Dan & Phil Part 56: Phanthony! at the Disco

Our two favourite full time internet nerds who never go outside!
Locked
User avatar
alittledizzy
actual demon phannie
actual demon phannie
Posts: 7100
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2016 3:09 pm
Pronouns: she/her

freesocks wrote: Sat Oct 07, 2017 2:13 pm
captainspacecoat wrote: Sat Oct 07, 2017 1:24 pm
freesocks wrote: Sat Oct 07, 2017 1:06 pm 4.) Most of my guy friends have "man crushes" so I didn't pay attention to Dan's talk of Evan Peters or anything. If there is one thing I am realizing from writing this, it is probably that as a casual viewer, I wasn't looking for anything, so I didn't see anything. I just didn't think too deeply about it all.
I think that's a really interesting point! At the time I discovered Dan (and then Phil a few weeks later), I was a teenager who was confused about my sexuality and subconsciously seeking out reassurance through non-straight people in the media. Thus, sexuality was often what drew me to "celebs" and, rightly or wrongly, I found it difficult to care about straight media because it didn't feel relevant to what I was going through. I wonder if that hadn't been the case, would I have cared enough to investigate further, and would I have remained a casual fan? It's interesting to think about, and I think context and background do explain a lot about people's differing interpretations!
I definitely think context and background make a big difference because everyone projects onto celebrities, characters, and public figures to some extent (some way too much, but that's a whole other conversation). If someone would have told me that they were a couple or there was speculation that they were a couple when I started watching, my perception of certain things probably would have changed. When I started watching Dan, I was still going through my unfortunate "bro" phase with regards to dating, so I wasn't watching because I was attracted to him, which is probably another reason why I didn't really care much about his sexuality, since I didn't sexualize him the way I might a celeb that I have a crush on. I didn't have the highest self-esteem (bro phase/daddy issues) and so I looked at Dan more like a safe friend (not actually like he was my friend, but that was the lens through which I was viewing his content) who made me laugh about people being ridiculous and helped me feel more comfortable with not always having to be perfect and/or beating myself up when I inevitably failed at that. I generally give other people advice that I should give myself, so seeing someone who was so hard on themselves, but talked about it in a funny way, kind of reminds me that I can be a bit ridiculous at times and I tend to dramatize my awkward/interesting experiences in the same way for the purposes of storytelling, so I liked that about the videos too. Wow, this YouTube analysis is getting deep haha.
This is a fascinating conversation!

I do think heteronormativity plays a big part in casual fans not 'seeing anything' between Dan and Phil. Society kind of cultivates m/f pairings in a way that makes us assume anyone with chemistry who spends in an inordinate amount of time together must be something more than friends, and trains us the exact opposite with same sex pairings. I wonder if you'd known definitively that Dan and Phil are not straight, then as a casual fan you'd have seem something more? This is the blessing and the curse of them retreating back into the closet - I'm sure circa 2012 people assuming they were straight, assuming they weren't together, and assuming anyone who thought differently was just a creepy obsessed fan was exactly what they wanted. But I do pretty firmly believe that right now they'd like it to be clear they're not straight, and I also do believe that it's fairly impossible for them to ever explicitly come out as not straight (in a way that even the casual audience would understand) without unwanted attention being placed on their relationship. Heteronormativity was truly their best friend when it came to everyone except people who were really paying attention handwaving everything but 'they're straight, they're just friends.'
User avatar
pastelspectre
stress mushroom
Posts: 616
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2016 8:32 pm
Pronouns: he/him

hello i am late i just wanted to say that bloopers video was a blessing and my favorite part was the eyelash grooming and the copacetic part even if we've seen it before. i've already rewatched it twice oops
Image
:transheart:
freesocks
spork
Posts: 62
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2017 5:58 pm
Pronouns: she/her
Location: USA

alittledizzy wrote: Sat Oct 07, 2017 3:14 pm This is a fascinating conversation!

I do think heteronormativity plays a big part in casual fans not 'seeing anything' between Dan and Phil. Society kind of cultivates m/f pairings in a way that makes us assume anyone with chemistry who spends in an inordinate amount of time together must be something more than friends, and trains us the exact opposite with same sex pairings. I wonder if you'd known definitively that Dan and Phil are not straight, then as a casual fan you'd have seem something more? This is the blessing and the curse of them retreating back into the closet - I'm sure circa 2012 people assuming they were straight, assuming they weren't together, and assuming anyone who thought differently was just a creepy obsessed fan was exactly what they wanted. But I do pretty firmly believe that right now they'd like it to be clear they're not straight, and I also do believe that it's fairly impossible for them to ever explicitly come out as not straight (in a way that even the casual audience would understand) without unwanted attention being placed on their relationship. Heteronormativity was truly their best friend when it came to everyone except people who were really paying attention handwaving everything but 'they're straight, they're just friends.'
I actually don't think that I would have seen something more because I only watched DINOF and if you look at the old DINOF videos, Phil isn't really featured and they really do, in my opinion, just act like friends. If we want to analyze that further, we could talk about how DINOF videos are mostly scripted and the message he is trying to portray etc etc, but to bring it back to how a casual fan sees things differently: I will use "Human Interaction" as an example. I have seen people complain about the part where Dan is recalling being in a Fish & Chips shop with a friend talking to some girls. This particular sketch is something I have seen people in the phandom complain about because Dan didn't specify that the friend was Phil. As a casual fan, I never assumed the friend was Phil. I also didn't care because to me the identity of the friend was irrelevant to the story. I assumed Dan was out with a friend who wanted Dan to hang out with the friend of whatever girl he was interested in, but Dan was just over the whole night and couldn't be bothered (I've been there). If you only watch older DINOF videos, Phil doesn't appear to have a stand-out role in Dan's life as a whole other than the fact that they were best friends who were also roommates and helped each other with their YouTube videos. On the other hand, if I had been told that neither were straight and then watched the gaming channel, there is a possibility I might have seen things differently (although there is no way of knowing for sure),
malday
emo goose
Posts: 1143
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2016 6:56 pm

