IDB

jaej wrote:are you sure? from a profile sg put up after in 2010, after may (i don't think i can link since her profile is on alt girls and had semi nudes) she was 19, meaning:
2010= 18/19
09= 17/18
08= 16/17
either way, the point is that it was dodgy, not illegal or horrifying

Yeah, she definitely turned 25 in May 2015, which puts her a year older than Dan.
Though I still don't think that I've ever seen anything dodgy in their interactions, unless you just count a guy who is 21/22 having a friend who is a female teenager as dodgy.

wonderluust wrote:reading thru gg and this forum, the prevalent kind of character framing i’ve always gotten is that phil is the responsible adult and business mastermind while dan is a mess and only good as the pretty face of the franchise. i don’t think this is warranted or fair to dan. jokes like the one lurktacular made gets on my nerves tbqh bc it tries to elevate alpha male phil at the expense of painting dan as some kind of dependent helpless person when it comes to the “serious stuff". yes dan and phil support each other, but the the emphasis seems to always lean one way and no one ever seems to mention the idea that dan gives direction and approval to phil too, probably in similar amounts.

just bc dan said he runs some of his tweets and video ideas by phil doesn’t mean phil doesn’t do the same, or that dan does that bc he’s not capable on his own. if anything, it shows that he’s open to criticism and isn’t a stubborn + controlling person, both good qualities to have. just bc phil called venues or did taxes isn’t reason to believe that dan doesn’t do his share of the paperwork. this image you guys have of phil seems to be based on pretty circumstantial evidence and clouded by wishful thinking. and the joy y’all derive from picturing phil as some kind of controlling “daddy" that tells helpless dan what to do is a little disturbing ngl.

i hate to say it, but it’s like phil stans feel this power imbalance due to dan’s greater outward success and are always unconsciously trying to bridge the gap by conjuring up some kind of behind the scenes thing phil’s better at.

I agree that assuming that Phil does everything would be unfair to Dan, but, again, I don't think anyone is saying that Dan is a defenseless person when it comes to handling business stuff. There are a lot of different ideas that people have about their relationship and who takes care of what, but nobody exactly knows for sure who is right and who is wrong, and we probably never will know. The reason people make fun of Dan and say he's a bit of a mess without Phil is because that's the type of message that he puts out with his tweets sometimes, but It's all lighthearted here, and everyone here is in their right mind and knows that their work is fairly balanced and Phil doesn't control everything. The jokes that we've made here so far have been purely jokes and everyone is aware of that. Idk I just get goofy and friendly vibes from most people here and that's what I like, and I've never felt like people have meant offense towards Dan or Phil so I get a bit defensive. I'm just speaking for myself though, so I apologize if I'm incorrect.

Catallena wrote:

sweetmm wrote:

kuensukki wrote:
The initial R1 radio deal was through an email to Phil, they were looking for up and coming vloggers and approached him. He then asked Dan to join him and they did the blindfolded whisker challenge thing. Than the BBC producers liked their chemistry and asked if they wanted to make a radio show. I don' think channelflip had anything to do with it. Also akui stop making me imagine their D size (though I agree with your theory... team BIG Phil )

Also lurktacular your banner is the most relatable thing I ever read!!

Their management team before Flipside was Insanity Group, and I believe they might be the ones that help promote Phil's ideas to BBC. Insanity also manages Jimmy hence why he had been with BBC for ages.

Phil@BigBen

I thought Somethin Else Talent Agency was their management before they moved to Flipside? At least in 2012/13 I think.

Dammit you are right, I always get somethinelse and insanity confused, thank you
http://www.somethinelse.com/news/youtub ... uest-show/

wonderluust wrote:reading thru gg and this forum, the prevalent kind of character framing i’ve always gotten is that phil is the responsible adult and business mastermind while dan is a mess and only good as the pretty face of the franchise. i don’t think this is warranted or fair to dan. jokes like the one lurktacular made gets on my nerves tbqh bc it tries to elevate alpha male phil at the expense of painting dan as some kind of dependent helpless person when it comes to the “serious stuff". yes dan and phil support each other, but the the emphasis seems to always lean one way and no one ever seems to mention the idea that dan gives direction and approval to phil too, probably in similar amounts.

