Dan & Phil Part 35: knock knock, who’s there, i hate you

[pearshaped34]

[offtopic]i also find it interesting that teoh/mrtinoforever wrote an article on the panel and the "closeted youtubers" video basically quoting it word for word, except he also added a mention of youtubers who "use Queer-baiting tactics as a distraction; by appearing to joke about being LGBTQ+, they trick audiences into assuming they are straight." which was never mentioned by jazza or gary c. like, who the hell are those youtubers?? was he talking about shane (it was 2014)? how would he know about him? is there someone who does that? its clearly not deppy because they never joked about being gay. so many unresolved mysteries... [/offtopic]

Not saying those comments were aimed at Deppy but isn't the official explanation of voldy (and presumably the rest of their flirty behaviour at the time) that they thought it would be funny to pretend to be a gay couple?
According to them they did in fact joke about being gay. If we are assuming they were telling the truth here then it actually makes total sense they may have angered actual LGBTQ youtubers.

[confusedpanda]

Looks like the hibernation theory was true

Someone on tumblr pointed out that if you put Phil's last tweet next to Dan's, it sounds like a continuation of Phil's. honestly I can't unsee it at all after someone pointed it out.

[fancybum]

Not saying those comments were aimed at Deppy but isn't the official explanation of voldy (and presumably the rest of their flirty behaviour at the time) that they thought it would be funny to pretend to be a gay couple?
According to them they did in fact joke about being gay. If we are assuming they were telling the truth here then it actually makes total sense they may have angered actual LGBTQ youtubers.

The 'official explanation' for the video is it was meant to be a joke to troll shippers that they ultimately decided against going through with. I don't know if 'trolling shippers' fully translates to 'lol pretending to be a gay couple would be funny' but I take that point anyway. I disagree that explanation was ever meant to encapsulate their entire history together though or that how they acted with each other requires any kind of explanation? If any lgbt+ YTers know about the history of the vid, heard the explanation and believed it, then I guess anger or whatever could be justified in that one scenario from 2010. But 1. they didn't release it of their own accord and had already decided against doing so 2. they haven't continued that kind of trolling behaviour to any extent to justify holding one mistake against them for the remainder of time

So this John guy (or whoever's said weird shit, I can't read) just sounds like a bitter a-hole to me.

[gnostic]

As before, this conversation is between two types of people who can hardly relate to each other, because if you think ambiguity comes lack of relationship obviously you are angry at being played for cash, while if you think ambiguity covers relationship, obviously you will support coming out as they see fit.

[fancybum]

As before, this conversation is between two types of people who can hardly relate to each other, because if you think ambiguity comes lack of relationship obviously you are angry at being played for cash, while if you think ambiguity covers relationship, obviously you will support coming out as they see fit.

Honestly I didn't sleep well last night so it's my fault for not understanding half of what I'm reading today, but (if you don't mind) can you explain a bit more what this means? Who would be angry at being played for cash/who's playing anybody for cash?

[nihilist-toothpaste]

this may be partially redundant, but to me the problem with the baiting/ambiguity discussion is that there frequently seems to be a conflation of motive and outcome, even with those who don't believe that dnp are baiting but are in fact together and just withholding a statement about their status. it's hard to refute the fact that ambiguity drives viewership and interest in dnp - that's just true, it's part of the reason that discussion forums like this exist, and part of the reason for the voracity of their audience. a lot of people are interested in the apparent mystery surrounding them. that makes them money. all true. but just because that is one outcome from their ambiguity does not mean it's the motive for it. and asserting that it is only serves to completely erase (as many people before me pointed out) the psychological complexities of being closeted and the myriad reasons one may feel compelled to remain so, especially before an audience of millions that spans the globe, especially when your romantic partner is also your professional/business partner. to that end, it also bothers me that the original commenter refers to "years of lying" because .. no. there weren't years of lying. evasive answers and lack of explicit confirmation? sure. but only a few months worth of actual lying if, in fact, they were/are romantically involved. and lying that was aimed at dispelling attention on their relationship (or, in other words, to protect their closet). it's a grossly exaggerated claim and the whole comment, to me, and again in echo of many before me, just feels like a severely reductive assessment of being queer in the public eye.

