This is definitely a theory I could go for. I'm open-minded about their romantic relationship being real or not real, but one thing I just really can't get behind is the possibility of either of them being 100 percent straight.How about this theory:
Phan is not real, but Dan and Phil ARE both Bi. Neither can come out because then they would find it 100 times harder to disprove Phan.
Waiting for responses
Ok I have to be honest that I completely forgot about those tweets whilst writing my essay. So I am going to completely contradict what I said last night and say that I reckon they had ~something~ going on in 2009... but I still don't believe they were actually a couple. The most likely situation in my head is that after a few months after getting over the initial shock of interacting with each other in person, they probably realised they weren't anything more than friends... and going back to the vibe of the community during that time, like many others have mentioned, it was pretty common for people to be promiscuous/experimental, and d&p seemed to be pretty tame in comparison.kooshka wrote:I'm interested in how people who thing they never were a couple/even had a fling; how do you view those very early (2009/10 I think?) tweets & formspring answers? The whole thing with cherry, "Uma Thurman just watched me have sex", "if I had a baby with the last person I kissed there would be a serious breach in the laws of biology" etc.? That's the thing that convinced me that there was def something going on. Even if the voldy vid was a prank, those answers/tweets were made at a very early point of their fame so I don't think they were made to mess with the shippers, even if the video was.
Reading over my post I'm cringing a little at how I worded it, sorry i didn't mean to come across in an insensitive way or completely dismissing the possibility of Dan being attracted to guys (I think what I meant by genuinely attracted is anything beyond a crush and something that would carry over into forming an actual relationship with a man.. eg. like i was saying how i personally feel some degree of attraction for girls yet i don't think that would ever carry over into anything serious irl).syzygy wrote:just wanna jump in to discuss the comments made re: sexuality.
what would you say genuine interest is, then? not an attack - just interested as to where you see the line is drawn between mere appreciation and genuine attraction, especially considering the way dan fawns over his female/male crushes is very similar. i could maybe understand the uncertainty with phil, where he has far fewer male-specific declarations of attraction (although still plentiful - see the attraction thread), but to dismiss dan's ever-increasing male attraction references doesn't make much sense to me.
with this line of thinking, surely dan crushing on jennifer lawrence, st vincent etc. also doesn't mean shit. i'm bisexual and i have to deal with people dismissing my relationships with women as transient/a phase/not as 'real' as my relationships with men, so maybe this hits a nerve, but i don't see how we can default dan to being heterosexual when nowadays his comments about being attracted to men outweigh his comments about women.
i think it is also important to consider that dan is hyper-aware of his audience and is very much in tune with 'social justice' topics. it would be highly surprising to me if dan was making these overt statements of male attraction if he were straight - it would be disingenuous to his audience to be so ambiguous about his sexual orientation if he were in fact straight.
) I think they now recognise this freedom of expression and being so aware of what their fans are like, Dan obviously feels comfortable crushing on Evan, envying Nick Jonas' 12 pack, asking Troye to enter him ( 
), without fear of being anything other than ambiguous self. Ambiguity is part of their brand, and I really do think that Dan especially realises this and makes the most of his genuine feelings to an extent that is ok without (is queer baiting an appropriate term in this context?). Apologies if all this makes 0 sense, I can 100% see where you are coming from. I'm a mess. Your first point does confuse me a little, the fact that there have literally been no sightings with anyone but each other and friends. But going back to my original point.. they are extremely busy people. They are seemingly at the peak of the career, and being nerds and procrastinators, does that really leave much time for a relationship? Celebrities get away with going on dates without being spotted, and we know much less about their private life then a lot of us like to think. So I still stand by the fact that I think they are both single pringles, or actively dating around. I have two family friends who are both 26, and 29. They're both really nice, funny, good looking, love video games/board games/movies/books, have great jobs. Both single.. they've only ever had one long-time girlfriend. Is this relevant? Maybe not, but it puts it into perspective that just because two guys are in their mid/late twenties, being in a long term relationship isn't inevitable.bedhead91 wrote: I'm just going to respond to to this as someone who is more on the 'believer' side of phanagnostic, though I always like to keep an open mind. I'm just assuming that it would be okay to post my opinions on this thread as well? I do agree with you on the fact that a successful professional life does not equal a successful love life, but I find it a bit odd that neither of them have been linked romantically to anyone else since they met. Not even rumors that could be backed-up with some sort of argument (I'm not counting the Danrific/Philrific rumors here, which is only based on the fact that Cat is one of the only girls that Dan and Phil hang out with on a regular basis.) I'm fairly certain neither of them are asexual, I can't imagine that either of them would be happy with being single for seven years. Dan could easily play up the whole #relatable card in his videos by talking about how 'awkward and forever alone' he is, but yet he never does. Before he met Phil, he essentially had three girlfriends back to back since the age of twelve. Yes, Dan is a bit of an awkward nerd, but it's definitely never been hard for him to get a girlfriend. It seems weird that he would go from being constantly in relationships to being single for so long.
