Dan & Phil Part 10: Moist Sloppy Niagara Fun

[spaceguitar]

Thanks guys for that reaction. I thought that Tyler's response, 'same', was different from Dan's. He found the situation humorous, but I just felt like Dan found the concept humorous. Whatever, maybe it wasn't the strongest example.

[Ticia]

[aralik]

this reminds me suspiciously of phil's answer "in florida" to the question "where did the squirrel bite you?" at that morning tv show they are literally becoming one merged entity

[SquishPhan]

this reminds me suspiciously of phil's answer "in florida" to the question "where did the squirrel bite you?" at that morning tv show they are literally becoming one merged entity

Dan can now no longer hold that over Phil's head, since he did something just as dumb.

[Lucet]

Oh I'm definitely not saying that children and teens shouldn't be fantasizing and what not, I'm saying it makes me uncomfortable as an adult, who fantasized about adults as a child, to think about the fact that these children don't understand what it is they're really involving themselves in.
As for the IRL actions, they need to realize, children or not, that shouting FUCK ME DADDY or I WANT TO SUCK YOUR COCK into an actual breathing living human's face is wrong. Kids do stupid shit all the time, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be taught that it's wrong and WHY it's wrong instead of just going "haha, kids."

Fantasising is fine. Do it in your bedroom, share your "crushes" with your friends if you like, it's part of growing up and finding yourself sexually. Humans are sexual creatures and this is completely normal. But making posters/shouting with "fuck me daddy" is just creepy. It also comes down to respect. A respect to others and to yourself. I mean, sex is not a game, it's sex. In different context it can also give a consent to things that you might not actually want to do (of course, I'm not talking about but there were a lot of Youtube drama).

[Jeweul]

Posted this in the TATINOF section but thought it might get some more traction here.
[offtopic]Okay so for the crafts section of TATINOF I'm making a burn book (instead of burn book on the front it says Dan/Phil) and I need some help with what to fill it with! So far I've thought of Haru, house plants, and of course our main two boys, but I'm having a bit of trouble. Any suggestions will be welcomed![/offtopic]

[Cora]

Oh I'm definitely not saying that children and teens shouldn't be fantasizing and what not, I'm saying it makes me uncomfortable as an adult, who fantasized about adults as a child, to think about the fact that these children don't understand what it is they're really involving themselves in.
As for the IRL actions, they need to realize, children or not, that shouting FUCK ME DADDY or I WANT TO SUCK YOUR COCK into an actual breathing living human's face is wrong. Kids do stupid shit all the time, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be taught that it's wrong and WHY it's wrong instead of just going "haha, kids."

I don't disagree that children need more perspective on who and what they sexualize and when it's appropriate/when it isn't. But I also don't really think that anyone on this forum should have a responsibility to not discuss things just because kids might be reading and might be uncomfortable. I am probably de-sensitized though, since like many on this forum the internet raised me and gave me all the sex ed I could have needed (and then some).

Oh, I absolutely never meant to imply that I thought we shouldn't talk about it on here. I am a firm believer of "that offends you? that makes you uncomfortable? Oh. And?" mentality. (or as King Ricky Gervais put it, "People have every right to tell you when they are offended. And you have every right to not give a fuck.") Just because something makes me uncomfortable does not mean the world should have to stop doing it. I'm an adult and I can deal with it. What I meant by the kids discussing things like that was that it makes me uncomfortable to think about these children not understanding and to relate to my own experiences of being a child that sexualized adults in my head and not truly understanding the full spectrum of what sex was REALLY like, or the concept of drooling over some guy's "big dick" versus having it actually slapping around in my face.

[joliefolie]

But do you have to have experienced something to gain the right to fantasize about it?

Isn't the point of fantasizing that it's fun and exploratory and psychological and not necessarily (in fact, frequently not at all) something we want to happen to us in reality?

[blueapple_x]

It makes me happy that they had Tim Hortons lol. I guess they sent her to buy stuff for them.