i have next to no interest in touching the discussion of dnp actually being straight platonic pals performing queerness for views. i agree that the official explanation of the video leak is essentially dnp claiming that they're acting like they're in a romantic relationship even though they're not, as a form of practical joke (though that doesn't mean they're acting "gay" as a joke, i just want to point out, and their explanation doesn't refute their being non-heterosexual, just precludes their being together), and i would understand anyone being upset at the time of that incident. but two things: 1. the second half of the explanation is that they chose not to go through with the "joke" and therefore ostensibly saw the error in judgment. it wasn't their choice for the video to leak and for it to have the widespread effect that it did, and any anger on the part of lgbtq youtubers seems unwarranted when directed at something that dnp so clearly did not want to happen, irrespective of their explanation for it 2. context matters. this is why i don't believe their 'trolling the shippers' explanation, bc it's cruel, it is a stark departure from their characters otherwise, and obviously a host of other reasons. all of it makes a lot more sense when read with the context of dnp being closeted and trying to protect their privacy when a huge piece of evidence about their relationship status was exposed to the general public.maybe these angry lgbtq youtubers didn't bother rationalizing that way, which is undoubtedly fair, but if over five years later (and five years without a single other instance of this blatant 'haha we're romantically involved .. jk' behavior) people still want to point to that video and that explanation as evidence of dnp queerbaiting, i have literally no responses.

edit: sorry lots of this overlaps w fancybum's reply

[gnostic]

As before, this conversation is between two types of people who can hardly relate to each other, because if you think ambiguity comes lack of relationship obviously you are angry at being played for cash, while if you think ambiguity covers relationship, obviously you will support coming out as they see fit.

Honestly I didn't sleep well last night so it's my fault for not understanding half of what I'm reading today, but (if you don't mind) can you explain a bit more what this means? Who would be angry at being played for cash/who's playing anybody for cash?

Sorry, I just realised I worded it incredibly poorly (also due to lack of sleep), so its no fault of yours

Anyway, there is this issue that is at the heart of every "queerbaiting" discusssion I believe, to which ambiguity discussion obviously relates.

If you are someone who believes Dan and Phil are genuinely together, then obviously you would be fine with both them playing up some moments for fanservice, or being ambiguous about their relationship status because they choose to be closeted for whatever reason and no one should be ever forced to come out. So obviously you are going to disagree with queerbaiting and misrepresentation accusations.

If you're someone like me, who genuinely believes Dan and Phil are just BFFs, then obviously you are much more likely to be angry at the ambiguity, fanservice and the rest of it, becuase it doesn't come from a hidden relationship, but is purely a performance and one chosen for its lucrativeness as well.

Does this make sense?

[hopefulemm]

I've been dithering over whether to add my two cents to the queerbaiting conversation; I know it's a conversation that comes 'round quite a bit and is probably talked to death but...

I saw it yesterday defined basically as teasing at being lgbt+ and/or an lgbt+ relationship, and the thing is, with the latter part of the definition, I understand its place in regards to fictional media and fictional entertainment, but it sits sort of weirdly for me in regards to real people, and I don't understand?

Like, if D&/orP are heterosexual, then any and all commentary from them that implies another sexuality would be obvious queerbaiting (in which case D&P aren't respectable, why are you watching). If they're lgbt+, though, then regardless of their relationship status with each other, they are queer. How can an lgbt+ person queerbait if they're queer? Is the ambiguous status of their relationship then not queerbaiting, but rather shipbaiting?

(And for that matter (speaking as someone who firmly believes they're together), can they be shipbaiting when in the past they've tried outright denying the ship? I feel like there is no winning for them in this situation; they're trapped in a perpetual when-in-Rome scenario.)