just bc dan said he runs some of his tweets and video ideas by phil doesn’t mean phil doesn’t do the same, or that dan does that bc he’s not capable on his own. if anything, it shows that he’s open to criticism and isn’t a stubborn + controlling person, both good qualities to have. just bc phil called venues or did taxes isn’t reason to believe that dan doesn’t do his share of the paperwork. this image you guys have of phil seems to be based on pretty circumstantial evidence and clouded by wishful thinking. and the joy y’all derive from picturing phil as some kind of controlling “daddy" that tells helpless dan what to do is a little disturbing ngl.

i hate to say it, but it’s like phil stans feel this power imbalance due to dan’s greater outward success and are always unconsciously trying to bridge the gap by conjuring up some kind of behind the scenes thing phil’s better at.

I feel like 90 percent of the 'daddy' jokes about Phil on this forum are tongue-in-cheek and that some of you are taking banter way too seriously. Also, I don't think anyone is suggesting that Phil is really just the business mastermind or Dan is just the pretty face, but when talking about them in broad strokes like this on a forum it is easy to talk about them in a black-and-white way.

Guys, how serious are you with this idea that Phil is asexual or aromantic? Do you actually think it's a possibility?

I personally don't, but I have absolutely zero evidence to back this up as it is just a gut feeling. Then again, Phil is such a closed book, he could be a serial killer or have a secret drag act in Soho for all we know.

jaej wrote:are you sure? from a profile sg put up after in 2010, after may (i don't think i can link since her profile is on alt girls and had semi nudes) she was 19, meaning:
2010= 18/19
09= 17/18
08= 16/17
either way, the point is that it was dodgy, not illegal or horrifying

Assuming the Sarah Grace in question is the girl from this twitter interaction

http://twitter.com/amazingphil/status/1 ... 84?lang=en

then yes
And I do think her age (and his) matter here, wording an 18 year old and 21 year old flirting online as "wow another 16ish year old when he was in his 20s" paints a much nastier picture for anyone reading your post then the reality actually is.

oqua wrote: Guys, how serious are you with this idea that Phil is asexual or aromantic? Do you actually think it's a possibility?

Nah I perceived him as horny as f pre-Dan and I would say currently in a state of sexually-satisfied; but that is just me

alittledizzy wrote:

jaej wrote:are you sure? from a profile sg put up after in 2010, after may (i don't think i can link since her profile is on alt girls and had semi nudes) she was 19, meaning:
2010= 18/19
09= 17/18
08= 16/17
either way, the point is that it was dodgy, not illegal or horrifying

Yeah, she definitely turned 25 in May 2015, which puts her a year older than Dan.

Though I still don't think that I've ever seen anything dodgy in their interactions, unless you just count a guy who is 21/22 having a friend who is a female teenager as dodgy.

she lied on the altgirls profile then lmao she would have been 20 not 19. look it up if you want, that's where i got the info that she'd be 16/17 in 2008, im not trying to make it sound worse, i don't want it to lmao
there is something uncomfortable about a grown man in uni being so close to a teenage girl. like i said, i can't search for or link to anything, but some of his remarks (the only ones i really clearly remember were the make babies one and the voicemail and since topsy is dead idk what i'll find) were disturbing. the 'he flirted with everyone! ladies man phil! what a cassanova!' thing isn't a good enough response because whether or not it meant anything, it was still innappropriate towards someone more vulnerable

Since deppy has been living together for so long, wouldn't they be considered to have a common law marriage, assume they have a romantic relationship? Like if Phil is dead (sorry phil i just have to), Dan is entitled to inherit his money if there's no will?

Just sayin'

sweetmm wrote:

oqua wrote: Guys, how serious are you with this idea that Phil is asexual or aromantic? Do you actually think it's a possibility?