[fancy_nancy]

[offtopic]In Louises last vlog around 5:44 she said she's going to upload vlogs from playlist AND new york!! Fingers crossed we'll catch a glimpse of [/offtopic]

[greatnessflicker]

this is completely OT but i was just scrolling through the tumbs and dan's infamous 'physical pain in your chest' quote popped up as a text post with over a million reblogs
from my experience on that black hole of a website there's only a handful of tumblr posts with that many reblogs so i would say that's pretty damn impressive considering most of the people reblogging it probably don't have a clue who he is.
super irritating that he isn't cited in the quote considering the source is a blog called phanjam
here's the link for anyone who's interested: http://dxsires.tumblr.com/post/14377466 ... sical-pain

[offtopic]

A friend of mine once asked for writing prompts and someone offered dan's biology quote. Neither of them had no idea at the time about its true origins. This never ceases to make me burst out laughing. Thank you dan for being a sentimental teenaged sap and thank you internet for decontextualizing that quote and passing it off as romantic fodder

[/offtopic]

No matter how many times we rehash them, I love reading everyone's opinions on queer-baiting/sexualizing/etc. Dan and Phil invite so much interpretation and give me so much to think about. I almost always have steadfast, black-and-white opinions, but I think we are getting into some very nuanced issues and I can see both sides. When it comes to I think we have to get comfortable with the state of not-knowning, and this, a la keats' negative capability, is what produces so much creative speculation. I find it to really be something else. Keep up the in-depth bants

[karma_yeah]

+1 for optimistic phan , no #phandivorce anytime soon

+1 for "War" and "Law" do not rhyme (American, soz) but I loved hearing y'all's voices (how's "y'all's" for 'not a real word' )

+1 for Dan lurks and has probs found IDB . And oqua, your fan fic was phan-tastic!!

In times of drought , I'm so grateful for this forum and it's ability to entertain!

goes back to trying to catch up with thread
lbr, I'm just finding excuses to use the awesome emojis. Note to self: add to signature some day

[fancybum]

In my opinion, Dan is dancing on the fine line in this queer baiting / phanbaiting thing: not wanting labels but talking about men in a sexual manner, stirring the phandom with non-so-subtle comments but deleting anything that may incriminate him in any way (in 2014, he mass deleted all his tweets, for example). Phil...he just smiles but turns into a damn executive as soon as the cameras are off. And well, both script their videos and plan their tweets.

I don't know, I think I just want them to come clean on the basics of their relationship

Sorry, but I just hate this so much. I hate the idea that if you're not straight, you need to explicitly state as much in order to preface any non-straight comments as being "okay" to make. Unless he's willing to label himself, he shouldn't be able to say what he wants?

Men talking about women? Sure. Women talking about men? Whatever.

Men talking about men? Explain yourself!

Does anybody actually think that Dan is straight? That all of his male-attraction comments (over years now) are... jokes? baiting? [other]? What does he possibly gain from that, if that was the case? In what reality does that make any sense? If he was going to intentionally concoct some kind of ruse (as a straight man) of pretending to not be straight, why wouldn't he just fully commit. To vaguely hint and pretend consistently over several years to be something he's not (for... reasons... ) seems like a lot of work for little reward. What would be the point, I really want to know the logical path of this thought process. Where does it begin and where does it end.

Surely that requires a lot more mental gymnastics (and quite a low regard of Dan's personality?) to think he would fake such a basic part of himself just to court LGBT+ viewers (and surely a 'conventional' audience would be a larger pool of people to pander to anyway if that was his goal) than to just accept the simpler explanation of 'he's not straight and doesn't care to appear as such'. It drives me up the wall when people start pulling out the queerbaiting card because it makes no sense. Think about what you're saying. We know that Dan overthinks everything he puts out publicly, more and more as time goes on; overly aware of how everything he does and says could come across, and making such an effort to be accepting and inclusive of his audience.
But also he's queerbaiting left and right just for the hell of it at the same time? ..m'kay.