They do act differently on each channel, especially Dan on his channel versus Dan on DAPG and DINI, probably because they consider the audience for each channel slightly different. He didn't even have Phil's channel linked on his page until last month.
If you read the comments that sometimes blow out of proportion the most boring things (like looks and glances) it's easy to dismiss this as just another silly youtube ship (like septiplier or ianthony) and brand the whole thing as delusional when it's the opposite.

But it's interesting that now they are putting their energies into growing their joint channel again, Phil said something about encouraging people subscribed to them individually to subscribe to their gaming channel, i wonder if this has something to do with some joint project they are preparing, or just because DAPG is their biggest earner.
Grey
lady door
Posts: 178
Joined: Fri May 05, 2017 8:17 pm
Location: Canada

As much as heteronormativity plays into casual viewers not seeing their relationship, I think you could also argue the other way that because they’re men, people interpret their behaviour differently / judge it more.

Back to the ship-baiting debate again (sorry) but I feel like a lot of stuff they do wouldn’t be judged as much if they were two females. I think the “rules” for platonic m-m friendships are a lot stricter than the “rules” for platonic f-f friendships. So because they’re men people interpret stuff to be “gayer” than they would if they were two women. When I was in grade 12 (17-18 years old), I went on an overnight trip with my school and there weren’t enough beds. All the girls slept together in pairs so everyone got a bed but the boys slept half in beds and half on the floor and they made a lot of jokes about how they aren’t gay. It stuck out to me because I thought it was so weird. I know D&P don’t openly sleep together anyway but that illustrates my general point I think.

Also: once I volunteered at a charity golf thing where I had to sit at a hole and offer golfers fruit (strawberries etc). The female golfers reacted how one would expect - either “yes please” or “no thanks”. The male golfers, however, would joke something along the lines of “do I look like I am a fruit to you?” Or “offer it to HIM, he likes fruit lolololololol” It was honestly amazing how reliably they all made this stupid joke. I couldn’t believe it. Anyway I think there’s differences between men and women in what is normal not-gay behaviour even including just taking a damn piece of fruit at a golf event. Idk if this rant adds anything to the conversation at hand but I thought I’d try. And I’m going to work now so hopefully it’s understandable.

I also think context matters a lot. You can’t gleam the context of D&P’s relationship from an individual video they post. But when you learn of the context you can see their behaviours differently.
I'm having a stress.
User avatar
LtrllySusan
lava lamp
Posts: 954
Joined: Thu May 18, 2017 4:09 pm

I don't wanna kill off the current discussion because I find it very interesting (just feel like I am not eloquent/smart enough to contribute). But I just realised something that I think you guys might care about.

Early in the Blooper vid, there's a clip in which Dan says "Look, we've destroyed this appartment. We need to get the hell out of here; our deposit is just lost" (timestamped link). Based on the shirts, that clip is from Dan vs. Phil: QUICK DRAW! which was uploaded February 3, and probably filmed a few days before. The moving announcement was published April 25. Makes me wonder when they decided they'd move and how long they were looking at places and about that week in march which we don't mention anymore apparently.

IDK, now that I have typed this it doesn't seem so interesting after all. Move along, everyone!
goldenmermaid
drama llama
Posts: 45
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2017 1:16 am
Location: England

LtrllySusan wrote: Sat Oct 07, 2017 4:52 pm I don't wanna kill off the current discussion because I find it very interesting (just feel like I am not eloquent/smart enough to contribute). But I just realised something that I think you guys might care about.

Early in the Blooper vid, there's a clip in which Dan says "Look, we've destroyed this appartment. We need to get the hell out of here; our deposit is just lost" (timestamped link). Based on the shirts, that clip is from Dan vs. Phil: QUICK DRAW! which was uploaded February 3, and probably filmed a few days before. The moving announcement was published April 25. Makes me wonder when they decided they'd move and how long they were looking at places and about that week in march which we don't mention anymore apparently.