As before, this conversation is between two types of people who can hardly relate to each other, because if you think ambiguity comes lack of relationship obviously you are angry at being played for cash, while if you think ambiguity covers relationship, obviously you will support coming out as they see fit.

I totally get what you're saying, and my question is, if the former is true for you--why would you continue to watch?

Also, yes to everything 000dia000, lurker, alittledizzy, and nihilist-toothpaste said.

[MoonPride]

Looks like the hibernation theory was true

Someone on tumblr pointed out that if you put Phil's last tweet next to Dan's, it sounds like a continuation of Phil's. honestly I can't unsee it at all after someone pointed it out.

I thought that too!!

[lurker]

If you're someone like me, who genuinely believes Dan and Phil are just BFFs, then obviously you are much more likely to be angry at the ambiguity, fanservice and the rest of it, becuase it doesn't come from a hidden relationship, but is purely a performance and one chosen for its lucrativeness as well.

i think i understand what you mean, however i think this should be kept until or unless they explicitely tell us they're both straight and even then should only be argued with specific incidents and not the large and vague concept of "how they interact with each other". i think anger directed at a person's "ambiguity" does not exclusively affect this person themselves, but also indirectly influences how the community of viewers sees them/interacts with them, or how other people in similar situations are treated.

just because that is one outcome from their ambiguity does not mean it's the motive for it.

agreed with your post and this point especially!

[gnostic]

If you're someone like me, who genuinely believes Dan and Phil are just BFFs, then obviously you are much more likely to be angry at the ambiguity, fanservice and the rest of it, becuase it doesn't come from a hidden relationship, but is purely a performance and one chosen for its lucrativeness as well.

i think i understand what you mean, however i think this should be kept until or unless they explicitely tell us they're both straight and platonic friends, and even then should only be argued with specific incidents and not the large and vague concept of "how they interact with each other". i think anger directed at a person's "ambiguity" does not exclusively affect this person themselves, but also indirectly influences how the community of viewers sees them/interacts with them, or how other people in similar situations are treated.

See, re: bolded part, it works the other way for us non-phan believers. They already told us they are platonic friends, and none of the "evidence" since has been enough to convince us.

As before, this conversation is between two types of people who can hardly relate to each other, because if you think ambiguity comes lack of relationship obviously you are angry at being played for cash, while if you think ambiguity covers relationship, obviously you will support coming out as they see fit.

I totally get what you're saying, and my question is, if the former is true for you--why would you continue to watch?

Let me tell you something. Somehow in the last few months I have become unironical Phil Lester , but before that, the only thing I found particularly interesting about Dan and Phil was not their content, but their ability to market themselves, manipulate their audience, and cultivate their image (see also signature). In a sense I was already Phil trash, because he was and remains a genious at those things.

That said, I did have to unstan for a while for a couple of times, such as when I learned had a fanfiction section in their show. I just put myself into a shoes of a young queer fan looking up to Dan and Phil and being betrayed like that, and the thought of it hurt.

also, confusedpanda - thanks, can't unsee now

[fancybum]

If you are someone who believes Dan and Phil are genuinely together, then obviously you would be fine with both them playing up some moments for fanservice, or being ambiguous about their relationship status because they choose to be closeted for whatever reason and no one should be ever forced to come out. So obviously you are going to disagree with queerbaiting and misrepresentation accusations.

If you're someone like me, who genuinely believes Dan and Phil are just BFFs, then obviously you are much more likely to be angry at the ambiguity, fanservice and the rest of it, becuase it doesn't come from a hidden relationship, but is purely a performance and one chosen for its lucrativeness as well.

Does this make sense?

It does make sense, thank you for elaborating. I disagree though, like I guess I don't quite get what people are taking as fanservice. They went so many years avoiding physical contact (or being hyper-aware of it when it occurred, think of Dan's deadpan looks to camera to say 'yes I know you're into this, but I'm aware of it so the power rests with me'-- just a permeating self-consciousness to it all), so now when there seems to be a 'lot' of physical contact without the weight of self-consciousness to it, people want to call it fanservice rather than easing into normal human behaviour? People touch each other, friends touch each other (I mean they started out that way, remember the playfulness of the Sonic 4 vid).