I'm going to talk a lot of pent-up shit under the cut now, fair warning:

SHIPBAITING: When the author of a work places characters in potentially romantic situations with the intent of teasing of the audience. Nothing ever comes of these situations.

QUEERBAITING: The term refers to what happens "when people in the media (usually television/movies) add homoerotic tension between two characters to attract more liberal and queer viewers with the indication of them not ever getting together for real in the show/book/movie".[1]

As this definition states, a queer relationship or character is hinted at to attract/appeal to the queer market, and then is denied, either modifying the character's behavior (making them enter an opposite gender relationship), playing it off as a joke (sometimes a recurring joke or trope), or denying the assumptions (in interviews, panels and such) without modifying the character's behavior.

Yes, Dan 'hints at' non-straightness. No, he doesn't play it off as a joke. He's denied being gay in the past. He's never claimed to be straight. Them's the facts.
In that godforsaken Sunday Times article, the most recent example we have of him actually addressing sexuality head-on, he didn't confirm or deny any sexuality, he explicitly stated the subject was off-limits and irrelevant to what he does. He liked a tweet eschewing the use of labels to pigeonhole people. He doesn't want to fucking explain himself, nor should he have to.

And what are people even calling shipbait these days with phan? That 'trash ranking' tweet was not shipbaiting; acknowledging a ship and teasing a ship are very different things. There's no point in pretending they're not aware of people shipping the fuck out of them; acknowledging the jokes and occasionally joining in (completely harmlessly in this case) just seems like a nice interaction with their audience.

I was too late to the earlier discussion about Dan feeling restless/pushing limits but I just want to add that while I do see where that thought is coming from, him liking that labels tweet muddies the water to me a little bit. Unless he's just getting restless at being expected to label himself (because: same) and is pushing back at those expectations with bolder comments not because he wants to come out, but because he doesn't want to and he feels he shouldn't have to.


Prefacing this next bit with If They're Together so turn back if you must:

I think the worst thing D&P can be accused of at this point (and 'accused' even sounds too harsh to me) is not queerbaiting, not phanbaiting, but gaslighting. But unlike the play/film, they're not gaslighting us out of greed or anything malicious, but out of their own need for privacy and self-preservation.

If you're unfamiliar, "gaslighting" is telling somebody things that make them doubt their own perception of reality and therefore their own sanity. You see a light dim or flicker, and you're told it did no such thing, you're crazy, it's all in your mind. You hear footsteps above you, and you're told there's nobody else in the house, you're just hearing things. You begin to doubt reality after being worn down and constantly told that what you see and experience is wrong, despite all evidence to the contrary.

But in this scenario, the reasons for the lights dimming or footsteps overhead is not a greedy murderer looking for hidden jewels in the attic, it's two people trying to keep their private relationship with each other private. And backed into a corner, felt they had no other choice but to tell us we're crazy and imagining things. That that video professing love that was released accidentally was just an abandoned prank. That those early public exchanges between two people with nothing to hide was just childish attention-seeking. "The lights didn't dim you planks, it's all in your minds." And I would have said they stopped with the gaslighting if it weren't for those bus tweets (which I still find weird and unnecessary even though I explain it with 'setting the narrative for US plebs').

Ignoring the bus thing though, they (by 'they' I suppose I just mean Dan) have cooled off in the last couple of years, haven't they? With the no-homo/yay-boobs panic and denials. Which is why I cringe at mentions of 2012-Dan rolling in his grave at things present-Dan says or does. At what point, after consciously working towards becoming a more comfortable and open person, are you allowed to move on from your past? I know it's all jokes, but 2012 Dan is now a small part of Dan's history and I think his no-homo'ing period has been more than doubled in duration with the 'lobster-action/enter-me-Troye/idgaf' period. But people always throw that shitty time period back in his face and it annoys me, what does it do to him? Maybe that's partly where the restlessness is coming from, people not taking the current him at face value.

tl;dr
idk sorry my brain is melting

[sweetmm]

Thanks for introducing me to gaslighting

[kuensukki]

In my opinion, Dan is dancing on the fine line in this queer baiting / phanbaiting thing: not wanting labels but talking about men in a sexual manner, stirring the phandom with non-so-subtle comments but deleting anything that may incriminate him in any way (in 2014, he mass deleted all his tweets, for example). Phil...he just smiles but turns into a damn executive as soon as the cameras are off. And well, both script their videos and plan their tweets.