IDK, now that I have typed this it doesn't seem so interesting after all. Move along, everyone!
I would guess that it takes at least a few months to cancel your rent agreement, find a new apartment, get new rent agreements signed, arrange moving etc. so I imagine they decided before Christmas at least!
User avatar
lurker
janice from the shop
Posts: 522
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2016 2:02 pm
Pronouns: they/them

wrt perception, i feel like heteronormativity and homophobia often act like the two sides of a double-edged sword and it's difficult to make a generalized assumption what people will see. on one hand, a same-gender couple could literally get married on screen and there would still be people saying "it's just a celebration of their friendship! the rings are friendship rings! platonic friends can kiss too!". that's why we have gems as "just gals being pals" and it also plays into why it can be easier for two women or fem-presenting people to display basic pda such as holding hands compared to two men or masc-presenting people. the physical affection of people gets judged differently depending on their gender -- that's why some people make "she won't be allowed to do that in 10 years lol" joke when their infant daughter has a sleep over with her boy friend. then, when we're talking about grown-up people, say, holding hands on a bus, it doesn't mean anything if they're two women, it certainly has to mean they're a couple if they're a woman and a man, and if they're two men dOeS tHaT mEaN tHeY'rE gAY???? homophobia leads to same-gender affection and queer gender presentation being scrutinized more thoroughly because people want to set themselves apart from it.

tl;dr i think in the case of deppy both of the following things are true:
- physical affection is scrutinized more thoroughly because they're two guys and guys have a smaller band of what's socially acceptable (due to things because homophobia), so sometimes people overshoot and phrase arguments like "this tiny thing happened, this has to mean they're a couple because straight bros wouldn't do this. source: i showed this my straight bro and he said that as a fact"
- people tend to brush aside why people think they might be a couple because they're two guys and we're more prone to believing that a man and a woman who are commited to each other are in a romantic relationship (due to things due to heteronormativity)

and i feel like it'd be helpful to treat them as oppositve sides of the same coin, not mutually exclusive effects.
thank's you were great
freesocks
spork
Posts: 62
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2017 5:58 pm
Pronouns: she/her
Location: USA

malday wrote: Sat Oct 07, 2017 4:49 pm If you read the comments that sometimes blow out of proportion the most boring things (like looks and glances) it's easy to dismiss this as just another silly youtube ship (like septiplier or ianthony) and brand the whole thing as delusional when it's the opposite.
I think that whether you believe in phan or not really does skew how you see things, even for the most rational person. I think the looks and glances are a really good example of this. If you believe in phan, they might have meaning to you when you put that together with all the other phan-proof. Looks and glances are so subtle though that if you were anti-phan, you could easily use comments about "heart eyes" and "love eyes" to say shippers are delusional. I'm phan-agnostic by the way. I don't really see anything out of the ordinary in the way they look at each other. There are other things that make me think one way or the other, but the looks that people get excited about seem irrelevant to me more often than not.
Grey wrote: Sat Oct 07, 2017 4:49 pm As much as heteronormativity plays into casual viewers not seeing their relationship, I think you could also argue the other way that because they’re men, people interpret their behaviour differently / judge it more.

Back to the ship-baiting debate again (sorry) but I feel like a lot of stuff they do wouldn’t be judged as much if they were two females. I think the “rules” for platonic m-m friendships are a lot stricter than the “rules” for platonic f-f friendships. So because they’re men people interpret stuff to be “gayer” than they would if they were two women. When I was in grade 12 (17-18 years old), I went on an overnight trip with my school and there weren’t enough beds. All the girls slept together in pairs so everyone got a bed but the boys slept half in beds and half on the floor and they made a lot of jokes about how they aren’t gay. It stuck out to me because I thought it was so weird. I know D&P don’t openly sleep together anyway but that illustrates my general point I think.
I also think this is very true. Remember in the video where Louise was waxing Dan's legs and she said that one time a friend of hers gave her a bikini wax and placed her hand on Louise's vagina to make it hurt less or something (this sounds weirder to me when I am typing it than it did when I heard the story while watching the video). It was just a casual story told in passing that I don't recall seeing people freak out over and that is much more intimate than a lot of the things that are seen as phan-proof. That fact really has no bearing on said phan-proof, but it is an example of how society interprets interactions between female friends very differently than male friends. Could you imagine the reaction if in the next random AP video where he is telling a story about something funny that happened to him he suddenly mentioned that for whatever reason Dan had to rub ointment on his crotch or something along those lines?
malday
emo goose
Posts: 1143
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2016 6:56 pm

freesocks wrote: Sat Oct 07, 2017 5:23 pm I also think this is very true. Remember in the video where Louise was waxing Dan's legs and she said that one time a friend of hers gave her a bikini wax and placed her hand on Louise's vagina to make it hurt less or something (this sounds weirder to me when I am typing it than it did when I heard the story while watching the video). It was just a casual story told in passing that I don't recall seeing people freak out over and that is much more intimate than a lot of the things that are seen as phan-proof. That fact really has no bearing on said phan-proof, but it is an example of how society interprets interactions between female friends very differently than male friends. Could you imagine the reaction if in the next random AP video where he is telling a story about something funny that happened to him he suddenly mentioned that for whatever reason Dan had to rub ointment on his crotch or something along those lines?
I think that is not the best comparison since the lack of freakout was probably due to the fact that everybody knew Louise is a married straight woman, and not a "sexually ambiguous nerd". While yes it's true society treats female friends differently than male friend, I think you would get a different reaction if it were Rose and Rosie or Hannah and Ingrid, instead of Louise and her friend.

