Actor Tom Hardy Defends His Right To Privacy After Reporter Questions His Sexuality

tom-hardy-shirtless-warrior

At a press conference for the upcoming film Legend, British actor Tom Hardy made headlines after a reporter for an LGBT publication probed the star on his “ambiguous sexuality.”

In his latest film, Hardy says he “tested a new muscle” by portraying a pair of twin brothers, bisexual British gangsters Ronnie and Reggie Kray, who terrorized East London during the ‘50s and ‘60s.

“In the film, your character Ronnie is very open about his sexuality,” Graeme Coleman from Canadian LGBT-outlet Daily Xtra asked Hardy last week. “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?”

“What on earth are you on about?” he responds.

The reporter referenced a 2008 interview with Attitude, where Hardy said he had experimented with guys as a teenager. In part, he said, “I’m an actor for fuck’s sake. I’ve played with everything and everyone. I love the form and the physicality, but now that I’m in my thirties, it doesn’t do it for me.”

Hardy asked the reporter, “But what is your question?”

The reporter repeated his previous question and Hardy said, “I don’t find it difficult for celebrities to talk about their sexuality. Are you asking about my sexuality?”

The reporter said, “Um, sure,” to which Hardy responded, “Why?”

As the reporter tried to answer, Hardy interrupted, saying, “Thank you.”

In a new interview with The Daily Beast, Hardy defended his right to privacy saying he is “no obligation to share anything to do with my family, my children, my sexuality.”

I think everybody is entitled to the right to privacy. 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. I do think that there’s a responsibility for people to own the way that they speak publicly. This doesn’t stop us from being human beings; 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 fuck 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? And why am I a part of something now that, however legitimate, I haven’t offered my services for? It’s not about what he and his publication stands for, none of that is offensive, and on the contrary, it’s very admirable, and an important issue. But how I was asked was incredibly inelegant, and I just thought it was disrespectful and counterproductive to what he stands for.”

Watch the exchange below: