IDB

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

fancybum wrote:

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

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

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

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

Men talking about men? Explain yourself!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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