I don't like that people taking notice of D&P doing something (and taking notice because they spent so long avoiding it) gets put back onto them as a calculated move to titillate their fans. But I guess that really just comes back to your point about people seeing things how they're going to see it. But ok, as someone who thinks they're just friends: what are they doing that is fanservicey (indicating something beyond friendship for viewer benefit?), because all I'm seeing is two people getting more comfortable poking each other in the ribs on camera. With their fingers jesus christ. They're seemingly being held to different standards than other platonic friends, which is uncomfortable. If they allowed themselves to hug in public/on camera, would that be fanservice? My issue is it sounds like they need to keep being weird and robotic (maintain the status quo) or come out, because this in between of easing into more natural human interaction isn't acceptable somehow on its own merit. I'm rambling, again, not much sleep. But if you (or any other 'they're just friends' people) could answer the fanservice question I'd appreciate it. Like is any touching now just fanservice?

[lurker]

i think i understand what you mean, however i think this should be kept until or unless they explicitely tell us they're both straight and platonic friends, and even then should only be argued with specific incidents and not the large and vague concept of "how they interact with each other". i think anger directed at a person's "ambiguity" does not exclusively affect this person themselves, but also indirectly influences how the community of viewers sees them/interacts with them, or how other people in similar situations are treated.

See, re: bolded part, it works the other way for us non-phan believers. They already told us they are platonic friends, and none of the "evidence" since has been enough to convince us.

i remembered that - that's why i edited the "and platonic friends" out (probably while you were writing your reply, it was a bit delayed, sorry for any confusion caused). i'm not necessarily a "phan believer" either, but i think whether they're in a relationship or not is not the original point, the "ambiguity" refers to whether they're "ambiguously lgbt", and as far as i know, they have never said to be straight.

my internet connection is acting up, so if my post still accidentally shows up twice, please let me know?

[gnostic]

If you are someone who believes Dan and Phil are genuinely together, then obviously you would be fine with both them playing up some moments for fanservice, or being ambiguous about their relationship status because they choose to be closeted for whatever reason and no one should be ever forced to come out. So obviously you are going to disagree with queerbaiting and misrepresentation accusations.

If you're someone like me, who genuinely believes Dan and Phil are just BFFs, then obviously you are much more likely to be angry at the ambiguity, fanservice and the rest of it, becuase it doesn't come from a hidden relationship, but is purely a performance and one chosen for its lucrativeness as well.

Does this make sense?

It does make sense, thank you for elaborating. I disagree though, like I guess I don't quite get what people are taking as fanservice. They went so many years avoiding physical contact (or being hyper-aware of it when it occurred, think of Dan's deadpan looks to camera to say 'yes I know you're into this, but I'm aware of it so the power rests with me'-- just a permeating self-consciousness to it all), so now when there seems to be a 'lot' of physical contact without the weight of self-consciousness to it, people want to call it fanservice rather than easing into normal human behaviour? People touch each other, friends touch each other (I mean they started out that way, remember the playfulness of the Sonic 4 vid).

I don't like that people taking notice of D&P doing something (and taking notice because they spent so long avoiding it) gets put back onto them as a calculated move to titillate their fans. But I guess that really just comes back to your point about people seeing things how they're going to see it. But ok, as someone who thinks they're just friends: what are they doing that is fanservicey (indicating something beyond friendship for viewer benefit?), because all I'm seeing is two people getting more comfortable poking each other in the ribs on camera. With their fingers jesus christ. They're seemingly being held to different standards than other platonic friends, which is uncomfortable. If they allowed themselves to hug in public/on camera, would that be fanservice? My issue is it sounds like they need to keep being weird and robotic (maintain the status quo) or come out, because this in between of easing into more natural human interaction isn't acceptable somehow on its own merit. I'm rambling, again, not much sleep. But if you (or any other 'they're just friends' people) could answer the fanservice question I'd appreciate it. Like is any touching now just fanservice?

