#i don't always feel romantic attraction like other folks do and it feels like i wouldn't be understood in a monogamous relationship bc of it

[fabulouslygaybean]

sexuality is so dumb. relationships are dumb. romance is dumb and sex is dumb and it's all too fucking complicated and weird

[vulto-cor-de-rosa]

I'm not really into Hazbin hotel but I've seen enough of the fandom to know that I hate how people just ignore the fact that Alastor is aroace just so that they can ship him with whoever they like.

"Oh but aromantic people can still date" Yeah! Some can! If they're demi-romantic or grey-romantic or anywhere else in the spectrum, they can and want to date and good on them! But the problem here is that we don't know where Alastor falls under the aromantic unbrela, and you using this excuse, especially if you're not taking into consideration this specific fact about his character, ends up feeling like you're erasing the representation that us aromantic folks are desperate for and using other aromatics experiences for a cheap get-away card!

You wouldn't ship a cannon lesbian with a guy, you wouldn't ship a cannon gay with a girl, and you shouldn't ship a cannon aromantic with anyone! The only times that it's ok for you to do this is if the character is in a relationship in cannon (like Ineffable Husbands, where both Aziraphale and Crowley are aroace but they are in a romantic relationship with each other) or if the creator said that the character can feel some degree of romantic attraction.

We, aromantic and asexual folk, get almost no representation in popular media outside of creators saying stuff like "oh yeah btw they are aro and/or ace" and when we have characters that are actual good representation like Alastor, Lilith from TOH or even Saiki, people always find a way to completely ignore that part of the character. All that we are asking is for you to not ship ONE character! ONE!! Is that so hard for you?? You have a cast full of shippable characters but you just HAVE to go to the one that happens to be aromantic!

And when someone calls you out, you say that it's no big deal, well it is a big deal for us! Let us have one thing. One character. That's all we ask and somehow you can't even do that, shame on you.

[writingdisposal]

Vox is soooo fucking hot dude

Vox as a regular romantic interest is pretty bad already, but as a yandere? He is insufferable. Of course, he will keep an eye on you wherever you go, even before you really meet him. I don't think Vox would use his powers to achieve his goal of pursuing you. It seems more that he would use it as a "last-didge" effort to secure you, but for that to occur Vox would have to be incompetent. He is anything but that.

You will fall for his charisma, his smooth voice that is so addicting to listen to, especially when he compliments you so well every chance he gets. Vox will make sure, whatever you see of him is nothing, but absolute perfection. Any show you watch starring him will be subtly be about how good of a partner he would be. A cook show where Vox creates your favourite meals. Another show talking about famous celebrities' relationships where Vox occasionally sprinkles in a "I don't know about you folks, but I can't imagine doing something like that!" when the relationship has some sort of drama to it.

I also imagine he would force some sort of meeting, assuming there is zero connection he and the other Vees have to you. Maybe he will make some low-life try robbing you and the 'oh-so' charming TV host Hell can't get enough of is there to save you. Maybe he just 'randomly' finds you sleeping in some alleyway, down on your luck, and he graciously offers you a job at his company. Or maybe he does an interview on Hell's population to see what their opinion is on the newest Voxtech.

Either way this man will find a way and have you fall for him. For the first few months he will even act the part of a loving and supportive partner. Over time though, Vox will change.

As usual Vox was monitoring the viewing charts as well as the money generated from the shows. Even though he was focused, he heard the elevator bringing someone up. No need to look, Vox knew who wanted to visit. "Hello babe," he said, still tapping away on the keyboard, "missed me that much, heh?" Giggling you hugged him from behind, "I can't hide anything from you, can I?" "No, you can't," Vox turned to you, kissing up your arm, "Mind helping me out a little here? I'm really tensed up and need some relaxing." You blush, pushing him back a little.

You wanted to tell him no, but he pulled you back with enough force to make you fall on his chair. He kissed your cheek. "Come on sweetheart, I've always been so good to you," Vox reminded you, static echoes scratchng his voice, "You should be more loving, you know." He was right. He was always so sweet to you and its time to repay the kindness. Even though it doesn't feel right, you will give in. You always will until it feels normal.

Once he knows you won't leave anymore, Vox will have outbursts in front of you. And because you are so used to his hot and cold attitude, you will find a weird mix of fear and attractiveness in his screams. Especially outbursts involving Alastor will be scary. Sometimes Vox forgets the position he is in and get rough with you. Of course, in instances like these he will apologise afterwards, but that might be the only times where the picture had so carefully painted crumbles.

If you ever decide to leave, Vox will know and put measurements to prevent it. It will be relatively successful, but once you're gone, Vox uses every available resource to secure you back. He will call everything just regular quarrel between lovers. The only sanctuary you might find is in the Hazbin Hotel, but this will lead to a smear campaign by Vox, so your stay is going to be questioned frequently.

Your chances of getting away from Vox are low and he will make sure, you realise he will forever be the better option in this godforsaken place, so be sweet and go to him willingly before he forces you to go.

[fandomsandfeminism]

So, this is going to be a little meandering and all over the place. But I'm trying to express this...web of thoughts I've been having lately around this issue of queer, and labels, and the way we talk about our history and the way the community conceptualized itself in this very digital age. And it's still kind of half formed, so...let's see.

So. OK.

One thing I see a lot online, especially with people who are just now coming out, is a sort of...overfixation on increasingly niche labels. Im not saying that having a very specific or newer label is bad, to be clear. Labels are rhetorical tools, use what is useful. They help with visibility and discussing specific issues. No issues there.

But watching people quibble over bi vs pan vs omni vs abro or non-binary vs genderqueer vs demigender vs genderfluid vs agender vs xenogender vs bigender vs gnc. Asexual or gray ace or demisexual or queerplatonic. And whether they are a biromantic lesbian demigirl or bisexual greyaromantic genderuid. And it's always just a little exhausting, ya know? Again, if those labels are meaningful and useful, that's great, but I see people *agonizing* over which they "really" are. Like if they pick the wrong word to describe themselves, they are coming out the wrong way, like they are wrong about themselves if they can't find the exact correct word on an FAQ list of lgbt vocabulary.

And how I think that relates to the way people talk about our CURRENT labels as though these labels have always been there and like the people described by these labels now have no common experiences with other labels. Like lesbians and bisexual women have absolutely nothing in common. Like butches and trans men have no shared history. As though trans women and drag queens have always been completely separate and unconnected groups. As though ace folks and nonbinary folks are somehow new to the scene, and not community members who were always here and just didn't have a separate label until more recently.

I *remember* watching the community make the switch from transvestite and transsexual, to differentiating between transsexuals and transgender, to basically just using transgender/trans. Those labels are not stagnant. None of our labels are some ingrained biological unchanging objective truth. Labels are rhetorical shortcuts to summarize this facet of our identity and lives and experiences- but they are just words.