Nah I perceived him as horny as f pre-Dan and I would say currently in a state of sexually-satisfied; but that is just me

I agree!

wonderluust wrote:reading thru gg and this forum, the prevalent kind of character framing i’ve always gotten is that phil is the responsible adult and business mastermind while dan is a mess and only good as the pretty face of the franchise. i don’t think this is warranted or fair to dan. jokes like the one lurktacular made gets on my nerves tbqh bc it tries to elevate alpha male phil at the expense of painting dan as some kind of dependent helpless person when it comes to the “serious stuff". yes dan and phil support each other, but the the emphasis seems to always lean one way and no one ever seems to mention the idea that dan gives direction and approval to phil too, probably in similar amounts.

just bc dan said he runs some of his tweets and video ideas by phil doesn’t mean phil doesn’t do the same, or that dan does that bc he’s not capable on his own. if anything, it shows that he’s open to criticism and isn’t a stubborn + controlling person, both good qualities to have. just bc phil called venues or did taxes isn’t reason to believe that dan doesn’t do his share of the paperwork. this image you guys have of phil seems to be based on pretty circumstantial evidence and clouded by wishful thinking. and the joy y’all derive from picturing phil as some kind of controlling “daddy" that tells helpless dan what to do is a little disturbing ngl.

i hate to say it, but it’s like phil stans feel this power imbalance due to dan’s greater outward success and are always unconsciously trying to bridge the gap by conjuring up some kind of behind the scenes thing phil’s better at.

Please be assured that if I perceived there to be an actual power imbalance between the two of them, I wouldn't be joking about it. Nor would I ship them in the first place. I'm also an OG Dan stan so I have no vested interest in building Phil up at Dan's expense. It was a joke - one of the same ilk as the bloody thread title.

lilMango wrote:

wonderluust wrote:reading thru gg and this forum, the prevalent kind of character framing i’ve always gotten is that phil is the responsible adult and business mastermind while dan is a mess and only good as the pretty face of the franchise. i don’t think this is warranted or fair to dan. jokes like the one lurktacular made gets on my nerves tbqh bc it tries to elevate alpha male phil at the expense of painting dan as some kind of dependent helpless person when it comes to the “serious stuff". yes dan and phil support each other, but the the emphasis seems to always lean one way and no one ever seems to mention the idea that dan gives direction and approval to phil too, probably in similar amounts.

just bc dan said he runs some of his tweets and video ideas by phil doesn’t mean phil doesn’t do the same, or that dan does that bc he’s not capable on his own. if anything, it shows that he’s open to criticism and isn’t a stubborn + controlling person, both good qualities to have. just bc phil called venues or did taxes isn’t reason to believe that dan doesn’t do his share of the paperwork. this image you guys have of phil seems to be based on pretty circumstantial evidence and clouded by wishful thinking. and the joy y’all derive from picturing phil as some kind of controlling “daddy" that tells helpless dan what to do is a little disturbing ngl.

i hate to say it, but it’s like phil stans feel this power imbalance due to dan’s greater outward success and are always unconsciously trying to bridge the gap by conjuring up some kind of behind the scenes thing phil’s better at.

I agree that assuming that Phil does everything would be unfair to Dan, but, again, I don't think anyone is saying that Dan is a defenseless person when it comes to handling business stuff. There are a lot of different ideas that people have about their relationship and who takes care of what, but nobody exactly knows for sure who is right and who is wrong, and we probably never will know. The reason people make fun of Dan and say he's a bit of a mess without Phil is because that's the type of message that he puts out with his tweets sometimes, but It's all lighthearted here, and everyone here is in their right mind and knows that their work is fairly balanced and Phil doesn't control everything. The jokes that we've made here so far have been purely jokes and everyone is aware of that. Idk I just get goofy and friendly vibes from most people here and that's what I like, and I've never felt like people have meant offense towards Dan or Phil so I get a bit defensive. I'm just speaking for myself though, so I apologize if I'm incorrect.

it seems lighthearted and very lols much fun to some of you but that's bc you identify with the subtext of the jokes to a degree. it's fairly clear that lot of people here are genuinely convinced at least on some level that this is who dan and phil are, the type of jokes people make are a reflection of their perception and im just stating why i disagree with it. im not banning people from making jokes im just explaining why i find certain ideas inaccurate and unfair.

also i dont think dan put out that message at all with his tweets (at least recently), people that like to imagine him as a mess alone interpreted it that way. there was really nothing out of the norm with his tweets, binge watching tv and choking on nuts i mean is this something new? same thing happened with phil when dan left him alone, it's so cringeworthy the way the fandom romanticizes co-dependency.

