IDB

SquishPhan wrote: Sat Oct 07, 2017 9:18 pm

SquishPhan wrote: Sat Oct 07, 2017 9:18 pm

malday wrote: Sat Oct 07, 2017 9:21 pm

SquishPhan wrote: Sat Oct 07, 2017 9:18 pm

An apartment with a skylight? nice. Phil is back to his tour through pictures.

freesocks wrote: Sat Oct 07, 2017 9:18 pm

alch wrote: Sat Oct 07, 2017 9:10 pm On assumptions affecting people's views on Dan and Phil -

To be honest, I think the assumptions that come into play the most here are more based off of Dan and Phil's fans than really much that they do.

Heteronormativity probably does play a role in people believing whether or not they're together, like yeah people probably wouldn't view them the same way if they were a man and a woman, but that's not really the main reason people don't believe they're in a relationship, and that's the way their shippers behave.

From what I've seen, people who haven't researched anything about their relationship see two guys who make videos together who haven't said they're in a relationship, and millions of people fainting every time they glance at each other. They assume that's it's just the same old fetishization of m/m relationships, and there's nothing more to it. They don't think there's any actual proof other than "dan looked at phil #phanconfirmed."

Yes, this summarizes what I thought when I first started paying attention to the phandom. In an earlier post I went into detail about what I thought when I was just barely a casual viewer and only watched DINOF occasionally, but this pretty much summarizes how I felt when I first started paying attention to the phandom from that place of casual viewership.

fancybum wrote: Sat Oct 07, 2017 9:29 pm

SquishPhan wrote: Sat Oct 07, 2017 9:18 pm

Oh shit, his second attic wife is making a break for it.

(ooh bee can you give me the name of the podcast? I want some spooky listening..)

fancybum wrote: Sat Oct 07, 2017 9:29 pm (ooh bee can you give me the name of the podcast? I want some spooky listening..)

fancybum wrote: Sat Oct 07, 2017 9:29 pm (ooh bee can you give me the name of the podcast? I want some spooky listening..)

bee wrote: Sat Oct 07, 2017 9:37 pm Damn, second attic wife growing claws, then escape is probably best.

(The podcast's called The Black Tapes! I'm not sure yet if I like it, but I'm half an episode in! )

Lain wrote: Sat Oct 07, 2017 9:39 pm I just logged in to ask this, so, seconding!

fancybum, if you want another rec, my favourite spooky podcast is The NoSleep Podcast. A lot of fantastic writer's are featured and the vocal performances are top-notch.

emerald wrote: Sat Oct 07, 2017 9:01 pmWhile I 100% agree (obviously) that calling someone homophobic because they don't ship a certain ship is wrong, I don't think that's what we're saying. Because we need to consider context here; we're saying that the reason a lot of Deppy's interactions are read the way they are is because of either (or both) heteronormativity and subconscious homophobia.

emerald wrote:I think that some of the things they do which are read as romantic shouldn't be read as romantic—sharing a bed on holiday, touching each other momentarily, etc. However some things they do which aren't read as romantic by casual viewers is definitely heteronormativity, because imagine if they were a man and a woman. For example, the way they look at each other and how soft they are around each other, how close they physically are when they're just casually sitting, the kind of gooey not-quite-platonic things they say about each other.

alostan wrote: Sat Oct 07, 2017 8:42 pm

Catallena wrote: Sat Oct 07, 2017 1:46 pm

alostan wrote: Fri Oct 06, 2017 8:56 am Okay so, I have a theory.
(This is probably just wishful thinking but whatever)

I was checking The Apprentice Twitter and I notice that they are following someone a little strange, Dan. Now I'm thinking, this is a little weird, since when has Dan expressed interest in the apprentice?

But, The Apprentice has had a YouTube episode the past (2?) years, where they have invited youtubers on.

Now I'm not saying that Dan is going going on The Apprentice or that it's produced by the BBC with whom he has links with. I'm also not saying that he was invited to be on Get me out of here and is it such a stretch he'd be invited on another reality show.

