So here’s the deal: An actors contract does not include disclosure about their life that exists beyond the production they're a part of. And yes that also applies to small platforms such as Crave. It especially includes these small productions.

And yet, silence is repeatedly treated as dishonesty and becomes especially harmful when sexuality enters the conversation. No public figure owes the public a coming out. Not in the film industry. Not in music. Not in sports. Not anywhere. Never.

Coming out is not something for the public to take part in. It is rather a personal decision shaped by the safety of the individual, timing, society and calculated risk. And as a public figure that risk is not theoretical.

It is real. It can be career threatening.

Despite the often claimed progress, homophobia remains a part of the world we live in. It just shifts from loud and open spaces to quiet forms, hidden behind usernames on social media platforms.

But it also exists in locker room language (there is not one active gay high professional athlete!), in fan reactions, it exists behind closed doors and in instagram comment sections or on twitter. It exists from small stage productions to the biggest stages in the world. It exists in the minds of queer individuals who learn early that honesty can cost them more than silence ever will.

In that context, choosing privacy is not dishonesty. It's protection.

What is rarely acknowledged is the deeper assumption that has been circulating online ever since the pilot dropped: the belief that queerness is the default in queer media. When a public figure, and in this case two young rising actors, do not explicitly state otherwise, the public fills in the blanks.

And while usually this blank means heterosexuality in this case it means the opposite: people demand to know if actors are queer when they portray queer roles. They force them to come out (e.g. Kitt Connor) and they demand answers. They make up assumptions about people they don't know and then they have the audacity to feel betrayed when those made up assumptions turn out to be false, if they are not officially being addressed or if they are simply ignored.

Even in these openly queer spaces queerness is still treated as something that must be announced and explained. But here is the thing: an assumption you made in your own head is not a promise. Nor is it reality.

The problem is not that neither Connor nor Hudson have officially commented on their sexuality. The problem is not if Connor and Francois are in a relationship or not. They even commented on that and stated that they are just friends.

The problem is that they shouldn't feel the need to do that. They don't owe us an explanation.

The problem is that people assume that (supposedly) queer people can't exist in the same sphere without being in a relationship. That a queer actor can't comment HEART EMOJIS on his co-stars Instagram post without getting hateful comments. That people use this as an excuse to be homophobic, biphobic or even racist.

Privacy is the space where people are allowed to exist without performing for others.

And yes, there are things the public has a right to know about public figures: abuse for example or any actions that harm others. Looking at you, Epstein files.

Who someone loves is not part of that. What someone's sexuality is, is not part of that. If co-stars are dating or not, is not part of that. If someone who recently rose to fame is still with their long-term partner is not part of that.

A fan’s emotional investment and admiration does not translate into ownership. Watching a show, following an actor on social media or even meeting them in real life does not create an obligation to become a part of their private life.

The problem is the people who believe that visibility entitles them to answers. Who see co-stars together and demand to know more.

So the question worth asking is not why do they not tell us about their private life?

It is: Why do we assume they have to?