And maybe this connects to the way people get really...weird about historical figures too. Like whether Sappho was a lesbian or bisexual, as though either of those words would have had any meaning to her. About whether Shakespeare was gay or bi, like he would have conceptualized his own identity that way. About what modern label Dr. James Barry would have used for himself if anyone could travel back in time and ask him.

And then I think about why queer feels so much more affirming, so much more a place of strength, than LGBT+. Not that LGBT as a label is bad, and I honestly probably prefer it for allies and outsiders to use. But as a community label- Queer, to me, says that all our experiences are queer experiences. Queer can be many things, but they are all queer. Regardless of how many genders or which specific genders you like, whether you have a romantic and or sexual attraction to whatever collection of genders, whatever thing your gender is doing today- all of it, ALL of it, once you step outside that cis, straight mainstream sexuality and gender norm- is queer. Equally queer.

Lgbt+ feels like we are still keeping all those labels separate, little boxes all lined up next to each other- different but a coalition. And while that isn't bad, I also think it isn't totally true.

[A caveat here, that there are times when more specific labels are very helpful. We don't want any specific kind of queer experience to be overshadowed or erased, and having more specific labels facilitates those discussions. Again, I'm not saying that we should eliminate or erase our more specific labels.]

But I think imagining our community as a collection of wholly separate groups that are just allied together, instead of one group that we are all equally in, can make it far too easy for exclusionists to sneak up and say "well ___ isn't REALLY lgbt. THEY aren't REALLY one of us. ___ dont belong."

If we take all the labels off all the crayons- red and pink and purple and blue and teal and green are not hard and fast divisions. They are artificial distinctions we have made- all of them are light, all of them the rainbow.

Anyway. I just think that, while everyone should use whatever labels bring them joy and are useful for them, we might be better off if more folks were ok with ALSO accepting the vast ambiguity of being queer.

[bird-inacage]

Only Friends: Why Ray will continue to inevitably hurt Sand

Episode 3 was just the first of many instances where Ray will hurt Sand. This is just the beginning folks.

Ray's Persuasive Teasing vs Sand's Defenceless Sincerity

By Ray's own admission, he likes teasing Sand to get a rise out of him. He finds Sand's "stupid" (aka sincere/honest) reactions endearing or amusing. A word of caution that what he says can't always be taken on face value. Flirting to him doesn't necessarily imply romantic intent.

Whilst Sand is helplessly sincere (sometimes to his own detriment). He approaches things with the gravity he feels they deserve, which could explain why he doesn't sleep with anyone who isn't his lover more than once. He prefers to keep a clear distinction between a hook-up, friends or lovers.

For all intents and purposes, Sand is trying to keep things pretty cut and dry with Ray. If friends is what they've agreed to be, he'll adhere to that. Yet it's Ray whose initiating in most cases and muddying the waters. Because Sand's defences against Ray are fairly non-existent, he's easily swayed against his better judgement to engage in behaviour that blurs those lines. Sand is weak to Ray's flirting because it's a form of flattery. It gives the illusion of being desired, of being needed. That's an easy thing for anyone to fall prey to.

As long as Sand allows himself to be under Ray's persuasion, he's in prime position to get hurt. His concessions permit Ray to continue taking the lead and dictating the terms. This will make it even harder for him to fight for what he wants when it comes down to it.

'I'm not like your other friends'

Sand makes a point of highlighting this. 'If I'm supposedly just your friend, then what are we doing? This isn't what friends do. And you certainly don't treat your other friends this way. So 'fess up, what does that make me?' Ray conveniently skirts around the question, because truthfully, I don't think he has any idea. Not yet anyway. He hasn't bothered to confront 'the why'.

Ray exhibits an avoidant personality type. Possibly due to his mother's death (repression) or due to his crush on Mew (unrequited). He chooses to go with the flow. He acts on impulse. He seems intent on numbing or distracting himself from thinking too much. You could even say this is ignorance by choice. Ray is either knowingly or unconsciously avoiding what this may imply. (Which will relate to the next point). All he's openly acknowledged is that Sand is "fun to talk to", while glossing over mutual attraction under the terms of their so called 'friendship'. As Mew points out - Ray is lonely. Whether he's seeking out Sand specifically or he's just seeking out company in general, isn't something Ray has determined yet.

With this in mind, Ray doesn't mean to hurt Sand with intent, but it's often a consequence of poor judgement. Ray may be a mess but he's shown to at least take his friendships seriously. He apologises when at fault. He knows when to recognise a gesture in good faith, and to return the favour. When he notices Sand is upset or hurt, he looks guilty. He has a conscience. He at least knows Sand doesn't deserve to be hurt by him.

Ray's crush on Mew

This is arguably the biggest reason Ray is blindsided. Until he's able to let go or move on from his crush, he can't face or welcome Sand's feelings. Ray can easily flirt and tease in the name of harmless fun because it doesn't mean anything, right? Why? Because he has already reserved those feelings for someone else. But Sand doesn't know this. He has no idea why Ray is emotionally unavailable to him.

Ray is predisposed to put Mew first. His loyalty to Mew will win out when pitted against Sand. There is every possibility that Ray is stubbornly holding onto his crush out of habit. He vehemently denies anything is going on between him and Sand, almost in a bid to convince himself he can't possibly like anyone more than he likes Mew. But why? Why close yourself off to other good things that may come your way?

The fear of loss. People can be compelled to stick to something despite knowing it's outcome, because the alternative is unknown. Ray has already accepted Mew's rejection of him. He's had time to familiarise himself with it. At least he knows where he stands. Despite not returning his romantic feelings, Mew still cares immensely for him as a friend. Ray highly cherishes that. He's very grateful that Mew is still a part of his life. Tackling a new relationship means subjecting yourself to the fear of rejection yet again and by extension the fear of loss. When Mew comments that Sand seems to be interested in Ray back, he only says "yeah?" vaguely, almost dismissively - as if he's determined not to entertain the idea.

By choosing to honour his feelings for Mew, anything that happens with Sand must and has to fall under the umbrella of 'friendship' by default. When Sand says "You're happy. I'm happy. We don't develop it", Ray suddenly looks uneasy, and follows that with "but I still want to talk to you". He seems worried that Sand might distance himself. He doesn't want to lose this connection but isn't prepared to jeopardise things with Mew. He's visibly relieved (but lucky) that Sand is happy with this arrangement. For now.

The issue comes when this is no longer okay with Sand. If and when the lines continue to get increasingly blurred or their feelings become too great to ignore, Ray will be forced to make a choice. Mew or Sand. It can't be both. Making a choice often means closing the door on the other. If Ray insists on holding onto the claim that they're just friends, that's going to read as flagrant denial or careless deception in Sand's eyes. One is Ray running away and refusing to confront his feelings, the other is actively misleading Sand to think there could be more when he didn't plan to drop his feelings for Mew.