They get recognized almost every time they go out in public, and neither of them have been spotted in public with a date, well, ever. I don't think it's realistic to assume that they would be able to keep up a secret relationship for long with a stranger without someone finding out...as we all know from this forum, the Phandom is essentially a massive group of stalkers.
I think it's interesting to see that some people have such a different perspective on things, because both Dan and Phil do ping my gaydar (they always have, even back in 2009 when I first started watching them and didn't particularly care if Phan was a thing). Dan does talk about LGBT+ stuff from time time in a way that makes me think he is more than an ally, like when he talked about tearing up when he watched Connor Franta's coming out video in a liveshow. I also remember him talking about watching Lana Wachowski's acceptance speech about being transgender, and he was impressed by how much she was doing for the 'community' (his own words.)
Also, just because you are LGBT+ does not necessarily you have to be an activist/take particular interest in the community. I've never marched in a pride parade or get involved with LGBT+ stuff, doesn't make me any less queer. I think it's a small fraction of my personality, and I have other interests I find more important, which I imagine is how Dan and Phil see things.
Idk, as a bisexual person (not that this makes me an expert or anything) I can't help but pick up on how Dan gets a bit tense around attractive guys (like the Harries twins and Connor Franta. Remember when he called Connor 'daddy'? ) He taks about men in a pretty sexually explicit way, way more than just 'I find this person aesthetically pleasing.' People make the argument that he could just be joking, but if that's the case it's a pretty long-running joke, as he's been doing this for years.
Sorry this turned into an essay.
I think this is the category I would put myself in. In honesty, it doesn't really bother me either way if they are, or aren't together but I like to try and see points from both sides of the arguement. I love a good conspiracy and I'm a huge cynic so I end up spending a lot of time looking for answers to the other side of a popular opinion just for discussion purposes. I always like to have the "but what if xyz" discussion points just to make things a bit more interesting.blueapple_x wrote:I consider myself phan agnostic; I go through phases of believing and not believing in phan (it's very annoying for me lol). But I do find them cute together.
This so much. The conspiracy and what if aspect is what interests me the most. Like, why cover it up, if it's true is there a whole network of peple that are keeping this secret, why don't they just address it if not real and get it out of the way. I just want answers.missemma wrote:
I think this is the category I would put myself in. In honesty, it doesn't really bother me either way if they are, or aren't together but I like to try and see points from both sides of the arguement. I love a good conspiracy and I'm a huge cynic so I end up spending a lot of time looking for answers to the other side of a popular opinion just for discussion purposes. I always like to have the "but what if xyz" discussion points just to make things a bit more interesting.
The way I kind of see it, is that their relationship, whatever that is is special. It doesn't matter to me if that is p-l-a-t-o-n-i-c (true) or sexual, it's none of my business either way at the end of the day.
