women but I fooled around a bit when I was a kid and it wasn’t a big deal.” I don’t need him to be a role model or a poster boy for me or anyone else…
Michelson may not need Hardy to be his poster boy, but he sure sounds like he really, really, really wants Hardy to be a poster boy for…somebody.
Michelson wraps things up with a lesson for all the cisprivileged and non-cisprivileged boys, girls, etc., explaining that it’s “deep” and “daring” for queer people–settle down, I’m merely using the phrase he used–to talk about who they love and who they sleep with. He finally ends his screed by saying Hardy and everyone else need to rethink why they want to keep their sexual lives private and why they feel “threatened” when asked to disclose those details.
Threatened.
I don’t question you, but why are you threatened by the question I’m not asking that I am and should be asking?
How can anyone respond to such illogical incoherence?
Michelson never did explain why people are dead wrong to expect to not have to explain such personal details about themselves if they don’t want to. It’s pure selfishness to make such demands. People in our information-starved society feel as though they’re entitled to know everything about everyone. Just as they’re entitled to health care, to welfare, to other people’s money, there are now people like Noah Michelson who think the public is entitled to other people’s most intimate information.
And thus, a new “right” is born.
When people don’t want to talk about their sex lives, sexual orientation, and so on, it does not have to mean they are ashamed. It can mean something radically straightforward. To quote the words that my lady blogging partner used in her trademark subtle and sophisticated fashion when we discussed this article, “No, you f[lo]cking rude, bad-mannered voyeur, it’s none of your [tr]ucking business. If I choose to share that info with you, then it’s no longer private. Until then, get the [d]uck out of my bedroom.”
Disclosing sexual orientation is not an obligation. I’ll type it again and put it in boldface because I like playing with formatting options: Disclosing sexual orientation is not an obligation.
So butt the hell out, ya pervy peeping Noah.