and i agree with lurker's points.
User avatar
quercussp
living flop
Posts: 112
Joined: Sun May 28, 2017 11:25 am

malday wrote: Sat Oct 07, 2017 6:11 pm
freesocks wrote: Sat Oct 07, 2017 5:23 pm I also think this is very true. Remember in the video where Louise was waxing Dan's legs and she said that one time a friend of hers gave her a bikini wax and placed her hand on Louise's vagina to make it hurt less or something (this sounds weirder to me when I am typing it than it did when I heard the story while watching the video). It was just a casual story told in passing that I don't recall seeing people freak out over and that is much more intimate than a lot of the things that are seen as phan-proof. That fact really has no bearing on said phan-proof, but it is an example of how society interprets interactions between female friends very differently than male friends. Could you imagine the reaction if in the next random AP video where he is telling a story about something funny that happened to him he suddenly mentioned that for whatever reason Dan had to rub ointment on his crotch or something along those lines?
I think that is not the best comparison since the lack of freakout was probably due to the fact that everybody knew Louise is a married straight woman, and not a "sexually ambiguous nerd". While yes it's true society treats female friends differently than male friend, I think you would get a different reaction if it were Rose and Rosie or Hannah and Ingrid, instead of Louise and her friend.
Yes to all of this. Also, the "shipping" aspect isn't as strong in Louise's audience, as it is in DnP. If something like that happened for a pair of guys that aren't shipped by most of their audience, it also wouldn't be that big of a deal (I mean for example Rhett and Link just got vasectomies together at the same time while watching each other and often talk about how they used to wrestle half naked in college and only the very small shipping community freaked out, the rest were just like bro goals).
User avatar
flarequake
not an airport stalker
Posts: 2680
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2016 8:55 pm
Pronouns: She/her
Location: London, UK

Just putting out there that it’s week three of Strictly Come Dancing on British TV and yet again I wish Dan would be on it one day. If he could get past his self-deprecation long enough, I bet he’d be great. Though they gave Louise the consolation prize of visiting I think because they don’t consider YouTubers proper celebrities, so I’ll keep dreaming :skeleton:
User avatar
Birdie
blobfish
Posts: 650
Joined: Sat Nov 05, 2016 8:22 pm
Pronouns: they/them

freesocks wrote: Sat Oct 07, 2017 5:23 pmI think that whether you believe in phan or not really does skew how you see things, even for the most rational person. I think the looks and glances are a really good example of this. If you believe in phan, they might have meaning to you when you put that together with all the other phan-proof. Looks and glances are so subtle though that if you were anti-phan, you could easily use comments about "heart eyes" and "love eyes" to say shippers are delusional. I'm phan-agnostic by the way. I don't really see anything out of the ordinary in the way they look at each other. There are other things that make me think one way or the other, but the looks that people get excited about seem irrelevant to me more often than not.
Yes, this! I'm also phan-agnostic these days and I sometimes roll my eyes at stuff people interpret as proof or anti-proof or people saying "I can't believe there are people who still think they're not together"/"I can't believe these delusional shippers think they're really together". In the end none of us know shit. We all just assume stuff and that's exactly why deppy are such a popular ship: It's possible. But we don't really know.

I'm actually kind of wary of the homophobia/heteronormativity arguments because they tend to get used to shame people. Not on here, mind you, but in general. "You don't see they're together? Well, you must be homophobic." There's just a special irony in lgbtq people being told they must be homophobic for not shipping an m/m or f/f ship but it happens so much. I love lurker's post on this a lot right now because yes, it's a double-sided sword and both things affect the way people see deppy but that doesn't mean that everyone who ships or doesn't ship them is doing so for heteronormative or homophobic reasons.