I am currently off to drive my ass to my parents' for New Years (God willing all those presents won't come alive and mob me from the backseat), but if the discussion is still interesting to you by the time I hit their place, I would gladly write out / pm my thoughts on fanservice in more detail.

Off the top of my head, underthesameumbrellajaphan, dancing together to Edd Sheeran, the entire fucking tatinof fanfiction section, and many others. I should note that my fanservice qualms also come from understanding that their major audience is 15 year olds. SO what seems like obvious fanservice / joking to us, is taken at face value by about 3 million people, and Dan and Phil KNOW it.

(I researched Dan and Phil's relationship with their fans and their marketing strategies more in depth than some of you people researched phan timelines, can you see me fire up and go)

[gnostic]

i think i understand what you mean, however i think this should be kept until or unless they explicitely tell us they're both straight and platonic friends, and even then should only be argued with specific incidents and not the large and vague concept of "how they interact with each other". i think anger directed at a person's "ambiguity" does not exclusively affect this person themselves, but also indirectly influences how the community of viewers sees them/interacts with them, or how other people in similar situations are treated.

See, re: bolded part, it works the other way for us non-phan believers. They already told us they are platonic friends, and none of the "evidence" since has been enough to convince us.

i remembered that - that's why i edited the "and platonic friends" out (probably while you were writing your reply, it was a bit delayed, sorry for any confusion caused). i'm not necessarily a "phan believer" either, but i think whether they're in a relationship or not is not the original point, the "ambiguity" refers to whether they're "ambiguously lgbt", and as far as i know, they have never said to be straight.

my internet connection is acting up, so if my post still accidentally shows up twice, please let me know?

Yeah, it changed after I submitted, probably.

Anyway, I think we can all apply our favorite thing called context and agree that by the end of the year of our lord 2k16, when people talk about ambiguity in relation to Dan and Phil it's mostly concerning their relationship. Phil's sexuality hasn't been a subject he has given base to discuss in a long long time (shout out to Mr Lester's professionalism from the bottom of my trash heart), and at this point if Dan somehow turns out to be straight after all of the same sex attraction references I will seriously consider flying back to London and punching him in the face.

[hopefulemm]

Let me tell you something. Somehow in the last few months I have become unironical Phil Lester , but before that, the only thing I found particularly interesting about Dan and Phil was not their content, but their ability to market themselves, manipulate their audience, and cultivate their image (see also signature). In a sense I was already Phil trash, because he was and remains a genious at those things.

That said, I did have to unstan for a while for a couple of times, such as when I learned had a fanfiction section in their show. I just put myself into a shoes of a young queer fan looking up to Dan and Phil and being betrayed like that, and the thought of it hurt.

I sort of see where you're coming from, I guess. I mean, I don't understand it really because I find it difficult to look at things from a marketing perspective. That's just not the way my brain works with regards to my entertainment, I guess. I'm much more emotive--I enjoy watching their joint content because I'm unironic, unapologetic for friendship (regardless of a yea/nay non-platonic off-camera relationship), I enjoy most of Dan's content because it is either relateable to me or amusing, and I find Phil's content soothing/amusing/distracting/comforting/etc (which is why I rewatch his videos more than Dan's; I have an easier time getting out of my head and away from my anxiety watching Phil).

As for the latter part of what you said, I get that. I mean, I didn't personally have a problem with the fanfiction segment of TATINOF (cringed the first couple times I watched it, but more because of breaking-the-fourth-wall reasons; it read to me like a good-natured in-joke than hurtful jab), but I understand why it, and other things probably, bothered you, now that I understand where you're coming from.

[secretagentphan]

To me, fanservice isn't Dan and Phil being natural and teasing eachother/touching/any other lighthearted thing that anyone could do with their bff but gets analyzed to death by shippers. Fanservice and queer bating is when male youtubers make out with each other for jokes and views (ewww! !!) And feed into a ship while making fun of fangirls. People are only getting mad at Dan and Phil because it could be real which is bizarre to me.