Sand's burden of responsibility

When Sand says "I don't have the right to be upset with you," he's reminding himself that he shouldn't be hurt by Ray passing him up for another friend. Sand can't help feeling disappointed but he's also embarrassed by this fact - for getting his hopes up, for thinking Ray's 'special treatment' of him sets him apart. Sand was willing to stay in his lane. So whenever Ray starts to instigate physical intimacy, it sends Sand's rationale to go momentarily out the window.

The other reason why Sand is going to get hurt is due to his moral code. He's likely to take responsibility or blame for his part in this very personally. For enabling things to happen and develop when he should have put a stop to it for his own good. 'I should have known better', 'I should have seen this coming', 'I didn't control myself'.

Note: Man, was Episode 3 an absolute doozie. I'm still trying to make sense of everything that happened. I have had so many thoughts and it's been really difficult trying to pick apart everything.

[manlicker69]

★ Characters involved :: Post mafia Dazai Osamu; BSD/ Bungou Stray Dogs, male reader/self insert (sorry i'm super gay lolzies)

★ Genre :: sfw, angst, nsfw

★ Contains :: sexy , romantic love and sex , anxiety/panic attacks, depression, self harm, suicide (thoughts,attempts,ideations) , dead dove do not eat? , softy dazai , you can tell I'm extremely mentally ill :skull:

★ A/N :: If you're struggling with any aspect of your mental health or self harm, please seek help. I know what those dark times, thoughts, and feelings feel like. It's scary reaching out to people, but it is such a big help for your mental health and safety. Please be careful reading the "angst" section if you continue. | Have any suggestions or requests? Hit me up in my inbox! I will review anything you have to say!! :3

SFW UNDER CUT!

loves playing with your hair

like he'll be doing anything and he'll twirl your hair, braid it, play with it, anything

will unconsciously nibble or suck on your skin or smth

You'll be cuddling and he'll just suck on your fingers or arms like a baby

post pm dazai is such a cuddler like it's crazy

he'll embrace you in your arms like it's the last day on earth

SUPER CLINGYYY

you two would be at work and he gets withdraws just from not being next to you

such a praiser

he loves everything about you, and needs you to understand that

loves listening to music with you, your energy gives him more life than anyone else he's met

(for fellow autistic folks out there)

stimming? HE'LL STIM WITH YOU!!!! respectfully!!!

grrr you want to info dump abt your special interets(s) ???? he's so in love with the way you get excited and talk, he'll listen for hours

overstimulated???? will get everything you need to create a nest of comfort until the war passes

ANGST UNDER CUT!

cuddles your struggles away

panic/anxiety attack? he'll cradle you until the world stops spinning

once you're calm enough and you've given him consent, he would give slow, soft pecks and kisses to your face

self harm struggles? he knows how you feel

will talk with you about what's going through your mind

would bandage you up with lots of kisses and praise

he might even draw on your bandages so you wouldn't think of the pain when looking at them

late night talks

suicidal thoughts? he knows how to talk to you in this state

it's hard for him to see you suffer through things that he's been through

holds you no matter what through dark times

suicide attempts? he'll be your biggest supporter in life no matter what

he would never leave your side for a while (as if he isn't clingy enough)

wouldn't blame you, would only try to make your life happier, as he wish others did to him

depressed? cuddles and late night talks will help!

he understands everything you say, and knows how to make you feel better

self image issues? baby boy you're so handsome

kisses you in his favorite spots on your body

praises you non stop when he can tell you're not in a good mood

experienced S/A? will comfort you however he can to help you cope

its a depressing and harsh process to treat PTSD, so dazai lets you go at your own pace

only if you're determined enough to go through it

if you don't, he will constantly make sure he doesn't trigger you in any way

listens to mitski with you

NSFW UNDER CUT!

holy shit he's so hot

constantly asks for consent, because he should AND he always needs to know you're enjoying him

scars? embraces the fuck out of them

sometimes he'll even give you hickies over healed scars so all you'll think about is him

if he's feeling playful, maybe he'll even tickle you

everything's about you pretty boy

small dick/t-dick? he doesn't care, you're still just as handsome

he'll play with your sensitive areas as much as he wants, but he does it for his and your pleasure

loves seeing you squirm and hearing you whimper, moan, all that jazz

when he's inside you? oh my god

grab your hair, hips, anything, he's deathly attracted to your everything

usually he takes stuff slow and romantic, but if you two are feeling it then hell yeah you'll fuck to the moon!

you didn't come yet? do you wanna talk about it, or just let him fuck you into oblivion until you do?

lovesssss feeling you up, like good god you were gifted with such a beautiful body

kisses kisses kisses

loves when you kiss him too, finds it adorable when you drool on him lol

nipples?!??1/?!?!?!? it's his fav lollipop flavor

he's so romantic asjhskjks he can just make you hard doing pretty much anythinggg

stim during sex? he doesn't mind, he might even participate with you if he's feeling playful

stimming while giving him head? he loves seeing you enjoy yourself, stim on his cock all you want!

vocal stims/tics during sex? finds it hotter than normal because he's just ramming himself inside of you and you're enjoying yourself so much!!

mute? the sounds you make when he thrusts into you is enough for him, he’ll love you however you are!!!!

(might add if I think of more)

[visgrapplinghooks]

friendlinghood: a proposal

skip to "terminology" if you don't want the long explanation

QPRs are really difficult to talk about because of the way the modern queer community has kinda framed it as like "dating but without romantic attraction"

when that's not entirely true

I mean, you COULD say that's a kind of QPR but it'd be a mistake to frame all of it that way. this is in large part to internet misinformation and shit as well as amatonormativity from which a lot of relationship discourse is framed against

queerplatonicism, from my pov refers to what is essentially the natural byproduct of queer and neurodivergent people having close friends

the queer community has been aware for a while that its members would have close friendships that in some way violated traditional social norms for behavior outside romantic relationships or family, etc.

when you sit outside the neurotypical and patriarchal norm, the conventional social understanding of what relationships are kinda breaks down for you

you display levels of closeness and intimacy and affection that are "inappropriate" for neurotypical and patriarchal society. in most cases they're not formal relationships, but natural evolutions of friendships between queer and neurodivergent folks

cishet people actually do have variants on this like the concept of "blood brothers" where two men who love each other basically make a pact to always have each other's backs and be their support and they do the whole movie thing where they mix blood to bind them together (it's a very cinematic thing, but the point is it exists in the popular consciousness)

"romance" and "friendship" each refer to a set of social norms and expectations. there's like a whole narrative constructed around those concepts and people internalize and have their own versions of them

a lot of people probably have friends they want to fuck or kiss or cuddle or declare their undying affection for but it'd just be "weird" within the social boundaries of acceptability and so people pigeonhole their relationships into either friend or romantic partner.