tl;dr: Shippers aren't delusional but neither are non-shippers. Deppy's behaviour can be interpreted as romantic but it can also be interpreted as platonic and nothing about it is proof for one or the other. In the end, all of us have good arguments but none of us really know.
freesocks
spork
Posts: 62
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2017 5:58 pm
Pronouns: she/her
Location: USA

malday wrote: Sat Oct 07, 2017 6:11 pm
freesocks wrote: Sat Oct 07, 2017 5:23 pm I also think this is very true. Remember in the video where Louise was waxing Dan's legs and she said that one time a friend of hers gave her a bikini wax and placed her hand on Louise's vagina to make it hurt less or something (this sounds weirder to me when I am typing it than it did when I heard the story while watching the video). It was just a casual story told in passing that I don't recall seeing people freak out over and that is much more intimate than a lot of the things that are seen as phan-proof. That fact really has no bearing on said phan-proof, but it is an example of how society interprets interactions between female friends very differently than male friends. Could you imagine the reaction if in the next random AP video where he is telling a story about something funny that happened to him he suddenly mentioned that for whatever reason Dan had to rub ointment on his crotch or something along those lines?
I think that is not the best comparison since the lack of freakout was probably due to the fact that everybody knew Louise is a married straight woman, and not a "sexually ambiguous nerd". While yes it's true society treats female friends differently than male friend, I think you would get a different reaction if it were Rose and Rosie or Hannah and Ingrid, instead of Louise and her friend.

and i agree with lurker's points.
I am probably missing a completely obvious point here, but I watch Rose and Rosie and can't imagine anyone being shocked if they told a story like that. I can picture Rosie telling that story instead of Louise so easily (I love Rose and Rosie).

I definitely agree with the other point someone else made (sorry I forgot who - I'm so tired) about the fact that there is such a strong shipping community that would make it such a huge event, but I also don't think Rhett and Link having vasectomies together is a big deal either because guys (and girls) are naked in front of each other all the time in locker rooms and I think that maybe has more to do with body image than sexuality? I don't know, I'm quite tired, so sorry if this post isn't as coherent as my others!
User avatar
mathsniel
drama llama
Posts: 44
Joined: Sat Jul 29, 2017 1:47 pm
Pronouns: he/him
Location: england

Katka wrote: Sat Oct 07, 2017 7:17 pm I'm actually kind of wary of the homophobia/heteronormativity arguments because they tend to get used to shame people. Not on here, mind you, but in general. "You don't see they're together? Well, you must be homophobic." There's just a special irony in lgbtq people being told they must be homophobic for not shipping an m/m or f/f ship but it happens so much. I love lurker's post on this a lot right now because yes, it's a double-sided sword and both things affect the way people see deppy but that doesn't mean that everyone who ships or doesn't ship them is doing so for heteronormative or homophobic reasons.
This.

There definitely is a group of anti-Phan people who are at least passively homophobic. All the "they're not allowed to be gay" comments, or the "they can't be together, they're hot/I like them/they should be with [insert person]" ones, they're horrible and should rightfully be called homophobic. I've definitely seen a few comments like this in the phandom myself, but they're not common. They're also usually made by kids aged about 14, and unfortunately, you get them in most fanbases. Not shipping Phan because you can't see it, though? Not homophobic. Interpreting "proof" in a different way to shippers isn't homophobic.

Something that bothers me a lot - as a gay guy :prideflag: - about the homophobia idea is that there are things in the phandom that are genuinely homophobic. There are Phan shippers that are homophobic. Again, they tend to be about 14 (sorry if anyone here is 14), but on my time on Tumblr I have seen a lot of "it's so sinful and hot!"/"I'm going to hell for this" comments, as well as so much sexualisation of gay relationships. And this is almost the flip side of the 'not seeing Phan' idea - homophobia isn't one size fits all and the sexualisation of gay relationships/yaoi/bl culture plays into people seeing Phan. "I want to them to be together because it's hot/they should be together" is a thing. Which is actually homophobic, and is far, far more common than "traditional" homophobia in the Phandom. (And don't even get me started on some of the biphobia/bi erasure you can find). I don't know, this was a big ramble.

Tl;dr: homophobia definitely exists in the phandom - but I've seen more homophobic Phan shippers than I have homophobic anti-Phan guys.
User avatar
Ewok
rainbow nerd
Posts: 233
Joined: Thu Jul 27, 2017 12:32 am
Pronouns: she/her
Location: USA

I'm loving all of this discourse. I wish I weren't at work and had the time for a proper reply to all of these amazing posts. Thanks everyone for giving me something to do when it's slow at work :thumb: :love1:

Is the milestone video going to be taking the place of a new gaming video? (I'm such a selfish stan. Gimme more.) I'm also just horrible at understanding upload schedules and remembering what day it is. God help me lmao
»»-————𝓯𝓵𝓸𝓹𝓹𝔂 𝓭𝓲𝓷𝓰 𝓭𝓸𝓷𝓰————-««
User avatar
alittledizzy
actual demon phannie
actual demon phannie
Posts: 7100
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2016 3:09 pm
Pronouns: she/her

Katka wrote: Sat Oct 07, 2017 7:17 pm
freesocks wrote: Sat Oct 07, 2017 5:23 pmI think that whether you believe in phan or not really does skew how you see things, even for the most rational person. I think the looks and glances are a really good example of this. If you believe in phan, they might have meaning to you when you put that together with all the other phan-proof. Looks and glances are so subtle though that if you were anti-phan, you could easily use comments about "heart eyes" and "love eyes" to say shippers are delusional. I'm phan-agnostic by the way. I don't really see anything out of the ordinary in the way they look at each other. There are other things that make me think one way or the other, but the looks that people get excited about seem irrelevant to me more often than not.
Yes, this! I'm also phan-agnostic these days and I sometimes roll my eyes at stuff people interpret as proof or anti-proof or people saying "I can't believe there are people who still think they're not together"/"I can't believe these delusional shippers think they're really together". In the end none of us know shit. We all just assume stuff and that's exactly why deppy are such a popular ship: It's possible. But we don't really know.