wonderluust wrote:reading thru gg and this forum, the prevalent kind of character framing i’ve always gotten is that phil is the responsible adult and business mastermind while dan is a mess and only good as the pretty face of the franchise. i don’t think this is warranted or fair to dan. jokes like the one lurktacular made gets on my nerves tbqh bc it tries to elevate alpha male phil at the expense of painting dan as some kind of dependent helpless person when it comes to the “serious stuff". yes dan and phil support each other, but the the emphasis seems to always lean one way and no one ever seems to mention the idea that dan gives direction and approval to phil too, probably in similar amounts.

just bc dan said he runs some of his tweets and video ideas by phil doesn’t mean phil doesn’t do the same, or that dan does that bc he’s not capable on his own. if anything, it shows that he’s open to criticism and isn’t a stubborn + controlling person, both good qualities to have. just bc phil called venues or did taxes isn’t reason to believe that dan doesn’t do his share of the paperwork. this image you guys have of phil seems to be based on pretty circumstantial evidence and clouded by wishful thinking. and the joy y’all derive from picturing phil as some kind of controlling “daddy" that tells helpless dan what to do is a little disturbing ngl.

i hate to say it, but it’s like phil stans feel this power imbalance due to dan’s greater outward success and are always unconsciously trying to bridge the gap by conjuring up some kind of behind the scenes thing phil’s better at.

There is also a character framing you and jaej seem to fancy which is painting Phil as a manipulative, controlling creep (and not in a jokey way like we portray daddy Phil). Whatever,everyone is free to think what they want but most of your Phil assumptions are also based on no evidence. Also I don't think there is a need to justify Dan's successes over Phil's. I see them as both very successful and very reliant on the other. Dan relied on Phil for initial success (not that he wasn't talented but he got a kick start and fanbase by Phil). Phil may not have a lot of subscribers but his fans are very dedicated and he has maintained 1 million (now 2 million) viewership constantly and has been a influential part of youtube for a long amount of time. He also rejected the documentaries and HG interviews not because he wasn't successful but because he may have not thought it was time efficient to do so in the midst of planning a tour.

End conclusion: their successes rely on each other and we appreciate the creative and intellectually capabilities of both Dan and Phil.

I mean, the flirting wasn't exactly one-sided

Lurktacularr wrote:
Please be assured that if I perceived there to be an actual power imbalance between the two of them, I wouldn't be joking about it. Nor would I ship them in the first place. I'm also an OG Dan stan so I have no vested interest in building Phil up at Dan's expense. It was a joke - one of the same ilk as the bloody thread title.

I hear you

Moreover people tend to forget the "power" (influence) Dan has over Phil too; yes we do see Dan's circle of friends are made of Phil's friends but whomever Dan is not comfortable with in the end will be out of the circle.

I really doubt its about "power" over one another but it is more about understanding, caring about each other, working together and their investment in each others' lives to me is normal in any partnership be it business/bff/romantic.

jaej wrote:there is something uncomfortable about a grown man in uni being so close to a teenage girl. like i said, i can't search for or link to anything, but some of his remarks (the only ones i really clearly remember were the make babies one and the voicemail and since topsy is dead idk what i'll find) were disturbing. the 'he flirted with everyone! ladies man phil! what a cassanova!' thing isn't a good enough response because whether or not it meant anything, it was still innappropriate towards someone more vulnerable

But Sarah-Grace was also a popular youtuber, which meant the power imbalance wasn't the same as Phil and a fan might have been, and though they came off as close friends and spoke on the phone there was not any kind of in-person meeting between the two of them until 2012.
I think it's important to have conversations about abuse and power imbalances in the youtube community, which is why I'm glad this gets talked about. But it's important to make sure you're talking about it with all the facts. Sarah-Grace was not an awestruck fan, or a sixteen year old girl.

Completely off topic:

There's this photo I've been looking for... When I was in London visiting Emma for Tatinof ~someone~ posted a photo ~somewhere~ where you could see Dan and Phil after the show getting into a car with two guys, and I'm pretty sure one of them was Ian. It was at the first Manchester Tatinof (evening show I suppose), that's all I know, and the picture wasn't ever posted on GG (updated phan, maybe?) Anyone happen to have saved it? Or find it? Please let me know. :geek:

kuensukki wrote:
End conclusion: their successes rely on each other and we appreciate the creative and intellectually capabilities of both Dan and Phil.