queerplatonicism (from my pov) is essentially accepting or practicing relationships which are neither platonic or romantic or even strictly familial. many queer people have them with other queer people they're close to. if you know queer folks then you probably know what I'm talking about - the friends they have that they're not dating but seem intensely attached and close to. they usually have weird names for each other that go beyond friendship like they'll jokingly call each other wives and husbands and siblings and partners... but it doesn't feel quite entirely joking. they'll express a lot of physical affection in the casual way you might typically ascribe to romantic partners. they'll prioritize time with those people as much as any romantic partner they may have etc.

straight and cis people and neurotypical people obviously experience them to some extent, it's just that patriarchy was built around cishet neurotypicals in particular, so it tends to cling to their mindsets more strongly, and once you're already outside of the "bounds of normalcy" by being queer, ND, etc. then it's a lot easier to feel like it's okay for you to be in relationships that aren't "normal".

because like the idea of loving someone with your entire fucking being... it's so tied up in these cultural ideas on how to behave about those feelings and it never made sense to me, because if you just let yourself feel those emotions you start to realize there are people in your life that maybe you love so much more than friends. but "more than friends" is so washed up in romance that you force those feelings down and think "this is fine, I'm happy with being just friends, what else can we be?"

maybe I don't want to have sex or hold hands on a ferris wheel or get. married or kiss or any of that. maybe I just want to exist in the same room as that person know that that person is in my life and know that person cares about me just as much as I do them.

terminology

I've started to use the term "friendling" in my day to day life, now. the term is a portmanteau of "friend" and "sibling" and "loveling" (the english cognate of the German word "lieblings" which can mean "favorite", but is also a term of endearment).

to me, it's probably the most accurate way to describe the Everything All At Once feelings that are simultaneously your weird friends that are your found family and also "romantic" but twisted beyond recognition where the term stops meaning anything.

I'm just throwing this word and explanation out there for anyone who feels like me and wants to use it too. not exclusive to queer people or neurodivergence or anything, I just think it's often easier to be cognisant of those feelings when you are queer and neurodivergent.

that being said, I do NOT want this to be folded into another "attraction label". this is, as far as I can tell, not a unique form of attraction but quite literally the opposite. it's an abstraction of the core impulses of attraction that ALL humans experience without the labels or social structures built around it. I do not want the language that I've spent so long trying to find for my experiences losing all of its value and being reapporpriated into the amatonormative, allonormative, and cisheteropatriarchal framework.

"friendlinghood" - is what I see as an attribute of relationships and the extent to which they deviate from socially conventional definitions of a relationship.

"friendlingship" - used grammatically like friendship. referring to any complex relationship acategorically.

"friendling" - used grammatically similar to friend. referring to those involved in any complex relationship acategorically.

all of this shit is nebulous and doesn't really mean anything beyond what meaning you choose to give it. I think any relationship can have some amount of friendlinghood and I don't think there's a clear line between friendlingship and friendship or romance or family, because it's not a type of relationship in the first place. it's just silly words I made that helped me.

language and labels

so the biggest problem with terminology like this is you can end up creating labels. my point was to create personal terms for myself and my relationships because that's what helped me personally process my own feelings.

that's not to say everyone needs or benefits from them. you can just vibe and do whatever you want and many people are happy with that.

I don't think words like this being codified and standardized really helps anyone. it's unavoidable that we as humans like articulating feelings, but the entire point of my interactions with friendlinghood is about certain things defying labels and language. language in this sense is just a tool, it's a hammer for a nail. it's not embodying the concept itself, it's just useful shorthand.

I will still freely refer to friendlings as close friends, best friends, found family, and other words. as long as I know the intention behind it is all that matters. I just needed that initial bit of language to articulate the feelings before the other words felt right to me.

[charonte-simi]

Was talking to that traveler about the concept of "romantic" attraction/love and I feel like I kinda just settled on the conclusion that it seems to be a classification that's more or less reserved for monogamy.

Romantic gestures are suppose to be things you reserve for and are exclusive to one specific person. But I feel like I do the shit that folks would call romantic for anyone and everyone that I care deeply about. It doesn't feel "romantic" to me, it's just me showing that I care about them.

In monogamous relationships, romantic and sexual affection are reserved for one person only and they almost always have to go hand in hand. For me those things can be totally separate and I was calling these relationships "platonic" but I'm beginning to think that the classification of "romantic/platonic" are kind of pointless?

I practice Relationship Anarchy so I don't expect any of my friendships/relationships to follow a set course of progression and they never need to evolve past what feels good in the moment. So I can perform acts for my friends that would be seen as romantic and/or sexual to an outsider but not need the relationship to change past what we already have and I don't usually need that action to be reciprocated.

I think I do feel that same love that people slap the "romantic" label on but it doesn't mean anything more to me than any other kind of love, it doesn't feel any different than "platonic" love because those distinctions are just, unnecessary.

[the-world-of-nai]

birth chart analysis: ariana grande

hi yall! today i am in the mood to do a celeb birth chart analysis. if u have any celebs u want to see next, leave in the comments below <3

. *. ⋆ . *. ⋆ . *. ⋆ . *. ⋆

ariana grande, or as i like to call her: the manifesting queen.

i am a new astrologer, so i will only be focusing on the big 6. i am still learning about houses and sextiles and all that, so i won't be including too much of it.

sun in ♋︎, 5 degrees + mercury in ♋︎

this makes ariana a first decan cancer: the most cancer of cancers. i like to say the sun sign is the sign of ego and how we view ourselves. ariana is someone who has a tough shell to crack, but once you're in her squad she will take care of you like a mother does her child. cancers are like crabs: sharp and pointy claws, but very nurturing and caring to her children. in this case, children = loved ones. cancers can exhibit mean girl energy in that way. they have a clique of close friends that they give everything to, but if they don't know u they can be quite cold/closed off. with this placement, ariana is emotionally in tune with those around her. she knows what you need if you're feeling down. sun in cancer people can also be quite moody, temperamental, sensitive, and romantic. like i said earlier, quite caring and loving. cancers are not as psychic as other water signs, but they are very compassionate and sensitive, and always want to give and help their loved ones (at least the developed cancers). cancers can also be quite vindictive, and they can have a bit of victim complex as well. think self pity parties. that is one of their shadow traits. they can wallow in their own victimhood and sadness every now and then. this can make them emotionally manipulative, moody, and hard to deal with on their off days.