I'm actually kind of wary of the homophobia/heteronormativity arguments because they tend to get used to shame people. Not on here, mind you, but in general. "You don't see they're together? Well, you must be homophobic." There's just a special irony in lgbtq people being told they must be homophobic for not shipping an m/m or f/f ship but it happens so much. I love lurker's post on this a lot right now because yes, it's a double-sided sword and both things affect the way people see deppy but that doesn't mean that everyone who ships or doesn't ship them is doing so for heteronormative or homophobic reasons.

tl;dr: Shippers aren't delusional but neither are non-shippers. Deppy's behaviour can be interpreted as romantic but it can also be interpreted as platonic and nothing about it is proof for one or the other. In the end, all of us have good arguments but none of us really know.
I think that most of my response to most of these points specifically with regard to deppy is just that - no one is basing whether they think Dan and Phil are together solely on how they look at each other. My original point was not about people perceiving them as together just based on watching them (or one of them); I was solely speaking from what I thought the topic was, which is how people who don't know anything about them can be societally influenced to assume there's nothing there. To me that's not the opposite side of the coin (again, not negating the general point, just bringing it back to Dan and Phil) of people assuming they are together because of an assumption they're making based on their own projection or perception; the vday video, their first year or so of interactions, the general circumstance of their life are not fan projected things so I think anyone who already knows about those and gets excited over a look is viewing the cute look as icing on the cake and not the whole meal in and of itself.
freesocks
spork
Posts: 62
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2017 5:58 pm
Pronouns: she/her
Location: USA

mathsniel wrote: Sat Oct 07, 2017 8:17 pm
Katka wrote: Sat Oct 07, 2017 7:17 pm I'm actually kind of wary of the homophobia/heteronormativity arguments because they tend to get used to shame people. Not on here, mind you, but in general. "You don't see they're together? Well, you must be homophobic." There's just a special irony in lgbtq people being told they must be homophobic for not shipping an m/m or f/f ship but it happens so much. I love lurker's post on this a lot right now because yes, it's a double-sided sword and both things affect the way people see deppy but that doesn't mean that everyone who ships or doesn't ship them is doing so for heteronormative or homophobic reasons.
This.

There definitely is a group of anti-Phan people who are at least passively homophobic. All the "they're not allowed to be gay" comments, or the "they can't be together, they're hot/I like them/they should be with [insert person]" ones, they're horrible and should rightfully be called homophobic. I've definitely seen a few comments like this in the phandom myself, but they're not common. They're also usually made by kids aged about 14, and unfortunately, you get them in most fanbases. Not shipping Phan because you can't see it, though? Not homophobic. Interpreting "proof" in a different way to shippers isn't homophobic.

Something that bothers me a lot - as a gay guy :prideflag: - about the homophobia idea is that there are things in the phandom that are genuinely homophobic. There are Phan shippers that are homophobic. Again, they tend to be about 14 (sorry if anyone here is 14), but on my time on Tumblr I have seen a lot of "it's so sinful and hot!"/"I'm going to hell for this" comments, as well as so much sexualisation of gay relationships. And this is almost the flip side of the 'not seeing Phan' idea - homophobia isn't one size fits all and the sexualisation of gay relationships/yaoi/bl culture plays into people seeing Phan. "I want to them to be together because it's hot/they should be together" is a thing. Which is actually homophobic, and is far, far more common than "traditional" homophobia in the Phandom. (And don't even get me started on some of the biphobia/bi erasure you can find). I don't know, this was a big ramble.

Tl;dr: homophobia definitely exists in the phandom - but I've seen more homophobic Phan shippers than I have homophobic anti-Phan guys.
This is a brilliant post. So many complexities in the phandom (and life in general).
alostan
smol bean
Posts: 7
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2016 11:07 pm
Location: N.Ireland

Catallena wrote: Sat Oct 07, 2017 1:46 pm
alostan wrote: Fri Oct 06, 2017 8:56 am Okay so, I have a theory. :tinfoil: :tinfoil:
(This is probably just wishful thinking but whatever)

I was checking The Apprentice Twitter and I notice that they are following someone a little strange, Dan. Now I'm thinking, this is a little weird, since when has Dan expressed interest in the apprentice?

But, The Apprentice has had a YouTube episode the past (2?) years, where they have invited youtubers on.

Now I'm not saying that Dan is going going on The Apprentice or that it's produced by the BBC with whom he has links with. I'm also not saying that he was invited to be on Get me out of here and is it such a stretch he'd be invited on another reality show.