^^ I agree, and I think everyone else agrees too.

kuensukki wrote:

wonderluust wrote:reading thru gg and this forum, the prevalent kind of character framing i’ve always gotten is that phil is the responsible adult and business mastermind while dan is a mess and only good as the pretty face of the franchise. i don’t think this is warranted or fair to dan. jokes like the one lurktacular made gets on my nerves tbqh bc it tries to elevate alpha male phil at the expense of painting dan as some kind of dependent helpless person when it comes to the “serious stuff". yes dan and phil support each other, but the the emphasis seems to always lean one way and no one ever seems to mention the idea that dan gives direction and approval to phil too, probably in similar amounts.

just bc dan said he runs some of his tweets and video ideas by phil doesn’t mean phil doesn’t do the same, or that dan does that bc he’s not capable on his own. if anything, it shows that he’s open to criticism and isn’t a stubborn + controlling person, both good qualities to have. just bc phil called venues or did taxes isn’t reason to believe that dan doesn’t do his share of the paperwork. this image you guys have of phil seems to be based on pretty circumstantial evidence and clouded by wishful thinking. and the joy y’all derive from picturing phil as some kind of controlling “daddy" that tells helpless dan what to do is a little disturbing ngl.

i hate to say it, but it’s like phil stans feel this power imbalance due to dan’s greater outward success and are always unconsciously trying to bridge the gap by conjuring up some kind of behind the scenes thing phil’s better at.

There is also a character framing you and jaej seem to fancy which is painting Phil as a manipulative, controlling creep (and not in a jokey way like we portray daddy Phil). Whatever,everyone is free to think what they want but most of your Phil assumptions are also based on no evidence. Also I don't think there is a need to justify Dan's successes over Phil's. I see them as both very successful and very reliant on the other. Dan relied on Phil for initial success (not that he wasn't talented but he got a kick start and fanbase by Phil). Phil may not have a lot of subscribers but his fans are very dedicated and he has maintained 1 million (now 2 million) viewership constantly and has been a influential part of youtube for a long amount of time. He also rejected the documentaries and HG interviews not because he wasn't successful but because he may have not thought it was time efficient to do so in the midst of planning a tour.

End conclusion: their successes rely on each other and we appreciate the creative and intellectually capabilities of both Dan and Phil.

excuse me but can you explain to me how i've painted phil as a "manipulative, controlling creep"?? .____. and what assumptions i've made of phil that's based on no evidence? im sorry you took personal offense to my defense of dan but i've absolutely not said anything negative about phil in order to do so? and in the past, my harshest criticism was toward phil's content alone, aka things i can actually see with my eyes.

listen im not here to have an argument about who's more successful, and that wasn't my point so no comment to the rest of your post lol

I'm just speaking for myself here, but I identify with the subtext of the jokes about Phil being controlling of Dan to the same extent as that I truly believe that Dan and Phil are furries. Which I don't. I don't find the subject of real emotional abuse to be a laughing matter.

i understand what you're getting at, and i can also find the humor in jokes i dont necessary believe are based on facts. but some jokes are tasteless and go a little too far. also i was mostly disagreeing with the popular perceptions that the jokes are based off of. also dan being a furry isn't downplaying phil's value as a human being, so i think it's a little different.

wonderluust wrote:
it seems lighthearted and very lols much fun to some of you but that's bc you identify with the subtext of the jokes to a degree. it's fairly clear that lot of people here are genuinely convinced at least on some level that this is who dan and phil are, the type of jokes people make are a reflection of their perception and im just stating why i disagree with it. im not banning people from making jokes im just explaining why i find certain ideas inaccurate and unfair.

also i dont think dan put out that message at all with his tweets (at least recently), people that like to imagine him as a mess alone interpreted it that way. there was really nothing out of the norm with his tweets, binge watching tv and choking on nuts i mean is this something new? same thing happened with phil when dan left him alone, it's so cringeworthy the way the fandom romanticizes co-dependency.

