I generally don't see a point in determining whether Dan and Phil are more attracted to men or women or other genders because why would it matter? I prefer focusing on things they actually said and did instead of determining how many partners of what gender they each had and what percentage of every gender they actually like.
autumnhearth wrote: I think it is fruitless and a bit disrespectful to try to determine which label: gay, bi, pan or straight is most applicable to him, as they have both stated before that they prefer not to label.
Phil's sexuality:Phil said he's bi but prefers not to label himself and hasn't denied it. So that would make Phil not straight, using no label. I know he doesn't talk about this stuff but when someone makes a statement and never denies it and also doesn't do anything drastic that would make the statement seem unbelievable, why would you ignore it? Because this is the heteronormative world. You can come out once but if you don't keep proving your sexuality, you default back to being straight and suddenly you realise you're in the closet again. This is exactly what happened to me and it's so discouraging. You are so afraid of being open about your sexuality, so happy that everyone accepts it and then when you don't start dating people of the same gender, everyone thinks you're straight once again. Even though you told them otherwise. I may be projecting a little bit here because this is a thing that makes me so angry, but it isn't fair to say that Phil's sexuality is such a mystery just because the only time he made a statement about it was a long time ago.
Things I wanted to comment on:
auri wrote:
As a person who labels themselves queer, I am aware of sexuality being fluid. So maybe a better thing to say would be that I think that at this moment Dan prefers men over women or just simply makes more of a fuss over his attraction to men than women. Or maybe, as I said, I only notice when he talks about men. But anyway, when Dan said in one of his live shows that queer is a nice umbrella term (can't remember the actual quote), to me it sounded like he has at least thought of it, probably even thinks of himself as queer. But I don't think dating history has nothing to do with orientation. Many people have never dated anyone, but it doesn't mean they're aro or ace. For the last few years my only crushes and/or dates have been men, but it doesn't mean I am only attracted to men.
I think it's important to note that making more attraction mentions regarding your own gender is something a lot of people do who want to make sure people notice they aren't straight without coming out or sticking a label onto themselves (or simply to test the waters). But you can make as many attraction mentions about your own gender as you want, mention being attracted to the opposite gender once and a lot of people disregard them all. The world is so heteronormative that you really have to fight your way out of being seen as straight.
And yeah, dating history doesn't mean much. How out you are, whether or not you have internalised homophobia, it being easier to find people of the opposite gender opposed to people of other genders, the people you hang out with, etc. - all these things determine who you date or if you date at all. A person could never have dated a person of the same sex and still be gay, a person could have had a lot of relationships and still be aromantic, etc.
plath wrote:
That's interesting, I hadn't considered that the lack of label might actually help some LGBT people. All I saw it was from my own perspective that more out celebs = more representation = a good thing. Perhaps because I'm slightly older, I've never had a problem with labels. They're not great 100% of the time but they're helpful shortcuts for political action and getting rights.
Well, I think not labeling yourself is a statement in itself. Sure, you can't call Dan or Phil your bi fav or a bi icon if they don't label themselves as bisexual but you can see them as representation in other ways, especially Dan. Not labeling yourself is a way of fighting against homophobia and especially against heteronormativity. It shows the world how stupid it is to put human beings into boxes (and that sure is something humans love to do). And I agree, those boxes can be helpful (I use the labels bisexual and queer myself for that very reason) but they can also be a cage. I've heard several times how people felt trapped inside their chosen box and as if they were betraying their people if they did certain things. And that's also harmful. I like that Dan and also Phil show their fans that you don't have to stick a label onto yourself, that you can be happy as a "formless blob" and are still valid. After all, our labels shouldn't exist for others to know who we are but for us to be comfortable in our own skin. If a label does that for you - great. If not labeling yourself does that to you - also great.
I was in a bit of a rush so this might be a bit incoherent and in the time I wrote it there were probably a million new posts but it's not my fault the only time I'm actually busy is the time I wanna say so much.