(I'm also not saying that they might film in March (I don't know for certain) , no of course I'm not saying that)

So now I've got my hopes to high and am prepared to get them crushed.
Was this a recent follow? Dan and Phil were involved in a promotional video for The Apprentice in 2013.
...How have I never seen this. I feel like a fake fan.
I think it is recent, on mobile he's at the top and (i think) they're not following Phil. I don't think it will happen, but i'm still gonna hope :)
flarequake wrote: Sat Oct 07, 2017 2:08 pm Oh wow, I remember that video now. Pretty awkward, but what’s new. I stopped watching the apprentice cos the egos and blather drove me nuts last year, but if you get into it, you start rooting for a few people.
...but thats what is so good about it!
freesocks
spork
Posts: 62
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2017 5:58 pm
Pronouns: she/her
Location: USA

alittledizzy wrote: Sat Oct 07, 2017 8:29 pm
Katka wrote: Sat Oct 07, 2017 7:17 pm
freesocks wrote: Sat Oct 07, 2017 5:23 pmI think that whether you believe in phan or not really does skew how you see things, even for the most rational person. I think the looks and glances are a really good example of this. If you believe in phan, they might have meaning to you when you put that together with all the other phan-proof. Looks and glances are so subtle though that if you were anti-phan, you could easily use comments about "heart eyes" and "love eyes" to say shippers are delusional. I'm phan-agnostic by the way. I don't really see anything out of the ordinary in the way they look at each other. There are other things that make me think one way or the other, but the looks that people get excited about seem irrelevant to me more often than not.
Yes, this! I'm also phan-agnostic these days and I sometimes roll my eyes at stuff people interpret as proof or anti-proof or people saying "I can't believe there are people who still think they're not together"/"I can't believe these delusional shippers think they're really together". In the end none of us know shit. We all just assume stuff and that's exactly why deppy are such a popular ship: It's possible. But we don't really know.

I'm actually kind of wary of the homophobia/heteronormativity arguments because they tend to get used to shame people. Not on here, mind you, but in general. "You don't see they're together? Well, you must be homophobic." There's just a special irony in lgbtq people being told they must be homophobic for not shipping an m/m or f/f ship but it happens so much. I love lurker's post on this a lot right now because yes, it's a double-sided sword and both things affect the way people see deppy but that doesn't mean that everyone who ships or doesn't ship them is doing so for heteronormative or homophobic reasons.

tl;dr: Shippers aren't delusional but neither are non-shippers. Deppy's behaviour can be interpreted as romantic but it can also be interpreted as platonic and nothing about it is proof for one or the other. In the end, all of us have good arguments but none of us really know.
I think that most of my response to most of these points specifically with regard to deppy is just that - no one is basing whether they think Dan and Phil are together solely on how they look at each other. My original point was not about people perceiving them as together just based on watching them (or one of them); I was solely speaking from what I thought the topic was, which is how people who don't know anything about them can be societally influenced to assume there's nothing there. To me that's not the opposite side of the coin (again, not negating the general point, just bringing it back to Dan and Phil) of people assuming they are together because of an assumption they're making based on their own projection or perception; the vday video, their first year or so of interactions, the general circumstance of their life are not fan projected things so I think anyone who already knows about those and gets excited over a look is viewing the cute look as icing on the cake and not the whole meal in and of itself.
Oops, sorry, I can see how my post was confusing. I didn’t mean you in particular and was just speaking generally about how people can perceive things differently based on their existing perspective (I think we are saying pretty much the same thing or something similar). I just used the looks as an example because there isn’t a day that goes by that I don’t see at least one “heart-eyes Howell” compilation in my recommends so that’s always at the forefront of my mind haha.

On the subject of things like the vday video though: Dan and Phil say it was a prank. Isnt whether an individual believes them or not based on ones perception/interpretation? I know I’m getting deeper here than the point you were making, but ever since I watched Hazel’s video about the movie Mother!, I have been thinking a lot about how people can look at films or videos and have such a wide range of interpretations. Her video was a big long for just sitting and talking to the camera but pretty interesting.
User avatar
parallel
phabergé
Posts: 290
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2016 4:23 pm
Pronouns: she/her

Katka wrote: Sat Oct 07, 2017 7:17 pmI'm actually kind of wary of the homophobia/heteronormativity arguments because they tend to get used to shame people. Not on here, mind you, but in general. "You don't see they're together? Well, you must be homophobic." There's just a special irony in lgbtq people being told they must be homophobic for not shipping an m/m or f/f ship but it happens so much. I love lurker's post on this a lot right now because yes, it's a double-sided sword and both things affect the way people see deppy but that doesn't mean that everyone who ships or doesn't ship them is doing so for heteronormative or homophobic reasons.
While I 100% agree (obviously) that calling someone homophobic because they don't ship a certain ship is wrong, I don't think that's what we're saying. Because we need to consider context here; we're saying that the reason a lot of Deppy's interactions are read the way they are is because of either (or both) heteronormativity and subconscious homophobia.

