LGBT News Tom Hardy shuts down reporter who asks about sexuality

Re: Tom Hardy shuts down reporter who asks about sexualityTom Hardy shuts down report

Rude of the reporter

 

I was going to post this actually.

To be honest, whilst the question could be construed as a bit personal, I think Hardy's response was downright rude.

The reporters question was straightforward. Tom Hardy has previously talked about his non-standard (for Hollywood) sexual expression (i.e. experimenting with men), and the reporter (who is gay himself) was clearly just asking whether Tom thought this was difficult for male celebrities (to be open like that). Added to the fact the film they were discussing is a bit "gay" so there is some relevance there. Instead of a polite "no comment" or a vague answer, Tom decides to be a bit of a douche, pretending not to understand the simple question and then pretty much attacking the reporter.

Its not the first time Tom has been aloof, in fact, I would go as far to say he is homophobic. He reportedly once said this:

To me that reduction of being gay down to anal sex is quite ignorant, it is what homophobes tend to do (they dislike gay people so they focus squarely on an act they see as disgusting or undesirable). The added swearing indicates that Tom is offended at the mere possibility people could see him as gay.

Now I don't believe Tom is gay or bi, I'm sure he is straight or predominately straight, and with him being married I could see why he might not want to be seen as gay. HOWEVER, his responses do indicate he has some problem with homosexuality, that he sees being gay as undesirable, or the mere suggestion he might be an insult. THAT is problematic and he should be called out for that.

He reminds me of the sort of person who on one hand go "I am supportive of gay rights" and then in a different scenario "What?! You think I'm gay?! I'm not f**king gay!". Kind of two-faced and hypocritical.

Summary: great actor, easy on the eye....but a bit of a douchebag.

I agree with the crux of this: http://www.bustle.com/articles/1103...out-his-sexuality-but-he-really-didnt-need-to

 

I can understand how you might find Hardy's response offending, but I think you're making it a bit more than it has to be, he never insulted LGBT people, ..sure, he was a bit blunt & aggressive; but who wouldn't be, if asked a personal question, in such an awkward fashion ..I even think the reporter himself, felt a bit uncomfortable asking, but that's just me; so it shows that he knew it maybe wasn't the best thing to ask, & why does this all of a sudden have to be about offending LGBT or someone suddenly being homophobic? people like to throw that word around way too freely, I didn't think he sounded homophobic at all ..which by the way would mean he had an irrational fear of gays/lesbians etc, if that's true never really got that term actually, anyway to the part where you said he did an interview saying he experimented, or did whatever with guys, who knows ..we weren't there, & people go through phases, you can't just use that experience & pin it on him, as some hidden secret he's ashamed off, & on your quote of his about anal sex, while yeah ..maybe it was a bit over the top, is it really a false statement? a lot of gay men do have anal sex, maybe not everyone, but on some of these dating apps, I've seen & even on here, with some threads ..people are even shocked if you've never done it, so I don't see how is reaction was completely surprising, maybe it's surprising because he's not LGBT & it came off a bit insensitive, but still ..don't get me wrong, I get what it can feel like, assuming that everyone or many straight men hate anything associated with same-sex, but that's not it or everyone ..& while it's not right at times, you can't blame some guys for being guys, especially guys like him with a machoish mentality. Are society still has these gender norms that most have been conditioned too for centuries, so you're gonna see guys get a bit spooked by anything gay related, & while some are in fact homophobic, not all are ..but yeah, some people will just be more blunt about it; but regardless, he was asked a personal question about his sexuality ..maybe if he was a close friend, it wouldn't be too weird ..but he's not, he's a reporter ..& from Tom Hardy's perspective, the guy is looking for tabloid drama or something like that, & this isn't just singular to this situation, no celeb ..regardless of sexuality wants their personal lives exposed without their consent, they're still human beings with secrets & personal issues, like you & I ..questions in places such as this, which are strictly for the promotion of his Film! not his sex life or orientation, meaning those questions are not valid. Any question that isn't related to the film shouldn't be there ..they won't respond, they're there to promote their work/craft. & say he was in fact bi, or gay ..why is that the reporter's magazine or whatever ..want to know so badly? what's this obsession some LGBT folk (Not all) have with outing people?? if someone doesn't want to come out, leave them be ..yes it's 2015, but that doesn't mean that things have changed, or that the sky stops being blue ..people are still very anti-gay, even in the entertainment industry, yes coming out does help ..but only if that person is comfortable doing so, we hear stories about LGBT celebs being harassed about their orientation, so why is it okay then for someone from a common place to go in for a scoop? let the man be who he wants, from what I've heard ..he's married, & has children. & appears happy to me, leave him be. Just because you portray a gay/bi character doesn't equate to you being one, it's a character in a film. To end my reply, the reporter was wrong for asking the question ..& if he had to ask, he should've been more direct instead of beating about the bush. He is a reporter/tabloid after all, they usually are supposed to go straight for the kill.


P.S: It was low to resort to name calling, Hardy never did that, so why are you?

 

The thing is though, this is a partially LGBT film. The journalist (from an LGBT publication) was likely doing a story on the gay aspect of the film, and trying to do a little tie-in based on Hardy's previous quite open response re his experimentation to Attitude (another gay publication).

Now of course the question was personal and inappropriate BUT really Tom should have vaguely answered "I wouldn't know", "no comment, next question" or "perhaps" or "can we keep questions focussed on the film please".