I don't know, I think I just want them to come clean on the basics of their relationship

Sorry, but I just hate this so much. I hate the idea that if you're not straight, you need to explicitly state as much in order to preface any non-straight comments as being "okay" to make. Unless he's willing to label himself, he shouldn't be able to say what he wants?

Men talking about women? Sure. Women talking about men? Whatever.

Men talking about men? Explain yourself!

Does anybody actually think that Dan is straight? That all of his male-attraction comments (over years now) are... jokes? baiting? [other]? What does he possibly gain from that, if that was the case? In what reality does that make any sense? If he was going to intentionally concoct some kind of ruse (as a straight man) of pretending to not be straight, why wouldn't he just fully commit. To vaguely hint and pretend consistently over several years to be something he's not (for... reasons... ) seems like a lot of work for little reward. What would be the point, I really want to know the logical path of this thought process. Where does it begin and where does it end.

Surely that requires a lot more mental gymnastics (and quite a low regard of Dan's personality?) to think he would fake such a basic part of himself just to court LGBT+ viewers (and surely a 'conventional' audience would be a larger pool of people to pander to anyway if that was his goal) than to just accept the simpler explanation of 'he's not straight and doesn't care to appear as such'. It drives me up the wall when people start pulling out the queerbaiting card because it makes no sense. Think about what you're saying. We know that Dan overthinks everything he puts out publicly, more and more as time goes on; overly aware of how everything he does and says could come across, and making such an effort to be accepting and inclusive of his audience.
But also he's queerbaiting left and right just for the hell of it at the same time? ..m'kay.

I'm going to talk a lot of pent-up shit under the cut now, fair warning:

SHIPBAITING: When the author of a work places characters in potentially romantic situations with the intent of teasing of the audience. Nothing ever comes of these situations.

QUEERBAITING: The term refers to what happens "when people in the media (usually television/movies) add homoerotic tension between two characters to attract more liberal and queer viewers with the indication of them not ever getting together for real in the show/book/movie".[1]

As this definition states, a queer relationship or character is hinted at to attract/appeal to the queer market, and then is denied, either modifying the character's behavior (making them enter an opposite gender relationship), playing it off as a joke (sometimes a recurring joke or trope), or denying the assumptions (in interviews, panels and such) without modifying the character's behavior.

Yes, Dan 'hints at' non-straightness. No, he doesn't play it off as a joke. He's denied being gay in the past. He's never claimed to be straight. Them's the facts.
In that godforsaken Sunday Times article, the most recent example we have of him actually addressing sexuality head-on, he didn't confirm or deny any sexuality, he explicitly stated the subject was off-limits and irrelevant to what he does. He liked a tweet eschewing the use of labels to pigeonhole people. He doesn't want to fucking explain himself, nor should he have to.

And what are people even calling shipbait these days with phan? That 'trash ranking' tweet was not shipbaiting; acknowledging a ship and teasing a ship are very different things. There's no point in pretending they're not aware of people shipping the fuck out of them; acknowledging the jokes and occasionally joining in (completely harmlessly in this case) just seems like a nice interaction with their audience.

I was too late to the earlier discussion about Dan feeling restless/pushing limits but I just want to add that while I do see where that thought is coming from, him liking that labels tweet muddies the water to me a little bit. Unless he's just getting restless at being expected to label himself (because: same) and is pushing back at those expectations with bolder comments not because he wants to come out, but because he doesn't want to and he feels he shouldn't have to.


Prefacing this next bit with If They're Together so turn back if you must:

I think the worst thing D&P can be accused of at this point (and 'accused' even sounds too harsh to me) is not queerbaiting, not phanbaiting, but gaslighting. But unlike the play/film, they're not gaslighting us out of greed or anything malicious, but out of their own need for privacy and self-preservation.