moon in ♎︎, 6 degrees

this makes ariana a first decan lunar libra, again the most libra of libras. the moon indicates are inner-most self and our emotional regulations. with the moon being in libra, ariana is a social butterfly. she is very charming, fashionable, artistic, and cares a lot about aesthetics. she really values looking good and presentable. high social status and being well liked are also very important things to her. moon in libra folk are hopelessly romantic and really value romantic relationships (this explains her back-to-back relationships). this placement can easily make someone fear being alone. moon in libra folk are very diplomatic as well. they value justice and harmony, and will do what they must to sustain it (this can explain why ariana never publicly speaks about her scandals!!). she knows what to say and how to say it to make people adore her. effortlessly attractive and pleasant to be around.

venus in ♉︎

the venusian influence is strong here! with moon in libra and venus in taurus, ariana is very attractive and alluring to other people. venus in taurus folk are friendly, grounded, charming and they are they type who attract suitors instead of going and pursuing them. they are the ones who are pursued. ariana takes her time getting to know people. she is very friendly, charming, and grounding to her loved ones. venus in taurus people can be artistically inclined because venus is at home in taurus. it gives you a good eye for aesthetics and beauty. venus in taurus also has developed senses, so it can make you very good at cooking, singing, fashion, etc. arianas tastes are refined and lavish. she values luxury and the simple yet good things in life: think a nice steak (i know she's vegan) with some red wine and satin silk bed sheets. venus in taurus folk are thorough and slow moving at times. they value peace and comfort, as well as hard work, sensibility, and stability.

mars in ♍︎

this placement makes ariana a very detail oriented person. it can also mean that she is rather self-critical. someone with this placement may be very health conscious and body conscious. also with venus in taurus influence, they care a lot about their body looking good. she is meticulous and organized. once she decides she wants to do something, she will plan it out and do it thoroughly. once again, she values hard work and organization, similar to the venus in taurus influence. this placement can also make her a clean freak!! and a bit of a nagger too LOL

༶•┈┈୨♡୧┈┈•༶

ariana has been receiving hella backlash lately, but i am such a big arianator like i love that b*tch to death!! manifesting to meet her one day

anyways, so that's it for this analysis. let me know your thoughts in the comments and which celeb you want me to do next <3

[dwobbitfromtheshire]

Don't mind me, it's Rueleigh. I'm just rambling about Stancy and their trauma over Barb again. Ignore me if you want to.

I know some people don't understand this, but Nancy and Steve's story isn't finished. A lot of things were left unsaid, and both of their traumas over what happened to Barb were buried. People want to get mad at Steve for trying to deal with it by pretending to be okay, but Nancy was pretending as well. She was pretending like she didn't love Steve, that she was just holding on to him because of Barb. She spent all that time pretending, feeling guilty because a part of her thought it was their fault that Barb died, and maybe by the both of them going to dinner with Barb's parents, they were absolving themselves of their sins. Their was nothing to absolve because despite what some people say, they didn't do anything wrong that night. The reason why Barb's death keeps being brought up for Nancy is because she thinks she worked through it, absolved herself of her sin by getting justice for Barb and letting Steve go. All she did was bury it down deep and pretend. But she needs Steve to work through it. Even if you guys don't ship them, that's a fact. It happened to both of them. Barb died the night they both had sex. As they say, it takes two to tango. People think that Steve doesn't feel guilty. They should realize that his problem connecting romantically with other people who aren't Nancy isn't just because he's still in love with her. Whether he realizes it or not, he feels guilty about what happened, and even though they didn't show it, it probably caused a lot of performance issues. They both need to work through it together, and I think once they do that, once they acknowledge that it wasn't their fault, we can all stop seeing Barb's death when we look at them, we can finally see what they would they would like once the cloud of Barb's death isn't hanging over them. Their story is not finished. Even when I hated the idea of them together, I recognized that. I hope they can finally heal together. Time away is what they both needed, I only wish Nancy had spent it single and with Jonathan as a friend. Steve got a real friend in Robin, and I think that's what Nancy needs as well. I hate the idea of Robin and Nancy together because they finally give her a friend who she has no romantic ties with, who she can form a connection with without any of those strings. Robin is her platonic friend, a best friend that she can finally allow herself to have since Barb died. Steve is the love of Nancy's life, whether people realize that or not. Robin is her best friend, her romantic partner's platonic soulmate. I love that for Robin too because she needs to have a woman friend she isn't attracted to. Nancy clearly isn't her type. (She prefers blonds and redheads, duh.) I just think Robin is also a good way to help them both through that, too. The three of them just lean on each other. Eddie's death and eventual resurrection (that man is NOT dead) will also, in some way, help them through it, especially when they see him reunite with Chrissy. And as much as I love Steddie, Eddie would make a good friend for Steve, too. Hellcheer, Stancy, and Rovickie have always been endgame for me even when I hated Stancy. I no longer hate Stancy, though. That's all, folks. Woowee! This is a long one.

[jinkieswouldyoulookatthis]

Rant about folks' interpretations of Dean's sexuality below the cut

So in canon, Dean identifies as het. In canon, even though they have an impossible (even for them) to properly define relationship, even they know that "brother" seems inadequate, Sam and Dean are not romantically or sexually attracted to each other. Even though, in canon, we are never shown a single moment of definitive attraction between Dean and another male character that isn't fraternal/platonic or aesthetic in nature, folks still insist that Dean can't be straight. They look at how he prioritizes fraternal friendships over any other type of relationship, how he idolizes masculinity and all its tropy trappings, and they claim that means he must be, at least unconsciously, attracted to men in a romantic or sexual way. But what this does is brush off the existence of any other types of attraction as if they are less than sexual/romantic attraction. Platonic/fraternal and even aesthetic attraction are not weaker, or secondary, or of any less importance. And treating them as nothing more than indicators of other types of attraction is fucking insulting. Platonic attraction is just as valid and desirable as sexual or romantic attraction. It is just as fulfilling. It is just as healthy and normal and good. One of the things that makes Dean's character so fascinating is that he is not primarily motivated by sexual or romantic attraction. Obviously he feels sexual attraction... to women, as has been well and thoroughly covered by the text of the show. And while we don't see nearly as much about his romantic involvements, we do see him get incredibly, adorably schmoopy towards both Cassie and Lisa, and other women who are sweet towards him. So despite his claims that he doesn't do chick flick moments we're also shown just enough to know that isn't entirely true ("You love chick flicks." "Yeah, I do."). But what we are shown is very strong familial bonds, primarily fraternal, that he prioritizes above everything else. Brother and brother-in-arms relationships are the cornerstone of who Dean Winchester is. <- THIS IS A FEATURE NOT A BUG. The rampant homoerotic subtext of the show makes this feel very confusing, makes it feel like there is more there than we are being shown, because that's what subtext does. But it is really, vitally important that subtext never, ever be confused with the text, because the text is (generally) objective while subtext is always subjective. Now, I say text is generally objective because the reliability of the narrative voice can change this, but until the text tells us something, all we are doing is making interpretive guesses at what the subtext may mean in relation to the text. So even if a viewer is picking up on something possibly more going on between Dean and Sam, or Dean and Cas, or Dean and Benny, or Dean and Crowley (although there is a strong argument to be made that Dean actually had sex that directly involved Crowley, which is entertaining to me because Crowley is, I think, the only character this can honestly be said of, but even still there is zero text stating that Dean was ever attracted to him in a sexual way), or really Dean and any other character because, let's face it, Dean has chemistry with everyone and everything on screen with him, that does not mean that there actually IS anything more going on between them. Full stop.