Instead he was pretty damn aggressive, "what on earth are you on about?!" in British English is essentially a colloquialism for "you are a f:***:g idiot".

Well he has routinely taken offence at the mere presumption that he could be not 100% straight, even after essentially leading the press on by being quite ambiguous in the past.

Well its a general term, but perhaps it makes more sense when you acknowledge that a phobic response is not necessarily one of fear, but simply an irrational physiological response (which could include disgust or increased aggression). Someone who threw up at the sight of carrots or thought of eating them would be arguably phobic, it does not necessarily mean they are "afraid" of them.

How am I pinning it on him exactly?

He mentioned his experimentation and has since aggressively and categorically denied it.

If an ordinary person announced quite publicly that they'd experimented with the same sex, they cannot then be that offended if people respond with a general question about other people, or if they (wrongly or rightly) presume they might not be 100% straight.

Its how he responds. If he said "Look, I don't really want to talk about it" or "I don't think that is relevant" fair enough. But it is his manner in response, essentially "Me? Gay?! No :***: way!" which is a bit off.

Of course you don't have to have anal sex if you are a gay man, but it was his response that smacks of (intentional or not) ignorance and maybe a little homophobia. The whole context of it demonstrated that:
a. He views the act of anal sex (and presumably those who engage in it) as definitely negative (due to the coarse language used), and/or
b. He naively associates anal sex as some "benchmark" of homosexuality. I.e. "kissing a man = experimentation, anal sex = definitely gay". In reality you may have gay men who just kiss or experimenting men who try having anal sex and then figuring they aren't into men at all.

 

I get that vibe that you yourself took a lot of what he said to heart, & while I don't disagree ..with the fact that Hardy can come off as a hard:***: I also understand that he's a super masculine guy, & also looking by the films you see him in, & a bit of his interviews ..it's one thing if he was in fact LGBT but he isn't, & being aggressive doesn't mean he's rude, but I Can understand ..he did overeact a bit, & while reporters will question you on certain things, even past experiences ..it doesn't therefore mean that the person doesn't deserve respect, & the previous interview he did was not relevant to the press conference related to his film, & if you have a bunch of other people going off track asking unimportant questions, you'll get kinda annoyed after awhile. Maybe that's why he came across the way he did, & the reason he said "What are you on Earth about" is because the reporter kinda switched the question a bit, first asking about celebrities feelings on sexuality, then somehow trying to ask Hardy about his, that's if I got that term correct, anyway I just don't see why it's a big deal, yes his response was pretty blunt ..but he wasn't insulting I think, I feel that people take certain things a bit too much to heart, & I know what it's like to be sensitive, but if you're a reporter & you ask burning questions, you're gonna get burning answers, even rude comments/insults ..it's not like he didn't suspect it was gonna happen, he knew it was a loaded question. People aren't always going to be polite, & the guy/actor is English who are known to be pretty straight to the point.

 

In hindsight, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt as he could have theoretically been trying to make a point re press intrusion or scandalisation of being LGBT (although the former is probably more likely than the latter given his previous statements). His method of response was still a little unsavoury though so I still think I'm sticking to my statement that I think he's acting a little bit douchey.

I can appreciate he might be frustrated at being "miscategorised" BUT I think he is making things worse for himself by taking offence and being so aloof. If he either politely said "no, I'm not bisexual" or maybe even made a joke out of the situation I think the press would get bored. At present they probably see that they can touch a nerve and mistakenly take that to be a sign of something it's not.

Is that the stereotype? Nah, I'd say on the whole people in England are embarrassed to cause offence, BUT he is a Londoner, and Londoners are a bit more bolshie, I guess akin to New Yorkers!

 

It always helps to read the story - and in this case, headlines were misleading. I thought something different happened.

I think the reporter was VERY on point. A lot of celebrities have very warped views of sexuality. We have a lot of out celebrities, but many are either in the closet or waited a LONG time to come out.

Before anyone says "but it's none of our business!" well, they don't have to answer whatever we ask but I am spending my time, effort, and energy to help them become famous.

 

How exactly are you spending your time & effort making them famous? did you go to acting school, or get rejected for roles etc. Actors aren't showered with money overnight, they have to bleed & sweat just like any other job, it takes some people years before they get discovered, or are even given big roles that make the big money in the theaters, & like I mentioned somewhere, if someone doesn't want to come out; they shouldn't be pressured or put on the spot to come out, it may be 2015, & yes many youth want a role model etc. But not everyone is ready to take that role, or responsibility, & people have their reasons, regardless of orientation on keeping their personal lives personal, & yes maybe the response could've been different, but he was there to promote his film, not his sex-life. I'm not quite getting why people can't seem to understand that, according to a few news sources on this, most people agree that this reporters question was irrelevant. & that he was just trying to get a scoop or whatever.

 

*shrug* I find this whole thing is made out bigger than it has to be. Reporter asking personal questions is not new stuff - they have to do that if they want to get high rating for whatever channel/publication they are working for, because people want to see that stuff. Celebrity brushing off reporter asking personal question is also perfectly acceptable, because, well, it is their life.

 

Pardon me for apparently not making it clear enough....THEY DO NOT HAVE TO ANSWER. However, we still can ask. Do I really think it's important? No, but celebrities who get all huffy about this stuff but still want us to follow them, tweet them, facebook follow, buy their products, see their movies......it just bugs me.

Once I saw the question asked, I really became confused as to why there is so much hullabaloo. I swore Tom talked about his sexuality in the past and I thought it was a relevant question.