(I'm also not saying that they might film in March (I don't know for certain) , no of course I'm not saying that)

So now I've got my hopes to high and am prepared to get them crushed.

Was this a recent follow? Dan and Phil were involved in a promotional video for The Apprentice in 2013.

...How have I never seen this. I feel like a fake fan.
I think it is recent, on mobile he's at the top and (i think) they're not following Phil. I don't think it will happen, but i'm still gonna hope

alittledizzy wrote: Sat Oct 07, 2017 9:36 pm

freesocks wrote: Sat Oct 07, 2017 9:18 pm

alch wrote: Sat Oct 07, 2017 9:10 pm On assumptions affecting people's views on Dan and Phil -

To be honest, I think the assumptions that come into play the most here are more based off of Dan and Phil's fans than really much that they do.

Heteronormativity probably does play a role in people believing whether or not they're together, like yeah people probably wouldn't view them the same way if they were a man and a woman, but that's not really the main reason people don't believe they're in a relationship, and that's the way their shippers behave.

From what I've seen, people who haven't researched anything about their relationship see two guys who make videos together who haven't said they're in a relationship, and millions of people fainting every time they glance at each other. They assume that's it's just the same old fetishization of m/m relationships, and there's nothing more to it. They don't think there's any actual proof other than "dan looked at phil #phanconfirmed."

Yes, this summarizes what I thought when I first started paying attention to the phandom. In an earlier post I went into detail about what I thought when I was just barely a casual viewer and only watched DINOF occasionally, but this pretty much summarizes how I felt when I first started paying attention to the phandom from that place of casual viewership.

Ooh, I actually feel like this perfectly exemplifies my original point - that because it's two men, a situation is read differently than if it were a man and a woman. If you came across a man and a woman that made videos together that had a fanbase that treated them as if they were a couple and had been living together with a lack of other significant others for as long as Dan and Phil have - then I don't think most people's gut reaction would be, "Mmm, probably just teenagers/women fetishizing." Because it's two men, people come at it differently than if it were a man and women - without bothering to look further into anything to confirm their assumption

Katka wrote: Sat Oct 07, 2017 9:57 pm

emerald wrote:I think that some of the things they do which are read as romantic shouldn't be read as romantic—sharing a bed on holiday, touching each other momentarily, etc. However some things they do which aren't read as romantic by casual viewers is definitely heteronormativity, because imagine if they were a man and a woman. For example, the way they look at each other and how soft they are around each other, how close they physically are when they're just casually sitting, the kind of gooey not-quite-platonic things they say about each other.

The thing is, I wouldn't label these things romantic with a man and a woman either. That's actually my whole point since that's also pretty heteronormative, assuming that a man and a woman must be romantic because they're very close. My point is that, yes, these gestures might be romantic. But they don't have to be. For me, personally, the line between platonic and romantic interactions is where the inividual people draw them. I think that's why I'm agnostic. Deppy's interactions could well be romantic, of course I see that. But I have no idea if they're really romantic, if that's what deppy see them as, so I'm basically the shrug emoji about their relationship, waiting for them to clear it up once and for all. Which will probably never happen.

Just to make it clear: I agree that most people probably view two men differently than a man and a woman in the same situation and that sucks. But I don't think that's true for everyone who doesn't necessarily sees their behaviour as romantic.

alittledizzy wrote: Sat Oct 07, 2017 11:01 pm Does it look to anyone else like Phil might be sitting at a table, with a card game spread out in front of him?

alittledizzy wrote: Sat Oct 07, 2017 11:01 pm Does it look to anyone else like Phil might be sitting at a table, with a card game spread out in front of him?

confusedpanda wrote: Sat Oct 07, 2017 11:16 pm

alittledizzy wrote: Sat Oct 07, 2017 11:01 pm Does it look to anyone else like Phil might be sitting at a table, with a card game spread out in front of him?