There are definitely a few of us on IDB that were fans in 2009/2010, but whether you'll find any that were invested enough to give you a definite answer to your question may be more difficult. They had, what, 80 000 to 300 000 subscribers at the time, and only a portion of those people would have been following them on other social media. I can tell you that whatever was going on was not meant for casual fans, so I doubt it was meant as any sort of mass marketing plan (at least early on). I watched probably every AP video as they came out between 2008 and 2010, and about half of Dan's videos and I had no sense that there was anything going on between them (I was generally pretty sensitive to that stuff at the time too). If I had been following them on other social media, maybe, but I wasn't and honestly the way they acted around each other wasn't all that weird for a couple of emo-ish boys on youtube.1. The phan time line is always bought up as evidence that they were together. When I first got into Dan and Phil I read the time line and I was convinced, yes they are/were together but as the time has gone on, and I've read Dan's denials about them being together I just don't care enough about it to want to analyse EVERYTHING they say just to see if it contains any hints about them being a couple. The fans that were around in 2009/2010, this is where I would like to hear from you more (if there are any around in IDB) because things can be taken out of context so much, and there is no context for the time line in my opinion. Yes, there are tweets and formspring answers that make it look like they were together (that cannot be argued), but what about the other texts they would have sent to each other in those 2 years, there might have been tweets to other youtubers/friends that we don't have that might give us a diferent perspective, difficult to ascertain now seeing as Dan deleted a chunk of his tweets.
I can definitely see why people would be disappointed if they weren't together though, the last 18 months there has been a change in the dynamics of D&P, with the book, the tour, appearing in each others videos all the time. They have appeared more coupley than ever in my opinion & if all of that was just for branding purposes and £££ then that would be a massive shame & kick in the face for their fans. I don't believe they are that calculated though - they're certainly two of the bigger youtubers that genuinely seem to care about what their fans think/want.
Please don't feel intimidated, I really feel like we need more people with slightly more nuanced opinions on the main thread! Most of us have are on so tight that I think a reality check every once in a while is a good thing (mostly because I think it's just a lot more entertaining to speculate about them as a couple. Also, I feel like a lot of our 'Deppy are so married' talk is not meant to be taken too seriously, in the same way that the /furry talk is all tongue-in-cheek.) I apologize if I come across as one of 'those' people, though I feel like I'm much more of an aggressive 'Dan is not straight' person than I am a hardcore Phan shipper. Again, people reigning me in once in a while helps keep the discussion more balanced.Anyway, that is why i don't post in the main thread... it feels like everybody there is so settled in "phan is real" wagon, it's intimidating.
[offtopic][/offtopic]blueapple_x wrote:[offtopic]I feel like this is the best place to ask this question (even though it's not regarding phan).[/offtopic]
how do you get the fancy show button?kooshka wrote:[offtopic][/offtopic]blueapple_x wrote:[offtopic]I feel like this is the best place to ask this question (even though it's not regarding phan).[/offtopic]
When I first saw the video I thought that he was talking about sexuality. I have seen discussion like this that convinces me otherwise though. Especially because he described Louise as a 'lady' or 'woman' or something, it seems likely that he was speaking about biological sex. That's not somewhere that people's minds necessarily go when watching Dan though, so it is a confusing statement.kooshka wrote:[offtopic][/offtopic]blueapple_x wrote:[offtopic]I feel like this is the best place to ask this question (even though it's not regarding phan).[/offtopic]
When I first saw the video I thought that he was talking about sexuality. I have seen discussion like this that convinces me otherwise though. Especially because he described Louise as a 'lady' or 'woman' or something, it seems likely that he was speaking about biological sex in terms of himself also. That's not somewhere that people's minds necessarily go when watching Dan though, so it is a confusing statement.spaceguitar wrote:kooshka wrote:[offtopic][/offtopic]blueapple_x wrote:[offtopic]I feel like this is the best place to ask this question (even though it's not regarding phan).[/offtopic]
I'm phan-agnostic and do agree with this a little bit, though I realise most of the time there is a tongue-in-cheek vibe to it all! I just think there are maybe a few too many of us who have those phan goggles welded on a bit too tightly, and personally I feel like I can't be anything but phan-agnostic when none of us can really say for sure either waygnostic wrote:Anyway, that is why i don't post in the main thread... it feels like everybody there is so settled in "phan is real" wagon, it's intimidating.