[aromantic-diaries]

Hey I'm sorry if it's a weird thing to ask or too intrusive (you don't have to answer if you don't want to), but I was wondering whether most aros are introverted or extroverted.

Sometimes I wonder whether I'm actually aro or just too introverted, because the thought of dating someone, meeting them everyday, being at their beck and call every single moment is just exhausting. I do feel I'm somewhere on the arospec because I haven't felt romantic attraction to anyone (if it can be summed up as the desire to kiss or cuddle or hold hands), and romantic gestures make me feel uncomfortable, if not repulsed.

It's almost as if people start having a certain expectation from you, and it's your "job" to do what they want, not because you want to, but as an obligation. There's just too much pressure to keep your partner happy, and frankly it sounds really illogical to me to be so solely dependent on one person to this extent.

Earlier I thought these feelings stemmed from being introverted, but are there any aros who aren't introverted but feel the same way.

PS. I'm really sorry if it's too long. Thanks for creating this page. Have a nice day! :)

Hi! Personally I don't think orientation and personality are tied together and it depends on the person. I think being introverted is kind of a stereotype for aspecs and a lot of people do fall into that category but others are quite extroverted, people are just people at the end of the day and there is no singular aro archetype that describes us all

I'm an introvert for the most part though I can be more talkative around people I'm comfortable with, and for a while I thought the reason I didn't get into dating when everyone my age was already doing it was because I'm just not that outgoing, plus dating is kind of harder for introverts since you gotta have some guts to approach someone and be charismatic. A lot of aromantic people are pretty extroverted though, for example I've heard of the type of aro who's just really friendly to everyone and doesn't realize that they come off as flirty.

And yeah what you said about romantic gestures sounding like a job is a pretty common experience for most aros (especially those of us who are romance repulsed). I think most of us can relate to that feeling regardless of personality type, since when it comes to alloromantic folks they genuinely enjoy romantic gestures and it's not a task for them to complete and romance doesn't come with a to-do list, even for introverts it's something they want to do.

Hope you find this helpful, I'm always up for giving bits of advice to anyone figuring themselves out

[noa-ciharu]

Whenever I see aro/ace discourses and whether they belong in LGBTQ+ spaces, my initial thought is always the same:

Who are you to decide?

What none tells you about being on aromantic and/or asexual spectrum is how isolating it is. You feel lonely. And it's constant. Lonliness because of identity isn't always overwhelming, but it's present somewhere deep down. You feel lonely not because of lack of sexual/romantic attraction but because of society and amatonormativity.

When I was in elementary school, all my friends had crushes. I never understood that because even if I liked someone, it was always in platonic way. They insisted I couldn't possibly not like anyone and I felt forced to fake a crush. In middle school people started dating each other and I comforted myself with "I'm too young for that, time will come". By the high school I already knew something was "wrong" with me, I wasn't like the others. People began having sex not because they were expected to do that but because they actually wanted to. That was such shock to me, I thought media was exaggerating with passion and attraction but apparently all those things happen irl too. Hence I realized I was "the weird one". I forced myself to have same experiences but it felt more like obligation to me than something I trully wanted. I felt dirty after being touched, it repulsed me. I felt like something is broken within me for not enjoying sex. I could never fall in love. People called me coldhearted, they thought something was wrong with me. Few therapist tried to "fix" me, even set me up on dates. I internalized all of that and began seeing myself as "not normal".

Now that I'm older and know there's nothing wrong with me or being aroace, I still can't shake years and years of "I'm not normal" I experienced. It still haunts me. I hear someone talking about their sexual experiences and part of me still feels "not normal" when seeing how "normal" people live. I feel lonely. Parents insist I must find a partner one day. They don't believe i don't experience romantic attraction towards other people. Outside of aspec communities online, I don't experience any support. When I step outside, I still feel like something is wrong with me. Intentionally or not, society still makes me feel like an outsider. It's because of amatonormativity that roots too deep.

There's nothing wrong with people being romantic or sexual, far from that - but vast majority of cishet folks out there expect me to act same as them. Mere thought of someone looking at me as sexual being makes me cringe. I never felt romantic attraction towards anyone. I don't want to be in a relationship - I'm different from the "rest". It's lonely. Felling of isolation became association to me as part of identity. I don't even form closer platonic bonds because inevitable question of my romantic/sex life would inevitably come. For the longest time I felt like I needed to censor that part of myself. I assimilate with surroundings and hope noone finds out my "little secret".

If we as society educated kids more about LGBTQ+ stuff, then maybe this chronic feeling of isolation in aspec communities would diminish in few generations. However what I can say is that from very early age I experienced romantic/sexual attraction very different from what is considered "standard" - and that is why I relate to LGBT experiences innumerous times more than I will to "standard' heterosexual heteroromantic ones.

So stranger on the internet, who are you to swept all my complicated feelings and experiences regarding sexuality under rug because they can't fit in your narrow definition of how romantic and sexual attraction should be.

[jaydenchip404]

Any Ideas what this is?

I'm kinda all over the place with what I want in relationships. Sometimes I'm like, totally solo—no partners at all. Other times, I'm all about that one-on-one vibe. But then, I can also be down for a whole bunch of partners at once. I'm mostly into monogamy type relationships, but I'm also cool with dipping my toes into polyamory. I'm mainly curious about polyamory. I'm not one of those ambiamorous people who are totally cool with both—I'm more about monogamy, but I'm open to exploring poly stuff when I feel it or when the chance pops up.

I'm super chill about my romantic stuff. I'm not really into real-life romance stuff, but I'm all about those romantic ideas and fantasies. I'm all about those fictional crushes too. Sometimes I kinda feel a little something for people IRL, but it's not a big deal or anything, and it doesn't happen a lot. When I do feel romantic-y for someone IRL, it’s weak and fades away very fast. I'm into all genders, but it's different depending on the situation. Like, sometimes I'm more into someone, but it's not that I'm dying to date them or anything. And I'm not always sure if what I'm feeling is just friendship or if it's something more. I'm only really into someone if they're into me first.

My sexual orientation is superfluid. I can be into all sorts of different genders without any limits. I'm into thinking about sex and stuff, but when it comes to actually doing anything, I'm kinda meh about it. Sometimes I feel I'm not even really there when I'm thinking about it. Also, I'm into fictional characters in that way. I can be attracted to anyone, guys, girls, whatever, but it's not always super strong or anything, and again it’s weak and fades away very fast. Even though I might feel attracted, I'm not really into the whole dating or hooking up thing. I'd rather just not do that, even if I think someone's sexual/romantically attractive.