I'm just speaking for myself here, but I identify with the subtext of the jokes about Phil being controlling of Dan to the same extent as that I truly believe that Dan and Phil are furries. Which I don't. I don't find the subject of real emotional abuse to be a laughing matter.

kuensukki wrote:
There is also a character framing you and jaej seem to fancy which is painting Phil as a manipulative, controlling creep (and not in a jokey way like we portray daddy Phil)

it just isn't funny to joke about portraying someone that way. i don't want to compare someone i looked up to to an abuser, but people really go for the idea. it's not a funny daddy joke, it's reinforcing harmful ideas to the point where half of you can't even see it anymore

cora808 wrote:I mean, the flirting wasn't exactly one-sided

these are recent and not at all what i'm talking about, but if you were an adult then it's not okay to make jokes back because a teenager flirted with you. they shouldn't, but as an adult it's still your responsibility.

sweetmm wrote: Moreover people tend to forget the "power" (influence) Dan has over Phil too; yes we do see Dan's circle of friends are made of Phil's friends but whomever Dan is not comfortable with in the end will be out of the circle.

I really doubt its about "power" over one another but it is more about understanding, caring about each other, working together and their investment in each others' lives to me is normal in any partnership be it business/bff/romantic.

but that's not how it works? when a relationship begins the way people generally believe theirs did, there is automatically a power imbalance. a 22 year old uni graduate with a large following and support has masses more power than an 18 year old, = younger person more likely to go along with and trust older person, = an automatic inbuilt hierarchy that feels ingrained and can be difficult to notice. a it doesn't mean the relationship is automatically harmful, but people seem like they want it to be. dan pre-phil was a mess and he still is when his all powerful daddy leaves, how will he ever manage to care for himself. beyond that, the power imbalance has been linked to other people, to less severe degrees.

it's no wonder they tried to downplay how they met for a bit.

it's not that im saying phil did something horrible. the point is that in those situations bad things can happen and ignoring it because it's your angel bean is dangerous. especially if you're going to joke about phil being controlling and having a type (ie teenage) based off of things that have happened, while also insisting he couldn't do anything bad

bedhead91 wrote:

wonderluust wrote:
it seems lighthearted and very lols much fun to some of you but that's bc you identify with the subtext of the jokes to a degree. it's fairly clear that lot of people here are genuinely convinced at least on some level that this is who dan and phil are, the type of jokes people make are a reflection of their perception and im just stating why i disagree with it. im not banning people from making jokes im just explaining why i find certain ideas inaccurate and unfair.

also i dont think dan put out that message at all with his tweets (at least recently), people that like to imagine him as a mess alone interpreted it that way. there was really nothing out of the norm with his tweets, binge watching tv and choking on nuts i mean is this something new? same thing happened with phil when dan left him alone, it's so cringeworthy the way the fandom romanticizes co-dependency.

I'm just speaking for myself here, but I identify with the subtext of the jokes about Phil being controlling of Dan to the same extent as that I truly believe that Dan and Phil are furries. Which I don't. I don't find the subject of real emotional abuse to be a laughing matter.

honestly, there are very few users who seem to make those jokes about Phil being controlling seriously (I can think of only one person, who I really don't want to call out), but, they are very subtle about it (and complimentary, so you don't think of it as insulting when they say it), and they have in the past made me paranoid about Phil.

honestly, from my experience, it's easy to be misled about Phil, and the view of some users about Phil doesn't help, especially if his percieved controlling behaviour is romanticized, which it often is, disturbingly enough.

jaej wrote:

alittledizzy wrote:

jaej wrote:are you sure? from a profile sg put up after in 2010, after may (i don't think i can link since her profile is on alt girls and had semi nudes) she was 19, meaning:
2010= 18/19
09= 17/18
08= 16/17
either way, the point is that it was dodgy, not illegal or horrifying

Yeah, she definitely turned 25 in May 2015, which puts her a year older than Dan.

Though I still don't think that I've ever seen anything dodgy in their interactions, unless you just count a guy who is 21/22 having a friend who is a female teenager as dodgy.

she lied on the altgirls profile then lmao she would have been 20 not 19. look it up if you want, that's where i got the info that she'd be 16/17 in 2008, im not trying to make it sound worse, i don't want it to lmao
there is something uncomfortable about a grown man in uni being so close to a teenage girl. like i said, i can't search for or link to anything, but some of his remarks (the only ones i really clearly remember were the make babies one and the voicemail and since topsy is dead idk what i'll find) were disturbing. the 'he flirted with everyone! ladies man phil! what a cassanova!' thing isn't a good enough response because whether or not it meant anything, it was still innappropriate towards someone more vulnerable

While I understand where you're coming from, if she was indeed 18 when Phil started talking to her, its entirely possible that she may have also been a uni student. I may be wrong about the UK, but in Australia some people start uni at the age of 17 (me included), and starting at 18 is very very common. If she was at uni, she would probably be meeting and befriending people in their early to mid twenties anyway, so I hardly think her talking to Phil online would have been inappropriate.

sweetmm wrote:

oqua wrote: Guys, how serious are you with this idea that Phil is asexual or aromantic? Do you actually think it's a possibility?