) ... I just don't knowdefinitely got the feeling he meant biologically speaking, as in androgynous. would have been a bold statement to make on that kind of video otherwiseblueapple_x wrote: When Dan said he was sexually ambiguous, do you guys believe he was referring to his sexual orientation or his biological sex?
Ok, at first I thought, "no way," but I just came across this on tumblr:blueapple_x wrote: When Dan said he was sexually ambiguous, do you guys believe he was referring to his sexual orientation or his biological sex?
Oh yeah ofc! Tbh I thought most people (whether or not they thought he meant sex or sexuality) took it that way where they felt Dan was describing how other people perceived him, not how he necessarily describes himself personally.daphenaxa wrote:on the off topic, honestly when he said "sexually ambiguous", I thought he referred to how he is perceived and not that he is actually ambiguous.
Like people are questioning his sexuality constantly and it's ambiguous because he hasn't given a clear statement on that, not because he himself is sexually ambiguous. A lot of people also describe him as feminine, there is the tall lesbian joke etc. so not that his gender is ambiguous to himself, just like his sexuality is not ambiguous to himself. But the ambiguity is in his audience's eyes.
lionheart wrote:
also I agree about the male attraction mentions thing, to me it's not as black and white as 'Dan mentions attraction to man = proof that he's gay/bi' (although I do believe he probably is bi). I suppose what I mean is that every time Dan mentions attraction to a man, it doesn't mean that it's necessarily always a sexual attraction/a definite indication that he wants to bang said man. (and same with the female mentions I suppose!) I mean he obviously made a few comments about male attractiveness in the anime vid, for example, but I felt like some of the interpretations of them here as being definite bi/gay-proof were reaching a bit (idk if I'm making sense, I'll probably try and explain this better another time)
I never thought about it as gender identity / sex ambiguous before. You guys open my eyes to other possibilities This! People can be so selective about what they consider the truth. I can't believe people use the customer service blog as an example for Phan existing. If anything it's a good example of the possibility of Phan not existing. He could be angry, not because he wants to hide Phan, but because the concept of Phan was ruining his friendship with Phil and completely taken over his channel. I did start watching in 2012 and when I read that blog I was completely anti-phan because why else would Dan get so angry over it?missemma wrote: 2. The customer service blog that Dan started is always bought up as antiphan proof but always gets dismissed because people feel Dan was "angry and rude". He may have been, I can't comment as I wasn't a fan in 2012, but he was quite clear in his answers that phan isn't real. I'll just leave this here though for thoughts; both him and Phil have admitted being bisexual so everyone clings onto that in discussion about their sexuality but yet Dan has outrightly denied phan (on more than one occasion) but people still don't believe him.
This really gets me though because Dan has played every other internet #relatable card in the book except for this one. I don't necessarily think it's evidence of Phan but I do think it's evidence that Dan could be hiding a relationship/s.bedhead91 wrote: Dan could easily play up the whole #relatable card in his videos by talking about how 'awkward and forever alone' he is, but yet he never does.
This is where am I, too.bedhead91 wrote:This is definitely a theory I could go for. I'm open-minded about their romantic relationship being real or not real, but one thing I just really can't get behind is the possibility of either of them being 100 percent straight.How about this theory:
Phan is not real, but Dan and Phil ARE both Bi. Neither can come out because then they would find it 100 times harder to disprove Phan.