ALSO there is no way in hell they are heterosexual. I mean Phil could be, but as far as I'm concerned Dan is 100% out as queer. Even if he ends up getting a girlfriend he will still be queer. Just because he didn't make a huge announcement and pick a specific label (which would arguably also be for views, kind of a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation). So Idk i really disagree with a lot of that lgbt youtuber's points. Either pretend to be 100% straight or have a big ol' gay coming out and tattoo your sexual preferences on your forehead?? Nah that's not fair at all. So Shane Dawson is okay because even though he makes a bunch of over the line gay jokes about people in the closet he passed as a straight person before he came out as bi? Yikes. Sorry but as someone who is currently mostly in the closet I'm very upset by that statement.

[fancybum]

I am currently off to drive my ass to my parents' for New Years (God willing all those presents won't come alive and mob me from the backseat), but if the discussion is still interesting to you by the time I hit their place, I would gladly write out / pm my thoughts on fanservice in more detail.

Off the top of my head, underthesameumbrellajaphan, dancing together to Edd Sheeran, the entire fucking tatinof fanfiction section, and many others. I should note that my fanservice qualms also come from understanding that their major audience is 15 year olds. SO what seems like obvious fanservice / joking to us, is taken at face value by about 3 million people, and Dan and Phil KNOW it.

Ok. If you have the time/inclination to elaborate even more later, that would be great, BUT I should say that I disagree with the 3 examples you've already provided so it very well could be a waste of your time. I think my brain is melting. Just as an example: if Grace and Mamrie hosted the brits (or whatever D&P's online thing counts as), I could 100% see them doing the 'coming back from a break and they're dancing together' gag, and no one would bat an eye. But D&P aren't allowed to do that because 15 year olds might think it means they're doing each other? So they need to adjust and limit their behaviour with each other to drive home to impressionable young people.. exactly what?

Like.. 2012 was them trying really hard to drive home they're just friends, and that didn't stop a sizeable amount of people from thinking otherwise. And if they're actually not just friends, what precisely are they meant to do if they don't want to put that information definitely out into the world? Be closeted harder so nobody gets mixed signals? I can't comprehend what they're meant to do or how all of this stuff with them is all about marketing. Is it worth it to wrap their lives around manipulating parts of their audience for views/fame? Why is it easier to think they're crafting some kind of elaborate ongoing facade of a life together for financial benefit over keeping their real life relationship private while working together as a duo? I don't know, I just don't know about this. We're speaking different languages.

[alittledizzy]

I mean Phil could be, but as far as I'm concerned Dan is 100% out as queer.

I agree with your post, but since I'd just be repeating what you said I'm going to reply to this bit - just to say that Phil was out as bi according to formspring in 2009/2010 and never actually at any point took that back or claimed it wasn't true. I'd say there is no more reason to think Phil might be straight than there is reason to think dan might be.

Not gonna try and quote multiple posts since I'm on my phone but fancybum's post above mine - emphatic yes to all of that.

[pearshaped34]

Off the top of my head, underthesameumbrellajaphan, dancing together to Edd Sheeran, the entire fucking tatinof fanfiction section, and many others. I should note that my fanservice qualms also come from understanding that their major audience is 15 year olds. SO what seems like obvious fanservice / joking to us, is taken at face value by about 3 million people, and Dan and Phil KNOW it.

(I researched Dan and Phil's relationship with their fans and their marketing strategies more in depth than some of you people researched phan timelines, can you see me fire up and go)

Standing under the same umbrella is seriously classed as a big fan service moment of D&Ps? Even going from the perspective of a 15 year old surely sharing an umbrella with the friend in the rain is not suggestive? Plenty of friends share and umbrella when it's raining and to be fair them taking a picture both under one doesn't even imply to me they were even sharing it but rather that to not stand awkwardly far apart in a photograph one stepped under the umbrella's vicinity for a picture.