If you're unfamiliar, "gaslighting" is telling somebody things that make them doubt their own perception of reality and therefore their own sanity. You see a light dim or flicker, and you're told it did no such thing, you're crazy, it's all in your mind. You hear footsteps above you, and you're told there's nobody else in the house, you're just hearing things. You begin to doubt reality after being worn down and constantly told that what you see and experience is wrong, despite all evidence to the contrary.

But in this scenario, the reasons for the lights dimming or footsteps overhead is not a greedy murderer looking for hidden jewels in the attic, it's two people trying to keep their private relationship with each other private. And backed into a corner, felt they had no other choice but to tell us we're crazy and imagining things. That that video professing love that was released accidentally was just an abandoned prank. That those early public exchanges between two people with nothing to hide was just childish attention-seeking. "The lights didn't dim you planks, it's all in your minds." And I would have said they stopped with the gaslighting if it weren't for those bus tweets (which I still find weird and unnecessary even though I explain it with 'setting the narrative for US plebs').

Ignoring the bus thing though, they (by 'they' I suppose I just mean Dan) have cooled off in the last couple of years, haven't they? With the no-homo/yay-boobs panic and denials. Which is why I cringe at mentions of 2012-Dan rolling in his grave at things present-Dan says or does. At what point, after consciously working towards becoming a more comfortable and open person, are you allowed to move on from your past? I know it's all jokes, but 2012 Dan is now a small part of Dan's history and I think his no-homo'ing period has been more than doubled in duration with the 'lobster-action/enter-me-Troye/idgaf' period. But people always throw that shitty time period back in his face and it annoys me, what does it do to him? Maybe that's partly where the restlessness is coming from, people not taking the current him at face value.

That was beautiful and very well thought out. One thing to add, I think its good that Dan gets bombarded with 2012 remarks because it allows him to self-reflect and see how far he has come as an individual. What I say about Dan is that he is so likable because he is the the one person that has grown the most. He has dealt with so much and has really matured into this wonderful, insightful guy. We knew him in his lowest and at now we know him in his best.

In terms of being more open with sexuality I think that's the only way Dan can allow his viewers to see that he is not straight without directly stating that. He can't come out and not drag out Phil with him so he really is in a hard place. Best way to go around this is drop intentional hints about his sexuality. That way he respect Phil's privacy and is able to be more open about his own. I don't think he will ever come out because, like Phil, he doesn't believe in labels. He's done his best to imply that he's not straight so it now depends on whether the person watching want to believe it too.

A part of me is sad that the only indication we will ever get of the boys and their current relationship is from Dan. I want to squeeze the secrets out of Phil but that boy is private and doesn't believe in labels, but I want one indication. It's sad that Dan has to work so hard to make Phil admit he finds naked JT jumping out a cake hot. I understand him and I understand his hesitance but I pray wishful thinking that he gets past the scars of the vday vid and is able to show a more vulnerable side of Phil who is open to talking about Dan as much as Dan talks about Phil because when Philly is fond it is the sweetest thing ever

[majitzu]

Thanks for introducing me to gaslighting

Same, everytime something happens I'm like "this could mean something but this could also mean nothing, so I'm not gonna make a fuss about it.

Is great to know there is a word for this feeling

[akui]

Offtopic cuz I don't know what you guys are talking about I'm too busy to catch up!

Anyway. Everytime i see Louise i have this very unsettling feeling that Dan's gonna leave Phil someday in the future.

[akui]

Offtopic cuz I don't know what you guys are talking about I'm too busy to catch up!

Anyway. Everytime i see Louise i have this very unsettling feeling that Dan's gonna leave Phil someday in the future.

[sweetmm]

I understand him and I understand his hesitance but I pray wishful thinking that he gets past the scars of the vday vid

It is one of the reason I feel Phil will never open up about his personal relationship, I could not fathom how hurt he was and still is at the invasion of privacy albeit accidental. We may never know the aftermath it had on and the extent of how bad/dark it might had been.