Waiting for responses
I think the reason that this gets dismissed is not only because Dan was 'angry and rude,' but also because Dan lied about certain things in that same time period that have now proven to be true. This includes the story of how he and Phil met, and the sharing clothes thing. I think it makes people wonder how many of the other things he said were also fabricated. In my opinion, however, I completely agree with the fact that Dan's outright denial of their relationship shouldn't so easily dismissed.2. The customer service blog that Dan started is always bought up as antiphan proof but always gets dismissed because people feel Dan was "angry and rude". He may have been, I can't comment as I wasn't a fan in 2012, but he was quite clear in his answers that phan isn't real. I'll just leave this here though for thoughts; both him and Phil have admitted being bisexual so everyone clings onto that in discussion about their sexuality but yet Dan has outrightly denied phan (on more than one occasion) but people still don't believe him.
yeah I agree I actually think this could be a likely scenario. could go some way to explaining why he felt like he needed to lie about certain things like sharing clothes etc., because if he readily admitted to stuff like that it would have made it even harder again to disprove phan. I mean the fact that they've pretty much lived the life of a married couple since the day they moved in together doesn't help their case thoughleafy wrote:This is where am I, too.bedhead91 wrote:This is definitely a theory I could go for. I'm open-minded about their romantic relationship being real or not real, but one thing I just really can't get behind is the possibility of either of them being 100 percent straight.How about this theory:
Phan is not real, but Dan and Phil ARE both Bi. Neither can come out because then they would find it 100 times harder to disprove Phan.
Waiting for responses
Saying that, I'd say all signs point to them being involved in whatever way in the past.
Currently, *insert who knows/shrug emoticon*
(ps hi, second post, thank you to all who pointed me in the direction of this board)
Was he insecure about his sexuality specifically? He seemed pretty confident about it in 2009/2010 with the comments he made. I'd kind of thought the 2012 rants seemed more about denying the relationship, and misleading about his sexuality was part of the method rather than the goal. (i.e. "I'm not gay so obviously you should conclude phan isn't real" and ignore that those two are not mutually exclusive. This can go with the bi-but-not-dating theory also.)bedhead91 wrote: (He does infuriate me, though, reading back those customer service department replies. If I didn't see it as the insecure vitriol of someone struggling with their sexuality, I would have wanted to back in time just to tell him to stop being a drama queen. I mean, if the flirting and the Voldy video was just a fabricated mess of lies that he and Phil orchestrated, he had absolutely no right to get so upset at the idea that people thought they were together. They made their own beds and all that.)
I do think that Dan seemed massively insecure in his own sexuality at the time, far beyond just being 'misleading about his sexuality.' He seemed to get genuinely offended when people asked him if he was gay, to the point that he came across as homophobic. As someone who had openly gay and bisexual friends, and at one point in his life identified as bisexual, I truly doubt that was the case. In particular I remember there was this cringey moment in a liveshow from 2012 where he was talking about the openly gay Dr. Jessen, a UK TV show personality who was giving guys prostate cancer checks or something and he acted disgusted at the idea of a gay doctor examing him....for the life of me I can't find the link, so if anyone would like to post it, please feel free. The contrast with how Dan acts now in regards to sexuality and expressing male attraction is pretty phenomenal.apathy wrote:Was he insecure about his sexuality specifically? He seemed pretty confident about it in 2009/2010 with the comments he made. I'd kind of thought the 2012 rants seemed more about denying the relationship, and misleading about his sexuality was part of the method rather than the goal. (i.e. "I'm not gay so obviously you should conclude phan isn't real" and ignore that those two are not mutually exclusive. This can go with the bi-but-not-dating theory also.)bedhead91 wrote: (He does infuriate me, though, reading back those customer service department replies. If I didn't see it as the insecure vitriol of someone struggling with their sexuality, I would have wanted to back in time just to tell him to stop being a drama queen. I mean, if the flirting and the Voldy video was just a fabricated mess of lies that he and Phil orchestrated, he had absolutely no right to get so upset at the idea that people thought they were together. They made their own beds and all that.)
I've always thought a lot of Dan's outrage was intended to protect Phil as much or more than himself (even if just as a friend). Phil is a lot more private and specifically seems to want to keep everything about his personal life & relationships off the internet, but also didn't want to publicly fight about it. Enter young Dan trying to be a hero? I'd like to think he wouldn't be that harsh purely for his own sake considering how much he does care about and respect Phil.
Totally agree on deserving the results if everything was an intentional plan to "troll" people.