I'm sure the fans thought the photo was all kinds of adorable but to be real that could be said for every joint photo they've ever shared. I mean I suppose technically every time they take any picture together (or alone for that matter) and put in on their public social media accounts they are doing a form of fan service because those accounts exist to service the fans. They use their social media accounts to maintain fan relations (as does every youtuber) so it stands to reason with every picture they share it's there because they think the fans would like to see it. So yeah I can see the argument everything on their social media is fan service but I don't see why the umbrella picture is standout fan service though.

[pilotlight]

re: potentially fanservicey stuff
When I first read about the fanfiction section of tatinof, it bothered me (seemed very blatantly shipbaity and just generally...idk, it weirded me out), but seeing it in the context of the show changed my mind about it entirely. At best it's a funny nod to part of their audience, or if you want to be a bit less optimistic, it also seemed a lot like "look at how weird and uncomfortable it is to be characters in someone else's fantasy".

For what it's worth, I'm not someone who is convinced they're together (I don't think either of them are straight, though), but I mostly agree with fancybum. In order for them to avoid being accused of fanservice or being misleading, they'd need to be robots with each other, and I don't think it's fair to hold them to a different standard than other friends just because their fans read into every little thing.

I would still be interested in reading what you think, though gnostic, I always like your posts.

[secretagentphan]

I mean Phil could be, but as far as I'm concerned Dan is 100% out as queer.

I agree with your post, but since I'd just be repeating what you said I'm going to reply to this bit - just to say that Phil was out as bi according to formspring in 2009/2010 and never actually at any point took that back or claimed it wasn't true. I'd say there is no more reason to think Phil might be straight than there is reason to think dan might be.

Not gonna try and quote multiple posts since I'm on my phone but fancybum's post above mine - emphatic yes to all of that.

I totally think Phil is bi too, I only said Dan because he seems to be more "openly out" than Phil AFTER all the 2012 "I'm straight" nonsense. Phil has started being a little more open about male attraction too, especially considering he's so private, but Dan is like 1000% out and proud right now which is great. So what I guess I was trying to say is that if you think Deppy were faking their sexuality, then maybe Phil could turn out being straight (but I don't think he is) but Dan is already our so it's like ??? What ALSO annoys me is that Phil made it clear in 2009 that he does label himself or make a thing out of his sexuality and here we are with people claiming to be pro lgbt trying to put him in a box.p

[Birdie]

I typed this out before fancybum's post so it's redudant, but I'm submitting it anyway because I've written it now:

I don’t think it’s queerbaiting. I also don’t think Dan and Phil are together or in any way romantically involved (I'm not sure about their sexuality though, but that's not my business at all). I know a lot went down in 2009 but I don’t really care for that. It’s been eight years. Was it okay to hint at being a couple? No. But it’s been eight years and I feel like we should let it go. For me at least it gets overshadowed by recent events – recent meaning the last five years. Dan and Phil have never said they were together. They have never kissed for the camera or hinted at any romantic involvement. They’re not baiting. All I’m seeing are two guys being affectionate and touchy with each other and a lot of people interpreting this behaviour as “Oh my god, they must be dating, straight men/friends don’t act like that!” or "They're pretending to be gay, straight men/friends don't act like that!"

I can’t speak for all queer people of course but to me at least that’s hurtful. Guy friends can be touchy and affectionate towards each other just like girl friends can. Equating fondness and touchiness with queerness and being gay is hurtful towards the LGBTQ community. Expressing their friendship by not hiding their fondness for each other is not baiting. This isn’t directed at anyone on here because I know you guys are respectful shippers and don’t do this kind of thing but every time I see someone try to turn their touchiness into proof of them being together – or an example of their queerbaiting – I flinch. It’s neither. It isn’t proof for the shippers nor is it proof for the antis. It’s two men displaying their fondness for each other. The problem isn’t that they do that, the problem is that too many people believe straight male friends shouldn’t be touchy with each other or express how much they like each other ever and that’s sad.