Nah I perceived him as horny as f pre-Dan and I would say currently in a state of sexually-satisfied; but that is just me

Horny af doesn't rule out aromantic. And for that matter, it doesn't really rule out asexuality. I understand what you mean about seeing Phil's shift in behavior to more satisfied though.

When I started getting into the D&P fandom I was surprised to see the discussions about Phil having the power/control because for me nothing about how those two interact has ever given me that impression.

I'd actually say Dan is probably the one who displays typical controlling behaviour.
Like when they are being interviewed Dan fields the majority of the questions and will jump in if he thinks Phil is struggling with answering anything. And Dan often seems to tell Phil off like if they play video games and Phil screws up or pointing out how Phil is untidy etc.
And while I personally think a lot of Dan's "jealousy" moments are in the fans head he is the one who is known for getting stroppy when Phil interacts with others.

If people think Phil is controlling now I can only imagine what people would think if Phil shouted like Dan does when Dan was losing at a video game or if he was the one acting jealous that someone spoke to Dan or if he was cutting Dan off in interviews to answer for him.

Disclaimer: I don't think Dan is controlling either just that from the interactions we see Dan's behaviour ticks more boxes for being controlling then Phil's does to me. Not that anyone can ever say what happens behind closed doors.

kuensukki wrote: Phil may not have a lot of subscribers but his fans are very dedicated and he has maintained 1 million (now 2 million) viewership constantly and has been a influential part of youtube for a long amount of time. He also rejected the documentaries and HG interviews not because he wasn't successful but because he may have not thought it was time efficient to do so in the midst of planning a tour.End conclusion: their successes rely on each other and we appreciate the creative and intellectually capabilities of both Dan and Phil.

I don't really watch any other youtubers on a regular basis but I noticed the other day that Phil seems to get better viewing figures then a lot of youtubers with like 5 million+ subs. But then the majority of people I was looking at also post a lot more content so I wasn't sure if maybe that had somehthing to do with it as well, like if when the more casual fans check YT you've posted 5 videos they might not watch them all whereas if Phil's only posted one then they will. IDK but it's interesting.

Everything in the world is about sex except sex. Sex is about power.

Somehow what you guys are talking about reminded me of this.

Lobster wrote:

jaej wrote:

alittledizzy wrote:

jaej wrote:are you sure? from a profile sg put up after in 2010, after may (i don't think i can link since her profile is on alt girls and had semi nudes) she was 19, meaning:
2010= 18/19
09= 17/18
08= 16/17
either way, the point is that it was dodgy, not illegal or horrifying

Yeah, she definitely turned 25 in May 2015, which puts her a year older than Dan.

Though I still don't think that I've ever seen anything dodgy in their interactions, unless you just count a guy who is 21/22 having a friend who is a female teenager as dodgy.

she lied on the altgirls profile then lmao she would have been 20 not 19. look it up if you want, that's where i got the info that she'd be 16/17 in 2008, im not trying to make it sound worse, i don't want it to lmao
there is something uncomfortable about a grown man in uni being so close to a teenage girl. like i said, i can't search for or link to anything, but some of his remarks (the only ones i really clearly remember were the make babies one and the voicemail and since topsy is dead idk what i'll find) were disturbing. the 'he flirted with everyone! ladies man phil! what a cassanova!' thing isn't a good enough response because whether or not it meant anything, it was still innappropriate towards someone more vulnerable

While I understand where you're coming from, if she was indeed 18 when Phil started talking to her, its entirely possible that she may have also been a uni student. I may be wrong about the UK, but in Australia some people start uni at the age of 17 (me included), and starting at 18 is very very common. If she was at uni, she would probably be meeting and befriending people in their early to mid twenties anyway, so I hardly think her talking to Phil online would have been inappropriate.

at one point i clearly remember them talking like that when she was in college, ie high school where im from