I see Phil as a pretty passionate person who hold on tight to what is precious to him, be it family, friends and especially the person he shares his life with. I believe he will safeguard his relationship from the public until he is certain the relationship is permanently solid and can survive public scrutiny and that meant when he is getting married/building a family.

[sweetmm]

Offtopic cuz I don't know what you guys are talking about I'm too busy to catch up!

Anyway. Everytime i see Louise i have this very unsettling feeling that Dan's gonna leave Phil someday in the future.

You meant professionally or "romantically", I doubt professionally they'll go separate ways as I do see how solid the brand they are building and it be great to see if they can at least achieve to be the next Ant&Dec of the BBC Radio. I'm also hoping they'll think of future Youtube projects as a duo that may include travel hosting etc from their perspective.

Their chemistry is great and they seem to be able to build a following that is growing (gosh sounds like a cult ) and that will help them in the long run to sustain. Dan as DINOF is having problem sustaining and coming out with ideas consistently and AP tend to focus to specific market, so for larger market and consistency of product, it makes more sense for to stay together and grow further.

[blueapple_x]

You brought up so good points fancybum. And kuensukki as well.

Can I talk about Phil for a second? His boldest most recent mentions of male attraction include the radioshow where he hinted at watching gay porn and his anime video where he expressed attraction to the male characters in Free. Those are very cheeky yet strong hints that he made without anyone forcing him to.

Then this obama llama video happened.

Perhaps he doesn't feel comfortable enough yet with Louise to agree with her about attractive males on his own--he needed coaxing from Dan. Even then it was reluctant. Maybe it's because she threw in the naked part and he wants his channel to be PG. Or maybe, he just felt a bit braver on those days that he mentioned male attraction stuff on his own and on the day they filmed this not so much. Idk, I'm just rambling. I'm waiting for the day where him and Dan mention attractive males in a video together in the same bold way they both did in their anime videos lol.

[sweetmm]

Maybe it's because she threw in the naked part and he wants his channel to be PG.

I tend to believe it was more about the naked part rather that male attraction/appreciation as he had made remarks of it as you had mentioned.

With Phil I tend to feel he wants to be extremely private about who he is with and not the gender of who he is with.

[trashqueen]

fancybum: i love you and i'm gonna bookmark your post so i can quote the entire thing every time this topic comes back, i'm equally as frustrated with it as you are

i want to invite anyone who thinks dan is straight to explain me your thought process because no matter how hard i try it seems completely impossible to me at this point

i don't see where the idea that actual queer real human beings (not characters) can queerbait comes from, i love my bi label a lot but even i can understand that it is incredibly short sighted to not understand that we're all different and other people (specially people in a spotlight like d&p where 'coming out' means coming out to literally millions of people) might not have that need or prefer to keep things quiet/ambiguos

i'm also very against the idea that queer people are obligated to come out, or need to come out to be comfortable with their lives, i really don't expect dan or phil to come out, i don't feel like either of them are the type that need to let people know to be happy, and that's fine, and they don't owe us a coming out

i do expect dan to continue randomly mentioning that he's attracted to guys because he clearly is comfortable doing that, i imagine that he likes people (who pay attention) knowing while keeping it lowkey enough that no one makes it a big deal

with phil idek he seems okay with dropping the smallest hints ever from time to time (he did left that part of their video w louise in after all and there was also the free! mention on the anime recs video) but as always i'm not sure when it comes to phil

[daphenaxa]

fancybum

Jewel, i googled burn book and it is to gossip about classmates? you gonna gossip about Haru and the house plants?? I am not sure i understand your concept.

That Dan tweet about the border was hilarious but that's too real. The American border personnel is always so scary and intimidating. and they also know their power and show it.

[gnostic]

To clarify, there is quite a subset of people who believe Dan isn't straight but phan isn't real. I am one of them. Alternatively, if Dan somehow turns out to be 100% straightaroo, i think we can all agree to be quite disappointed in his behavior