Apart from the stuff from 2009 that shouldn’t have happened in any way there has seriously never been any instance that I felt was “queerbaity”. Not the touching, or the teasing or the dancing at the BRITs or whatever. That’s friendship, it's what friends do. A man touching another man doesn’t automatically equal gay. I don’t have to believe in phan to not find their behaviour offensive or queerbaity. What I do find offensive is people pretending guy friends being a bit more physical and affectionate with each other must mean they’re gay or pretending to be gay for views instead of just, you know, being fond of each other.

tl;dr: Dan and Phil’s friendship is way more affectionate than male friendships are usually portrayed so people tend to think this means it has to be queer/gay but that’s not cool. A guy being touchy with his friends and showing his fondness of them doesn’t make him gay and likewise two guys having a very affectionate, more physical friendship doesn’t mean they’re pretending to be gay for the views either.

[karma_yeah]

To me, fanservice isn't Dan and Phil being natural and teasing eachother/touching/any other lighthearted thing that anyone could do with their bff but gets analyzed to death by shippers. Fanservice and queer bating is when male youtubers make out with each other for jokes and views (ewww! !!) And feed into a ship while making fun of fangirls. People are only getting mad at Dan and Phil because it could be real which is bizarre to me.

ALSO there is no way in hell they are heterosexual. I mean Phil could be, but as far as I'm concerned Dan is 100% out as queer. Even if he ends up getting a girlfriend he will still be queer. Just because he didn't make a huge announcement and pick a specific label (which would arguably also be for views, kind of a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation). So Idk i really disagree with a lot of that lgbt youtuber's points. Either pretend to be 100% straight or have a big ol' gay coming out and tattoo your sexual preferences on your forehead?? Nah that's not fair at all. So Shane Dawson is okay because even though he makes a bunch of over the line gay jokes about people in the closet he passed as a straight person before he came out as bi? Yikes. Sorry but as someone who is currently mostly in the closet I'm very upset by that statement.

I bolded the statement that got my attention -- "People are only getting mad at Dan and Phil because it could be real". There are tons of studies on the psychology of ambiguity and how it effects people. Human beings by nature, are not built for ambiguity. It even effects people physically in brain scans.

I think what we are seeing are differences in peoples' abilities to tolerate ambiguity. And even within one person, the ability to tolerate it will vary depending on the context of the situation and what's going on in the person's own life.

[gnostic]

Off the top of my head, underthesameumbrellajaphan, dancing together to Edd Sheeran, the entire fucking tatinof fanfiction section, and many others. I should note that my fanservice qualms also come from understanding that their major audience is 15 year olds. SO what seems like obvious fanservice / joking to us, is taken at face value by about 3 million people, and Dan and Phil KNOW it.

(I researched Dan and Phil's relationship with their fans and their marketing strategies more in depth than some of you people researched phan timelines, can you see me fire up and go)

Standing under the same umbrella is seriously classed as a big fan service moment of D&Ps? Even going from the perspective of a 15 year old surely sharing an umbrella with the friend in the rain is not suggestive? Plenty of friends share and umbrella when it's raining and to be fair them taking a picture both under one doesn't even imply to me they were even sharing it but rather that to not stand awkwardly far apart in a photograph one stepped under the umbrella's vicinity for a picture.

I'm sure the fans thought the photo was all kinds of adorable but to be real that could be said for every joint photo they've ever shared. I mean I suppose technically every time they take any picture together (or alone for that matter) and put in on their public social media accounts they are doing a form of fan service because those accounts exist to service the fans. They use their social media accounts to maintain fan relations (as does every youtuber) so it stands to reason with every picture they share it's there because they think the fans would like to see it. So yeah I can see the argument everything on their social media is fan service but I don't see why the umbrella picture is standout fan service though.

Drivers stop note: standing under the same umbrella has romantic implications in Japan, which are massively exaggerating by anime. Dan and Phil are giant weabos and so is a good part of their audience.