I don't really get into that whole platonic attraction thing. But when I do happen to feel it, which is very rarely, I'm cool with all sorts of people, no matter their gender or sex. Like, it kinda matters, but not really. It's more about the vibe they give off or something.

I only start feeling all mushy and stuff about someone after I've gotten to know them super well, like after already being in a pre-determined relationship, like already being friends, sexual partners, lovers, etc. It's not just about what they look like or if they're a boy or a girl or whatever. I'm all about those deep connections and feelings, and that's what gets me all fluttery and stuff. My journey just shows how feelings and emotions are way more important than just who someone is on the outside. Like, I don’t care about their gender or anything.

I'm totally into all kinds of people. But gender still plays a big part in who I'm into, though it's not the only thing. I'm really into folks who have that feminine vibe, whether they're actually girls or not. And I'm also into people who have more of a masculine energy, even if they don't identify as guys. I'm attracted to all genders and only have a preference of my sexual and romantic attraction. I do not have a preference when it comes to platonic, sensual, and aesthetic attractions, or any other attraction that isn’t sexual and romantic, I guess you could say.

[hard--headed--woman]

Happy Pride Month 🏳️‍🌈

In one of my last posts, I talked about how I wished people used real lgb people to celebrate our culture and history instead of using straight celebs and calling them "queer icons 😍😍", and it made me decide to do something : everyday, I am gonna post about a real same sex attracted celebrity, or tell the real story of real lgb people in history.

For this first day I am just going to talk about my favourite singer ! She's very famous, so you probably already know her, but all opportunities to talk about how amazing she is are good haha.

Yes, that's Tracy Chapman !

Born on 30 March 1964 in Cleveland, Tracy Chapman is a singer and song writer, whose musical style combines blues, folk and soul. She is known for her pure, beautiful voice, as well as for her strongly protesting and committed lyrics - and for her wonderful music in general ! Although she always refused to talk about her sexual orientation in public, which is totally valid, we know she had romantic relationships with women, like the writer Alice Walker.

Her songs are deeply feminist, and also denounce poverty, inequality, discrimination, and so on. For example, one of her best songs, a song lasting less than two minutes, entirely a capella, called "Behind the Wall" evokes violence against women. The entire song is a masterpiece, her voice is absolutely breathtaking and the lyrics get me everytime.

"Last night I heard a screaming

Loud voices behind the wall

Another sleepless night for me

It won't do no good to call

The police

Always comes late

If they come at all"

She has performed at concerts in support of various causes. She supports Amnesty International and in 1988, she played at a concert organized by Amnesty International to celebrate the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In 2004, she took part in a bicycle race against AIDS.

She is an amazing woman and an amazing artist ! Here are some lyrics from some of her other songs, (that you should all listen to!) :

"Why do the babies starve

When there's enough food to feed the world

Why when there're so many of us

Are there people still alone

Why are the missiles called peace keepers

When they're aimed to kill

Why is a woman still not safe

When she's in her home"

-- Why, 1988

"Some claim to have crowned her

A queen

With cities of concrete and steel

But there is no glory no honor

In what results

From the rape of the world

Mother of us all

Place of our birth

We all are witness

To the rape of the world

She has been clear-cut

She has been dumped on

She has been poisoned and beaten up

And we have been witness

To the rape of the world"

-- The rape of the world, 1995

"While they're standing in the welfare lines

Crying at the doorsteps of those armies of salvation

Wasting time in the unemployment lines

Sitting around waiting for a promotion

Don't you know

Talking about a revolution?

It sounds like a whisper

Poor people gonna rise up

And get their share

Poor people gonna rise up

And take what's theirs"

- Talkin' Bout a Revolution, 1988

She's also written songs about love, relationships, sorrow, feelings, and a lot of other things!

Remember her next time you want to talk about female lgb icons (instead of using Taylor Swift for I don't know what reason)

(Tracy Chapman is amazing and so so so talented and beautiful and oh my god her songs are wonderful and her voice is so so magnificent!!!! i love her i love her i love her)

See you tomorrow for the next lgb icon/history 🏳️‍🌈

[anhed-nia]

BLOGTOBER 10/8-9/2023: HELL HOUSE LLC, MONSTER INSIDE: AMERICA'S MOST EXTREME HAUNTED HOUSE

*I'm fudging the dates a bit here just so I can combine movies with like-themes. MONSTER INSIDE wasn't actually out until 10/12, but what can I say, October was a beast and this is the least organized Blogtober has ever been!

Also, I'm kind of fudging my genre constraints. Every year I consider logging one honorary horror movie--something that wasn't intended to horrify but that definitely does, like certain romantic comedies whose ideals are so inhuman that any thinking, feeling person should object to them. So one of these reviews is for a documentary, which I don't really think should be considered a horror film, but it's relevant to my Halloweeny interests, so it stays in the picture.

I don't have very much to say about this movie except that it drives me fucking crazy. On so many levels I really kind of hate it; I hate all the characters, I hate the tired old /scary clown/ thing, I find the story totally predictable, and I just object to having to spend THAT MUCH time with douchebags saying douchey things to one another. But what I hate about HELL HOUSE LLC more than anything else is that I find it really scary! I don't want to have to give it the credit. And I don't think it should be neurologically possible for me to be sighing and cussing and rolling my eyes through most of a movie--and then to be suddenly, uncomfortably frightened through some of the actual scenes of horror. I almost wonder if I should even be admitting how much this scared me, but it's worth surfacing movies that affect you against your better judgment and taste, I think.

That said, I'm also a reasonably sensitive viewer. People who are not interested in horror media (and even some who ARE, unfortunately) have this misconception that the genre is for desensitized assholes, and my response to that is always just to ask: If I didn't react to what I saw in horror movies, then why would I watch them? Wouldn't I gravitate toward something else that I DO react to? Obviously not everyone is like me, but the assumption that the average horror fan doesn't experience appropriate feelings of horror is pretty ridiculous. I often think about when I first saw Lucio Fulci's CITY OF THE LIVING DEAD; I was huddled under a blanket watching the infamous guts-barfing scene through my fingers, when my super normie yuppie roommate shouted to me, "WHAT IS THAT NOISE?" I cried out "DON'T COME IN HERE!" and she replied, "ONE OF THESE DAYS YOU'RE GONNA SEE SOMEBODY'S HEAD GET CHOPPED OFF AND YOU'RE JUST GONNA LAUGH!" I have no idea what would make her think that that would happen, or that laughter would be my reaction. Honestly I thought she was a pretty desensitized, disturbing sort of person; she was a 24 year old life insurance salesman who scanned the obituaries for funerals where she'd go prey on the bereaved graveside ("It just makes me feel so good to help people!"). But in general, I think I'm more sensitive than the average person, with a bigger imagination for what life can threaten you with. I won't go in a haunted house attraction, actually. I went in one when I was about 11, and I regretted it almost immediately. I mean, when I go to a party, I'm usually afraid I'm going to have to endure the horror of unwanted hugs, so you can imagine how I'd feel if I go to a place where people are pretending they're going to kill me. I enjoy the idea of haunt attractions, I think it's a cool sort of folk art, but I'd rather hear about it than experience it.