Yes! That was one of the first things i noticed! Hmm board/card game night with some pals or just them maybe? Maybe in the upstairs lounge?

fancybum wrote: Sat Oct 07, 2017 11:06 pm

alittledizzy wrote: Sat Oct 07, 2017 11:01 pm Does it look to anyone else like Phil might be sitting at a table, with a card game spread out in front of him?

It could be a row of French toast.

alittledizzy wrote: Sat Oct 07, 2017 11:29 pm

fancybum wrote: Sat Oct 07, 2017 11:06 pm

alittledizzy wrote: Sat Oct 07, 2017 11:01 pm Does it look to anyone else like Phil might be sitting at a table, with a card game spread out in front of him?

It could be a row of French toast.

Shit. It is definitely a row of French toast.

alittledizzy wrote: Sat Oct 07, 2017 11:29 pm

fancybum wrote: Sat Oct 07, 2017 11:06 pm

alittledizzy wrote: Sat Oct 07, 2017 11:01 pm Does it look to anyone else like Phil might be sitting at a table, with a card game spread out in front of him?

It could be a row of French toast.

Shit. It is definitely a row of French toast.

Katka wrote: Sat Oct 07, 2017 9:57 pm

emerald wrote:I think that some of the things they do which are read as romantic shouldn't be read as romantic—sharing a bed on holiday, touching each other momentarily, etc. However some things they do which aren't read as romantic by casual viewers is definitely heteronormativity, because imagine if they were a man and a woman. For example, the way they look at each other and how soft they are around each other, how close they physically are when they're just casually sitting, the kind of gooey not-quite-platonic things they say about each other.

The thing is, I wouldn't label these things romantic with a man and a woman either. That's actually my whole point since that's also pretty heteronormative, assuming that a man and a woman must be romantic because they're very close. My point is that, yes, these gestures might be romantic. But they don't have to be. For me, personally, the line between platonic and romantic interactions is where the inividual people draw them. I think that's why I'm agnostic. Deppy's interactions could well be romantic, of course I see that. But I have no idea if they're really romantic, if that's what deppy see them as, so I'm basically the shrug emoji about their relationship, waiting for them to clear it up once and for all. Which will probably never happen.

Just to make it clear: I agree that most people probably view two men differently than a man and a woman in the same situation and that sucks. But I don't think that's true for everyone who doesn't necessarily sees their behaviour as romantic.

malday wrote: Sat Oct 07, 2017 11:59 pm It looks like a row of post-it notes, or sample cards maybe?

captainspacecoat wrote: Sun Oct 08, 2017 1:48 am I think at the end of the day it's important to remember that we're all inherently coming at this with our own internal biases, and that's something we can't escape. I see Dan and Phil as a) not straight and b) in a relationship, and I have done since I discovered them in late 2012, and that's likely a result of me also not being straight, as well as interactions and events which I personally interpret as romantic according to my own standards and when placed in context alongside the bigger picture of Dan and Phil's 8 year relationship.

Other people won't see it that way, and while I do sometimes think people will explain away things that would otherwise be considered to imply a romantic relationship out of heteronormativity, it would be disingenuous to dismiss all ""non-shippers"" (or whatever you'd call them) as homophobic, as at the end of the day we simply do not know the objective truth. I think so long as people are approaching things rationally and respectfully, that's all that matters - regardless of what it is we each individually believe.

I do however think that, while fetishisation of m/m couples does undoubtedly happen in fandom, it is used as a dismissal of people who believe they're together far too often. People who watch Jenna and Julien or Zoe and Alfie out of a specific desire to gush over their romantic relationship moreso than any particular interest in their individual content are never judged as fetishising straight relationships. And back when Dodie and Jon seemed to have some sort of romantic relationship going on people obsessively shipped them, and no such accusations were made. But that's a conversation for another day, I'll leave it there for now.

malday wrote: Sat Oct 07, 2017 11:59 pm It looks like a row of post-it notes, or sample cards maybe?

It looks like post-it notes to me, I can't really see it as anything else. Although, I'm dumb and when I first saw the photo I thought it was a weird chimney visible through the skylight and not a reflection of something inside