I think that some of the things they do which are read as romantic shouldn't be read as romantic—sharing a bed on holiday, touching each other momentarily, etc. However some things they do which aren't read as romantic by casual viewers is definitely heteronormativity, because imagine if they were a man and a woman. For example, the way they look at each other and how soft they are around each other, how close they physically are when they're just casually sitting, the kind of gooey not-quite-platonic things they say about each other.

I think that the line between interactions being platonic or romantic should be somewhere between where it currently is for f/f relationships and relationships involving men (both f/m and m/m). Because two girls can kiss and people can say that girls sometimes kiss as friends (no, this is actually something someone said to me in response to two girls who were openly romantically involved, kissing), but you also have men tweeting that you shouldn't like another man's instagram post after midnight. It's an unfortunate remnant of good old fashioned sexism and seeing girls as young and immature whereas men are more mature and can be sexually-minded.

TL;DR: We're not saying that if you don't see a certain ship's relationship as romantic that you're homophobic, because context matters. Also some stuff about sexism.
User avatar
alch
ar·tic·u·late
Posts: 413
Joined: Wed Aug 30, 2017 9:00 pm
Pronouns: she/her
Location: USA

On assumptions affecting people's views on Dan and Phil -

To be honest, I think the assumptions that come into play the most here are more based off of Dan and Phil's fans than really much that they do.

Heteronormativity probably does play a role in people believing whether or not they're together, like yeah people probably wouldn't view them the same way if they were a man and a woman, but that's not really the main reason people don't believe they're in a relationship, and that's the way their shippers behave.

From what I've seen, people who haven't researched anything about their relationship see two guys who make videos together who haven't said they're in a relationship, and millions of people fainting every time they glance at each other. They assume that's it's just the same old fetishization of m/m relationships, and there's nothing more to it. They don't think there's any actual proof other than "dan looked at phil #phanconfirmed."
User avatar
SquishPhan
capita£ester
Posts: 2502
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2016 11:18 pm
Pronouns: she/her
Location: The Netherlands

freesocks
spork
Posts: 62
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2017 5:58 pm
Pronouns: she/her
Location: USA

alch wrote: Sat Oct 07, 2017 9:10 pm On assumptions affecting people's views on Dan and Phil -

To be honest, I think the assumptions that come into play the most here are more based off of Dan and Phil's fans than really much that they do.

Heteronormativity probably does play a role in people believing whether or not they're together, like yeah people probably wouldn't view them the same way if they were a man and a woman, but that's not really the main reason people don't believe they're in a relationship, and that's the way their shippers behave.

From what I've seen, people who haven't researched anything about their relationship see two guys who make videos together who haven't said they're in a relationship, and millions of people fainting every time they glance at each other. They assume that's it's just the same old fetishization of m/m relationships, and there's nothing more to it. They don't think there's any actual proof other than "dan looked at phil #phanconfirmed."
Yes, this summarizes what I thought when I first started paying attention to the phandom. In an earlier post I went into detail about what I thought when I was just barely a casual viewer and only watched DINOF occasionally, but this pretty much summarizes how I felt when I first started paying attention to the phandom from that place of casual viewership.
Last edited by freesocks on Sat Oct 07, 2017 9:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
malday
emo goose
Posts: 1143
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2016 6:56 pm

mathsniel wrote: Sat Oct 07, 2017 8:17 pm
This.

There definitely is a group of anti-Phan people who are at least passively homophobic. All the "they're not allowed to be gay" comments, or the "they can't be together, they're hot/I like them/they should be with [insert person]" ones, they're horrible and should rightfully be called homophobic. I've definitely seen a few comments like this in the phandom myself, but they're not common. They're also usually made by kids aged about 14, and unfortunately, you get them in most fanbases. Not shipping Phan because you can't see it, though? Not homophobic. Interpreting "proof" in a different way to shippers isn't homophobic.

Something that bothers me a lot - as a gay guy :prideflag: - about the homophobia idea is that there are things in the phandom that are genuinely homophobic. There are Phan shippers that are homophobic. Again, they tend to be about 14 (sorry if anyone here is 14), but on my time on Tumblr I have seen a lot of "it's so sinful and hot!"/"I'm going to hell for this" comments, as well as so much sexualisation of gay relationships. And this is almost the flip side of the 'not seeing Phan' idea - homophobia isn't one size fits all and the sexualisation of gay relationships/yaoi/bl culture plays into people seeing Phan. "I want to them to be together because it's hot/they should be together" is a thing. Which is actually homophobic, and is far, far more common than "traditional" homophobia in the Phandom. (And don't even get me started on some of the biphobia/bi erasure you can find). I don't know, this was a big ramble.

Tl;dr: homophobia definitely exists in the phandom - but I've seen more homophobic Phan shippers than I have homophobic anti-Phan guys.
You can always interpret some of the "proof" as queerbaiting, enough people already do.
SquishPhan wrote: Sat Oct 07, 2017 9:18 pm
An apartment with a skylight? nice. Phil is back to his tour through pictures.
Locked