So in the name of all that, I really appreciate documentaries about haunts, which allow me to enjoy this art form from the safety of the other side of a screen. There's a really good one from New Zealand called SPOOKERS, which is about a haunt that occupies an old, storied mental institution--so there are some folks who feel like this use of the location is hurtful and exploitative, while at the same time, the haunt itself is a center of gravity for local misfits who have found themselves and their chosen family by working there. It's complicated and moving, and I strongly recommend it. There is also the pretty-good HAUNTERS: THE ART OF THE SCARE, which examines the history of haunted house attractions, including the emerging trend of "haunts" that are more like torture dungeons that continue to stretch the limits of what a person can even consent to legally. If you're up to date on this topic, you may have guessed that Russ McKamey is one of the main subjects of that movie. He has been made more famous, or maybe infamous is the right word, through a recent documentary called MONSTER INSIDE: AMERICA'S MOST EXTREME HAUNTED HOUSE.

The title makes it sound like a run of the mill unscripted TV special, but MONSTER INSIDE is an examination of Russ McKamey's questionably legal, escalatingly sadistic haunt--which, as many have pointed out, isn't really a haunted house attraction, but something called an "immersive horror experience". McKamey used to run something more like a proper haunt, but even in its earlier days McKamey Manor was the most outrageous available version of the haunt experience; in HAUNTERS we see patrons begging for their freedom, some of whom are visibly bleeding, a few of whom are forced to eat their own vomit, and one of whom experiences a psychotic break and grabs an axe from one of her tormentors to try to escape. Since that time, it seems that things have only gotten worse, with literal waterboarding as part of its standard operation. MONSTER INSIDE features a set of interviewees who have been through one of McKamey's "tours", and who feel the need to speak out about what they were put through. Each of them experienced a sort of grooming process during which McKamey made them feel as if they had been specially selected from among the tens of thousands of prospective victims on a waiting list; he buddies up to them, pumps them full of ego-inflating talk about how they could be the one to put on "the best show ever" for his ever-present video camera, and gets them to sign a waiver agreeing not to press charges if they incur a whole encyclopedia of mental and physical injuries, including many things that an individual doesn't really have the legal ability to consent to. They are then tortured--there is really no other way to put it--for up to 12 hours on McKamey's property. They are not released until he is satisfied with a humiliated admission of total defeat; even in its earlier incarnations, McKamey Manor has prided itself on having no safe word. And, with some customers so traumatized that they can't remember things like where they are or who was the first United States president, retaining a safe word seems to be out of the question anyway.

One might ask, why would anyone subject themselves to this? MONSTER INSIDE does its best to address this mystery. The question of why anyone likes to be scared is always at the heart of the horror conversation, and common answers range from the catharsis screen scares can provide, to more intellectual motivations for exploring darkness. This line of inquiry may extend to why we enjoy Ouija boards despite (or perhaps because of) the popular warnings about how easily they can be misused, and why we agree to crowd into a darkened bathroom and chant the name of an evil spirit who will supposedly spring out of the mirror with murderous intent. Early in the found footage movie WE'RE ALL GOING TO THE WORLD'S FAIR, the naive young protagonist explains her participation in a cursed internet game reputed to have all sorts of terrifying effects, saying, "I love horror movies, and I thought it might be cool to try actually living in one." This may not be a truly satisfying reason for sacrificing one's connection to reality, but it is an honest one; Those of us who chase scares do it for personal, emotional reasons that may not translate into entirely rational statements. Still, the survivors of McKamey Manor make an effort: One horror fan is trying to launch her acting career, and knows that Russ's streamed footage of her ordeal could make her famous. One is a war veteran whose PTSD pushes him toward extreme sadomasochistic experiences. Many express a desire to prove something to themselves by facing their worst fears, of which McKamey collects a detailed list. And while scrutiny always seems to land on the victim who "must be crazy", one shouldn't forget the $20,000 reward offered to anyone who survives one of these indefinite "tours". No one was ever won this prize, though not for lack of trying; MONSTER INSIDE shows footage from the end of a session with an unyielding customer who McKamey belittles and berates despite his obvious win.

MONSTER INSIDE: AMERICA'S MOST EXTREME HAUNTED HOUSE is a fascinating, and continuously frustrating experience. It's a worthy project just to expose the true effects of McKamey's possibly illegal business, although it is also clear that exposure is what he wants more than anything. Early in the documentary he happily declares, "I probably wouldn't do the haunt if I wasn't able to film it, because I want the world to see what I'm doing." He does not appear to be making a fortune from this business, despite his legions of cultish fans who are happy to stalk and harass people who speak out about his abusive practices; at one time (and perhaps still?) a few cans of dog food were the cost of admission. Watching McKamey's antics are a good reminder that much of what we commonly think of as psychopathic behavior is really rooted in a desperate, insecure need for attention. Especially-men who identify with fantasies of merciless machismo, who insist on having everything their way and who do not take No for an answer, are really revealing a kind of extreme fragility. Despite their fantasies about being the alpha wolf, in their intolerance for anything that isn't exactly to their liking, they demonstrate a morbid lack of hardiness. If you can't take rejection, you're weak. If you can't handle even meaningless insults or negligence from people you don't even respect, you're weak. If you cannot ever be alone, if you need attention so badly that you're willing to hurt and disgust people to get it, after failing to genuinely impress or endear yourself to anyone, you're weak. You're infantile. Darwinism would weed you right the fuck out. You are not an apex predator, you are not the epitome of masculinity, if you are nothing without attention. I've known men like this, unfortunately, and when I see a guy like Russ McKamey in the midst of this power-mad hysteria, I see a wilting orchid who wouldn't last a second outside of his self-created greenhouse, and I wish I could tell him that.

But maybe no one has to. Maybe he already knows. In HAUNTERS, his wife laughs affectionately about McKamey's extraordinary wussiness; she tries to list his various fears, and doesn't seem to know where to start, but the documentary helps us out with footage of someone chasing him up and down the block with a snail. Russ is begging for mercy and appears to be in genuine distress, which is enormously satisfying, all things considered. I wonder if he would take $20,000 to let the reasonably angry survivors of McKamey Manor indulge in a little mollusk-flavored revenge.