When Evil Clowns Are Not Enough

October 30, 2015 3:19 PM

At McKamey Manor, people pay to be kidnapped, bound, masked, slapped, stomped on and held under water over an eight-hour ‘tour’. But unlike other ‘extreme haunts’ of the same variety, here there’s no safe word to make it stop

Proprietor Russ McKamey, 56, has scared patrons for years by simulating abductions, assaults and other horrors at his home, named the most extreme haunted house in the world by Tech Times and The New York Daily News.

Russ films these encounters for his YouTube channel.

The Truth about McKamey Manor is a Facebook account dedicated to showing "all of the wrong that is going on in the haunt."

posted by Secret Life of Gravy (137 comments total)

Metafilter: here there's no safe word to make it stop
posted by Slinga at 3:24 PM on October 30, 2015 [38 favorites]

When I first heard about this I assumed it was some new project from Kink.com.
posted by Nevin at 3:25 PM on October 30, 2015 [3 favorites]

Is it wrong that my first thought was: "I want to see their liability waiver so badly"? And my second thought involved speculation about their insurance premiums.
posted by Atrahasis at 3:27 PM on October 30, 2015 [40 favorites]

I'd be interested in hearing a lawyer's opinion about the contract the participants sign, and whether there's protection for McKamey Manor in the event of serious injury or death.

On preview, jinx!
posted by Existential Dread at 3:28 PM on October 30, 2015 [2 favorites]

Wow, somebody listened to this guy.

This is begging for a lawsuit. Begging.
posted by Countess Elena at 3:28 PM on October 30, 2015 [2 favorites]

The only people I know how have gone through similar things have done so so they know what to do if they're kidnapped in Syria as reporters or thier hotel gets bombed.

These things are always kidnapping and serial killer flavored, where my extreme gothic romance haunt where you wander around a grand crumbling manor house where the doors don't close right and the housekeeper is menacing and you swear the paintings move when you look away?
posted by The Whelk at 3:33 PM on October 30, 2015 [76 favorites]

Well, I have an opinion, Existential Dread. Let's just say that my thoughts on participants giving informed consent were confirmed when I saw pictures of the participants reading waivers that are mostly coated in blood.
posted by Atrahasis at 3:33 PM on October 30, 2015 [10 favorites]

I think in the video embedded in the Guardian link there is a scene showing Russ reading out part of the liability waiver and it mentions the possibility of broken bones along with bruises and cuts.

I was surprised so many women were up for this. The woman in the video lives in Kuwait and flew to San Diego for a second go round-- she quit too early last year. There is supposed to be no sexual humiliation but they can have their heads shaved and their hair pulled out.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 3:35 PM on October 30, 2015

I'd be interested in hearing a lawyer's opinion about the contract the participants sign,

Depending on how scary the experience was, there would be compelling reasons to put on a good face in the exit interview just so you could get out of there.
posted by Nevin at 3:36 PM on October 30, 2015

I know that I would crack 15 minutes in. Certainly by the time they start force-feeding blood, rotten eggs, or your own vomit. (That's actually more off-putting to me than scrapes or bruises.) And yet, I still want to try it. The imp of the perverse, I guess. Or pure self-destructiveness.
posted by Rangi at 3:38 PM on October 30, 2015 [1 favorite]

These things are always kidnapping and serial killer flavored, where my extreme gothic romance haunt where you wander around a grand crumbling manor house where the doors don't close right and the housekeeper is menacing and you swear the paintings move when you look away?

Comparatively speaking, getting roughed up by a big guy with issues is really low-overhead.
posted by prize bull octorok at 3:38 PM on October 30, 2015 [13 favorites]

And for a different look at the haunted house, a Westerner looks at how the Japanese conceive the artform.
posted by NoxAeternum at 3:43 PM on October 30, 2015 [37 favorites]

Here in Canada I'm pretty sure the law says you can't consent to be assaulted. This sounds extremely fucked up.
posted by sevenyearlurk at 3:54 PM on October 30, 2015 [14 favorites]

> Let's just say that my thoughts on participants giving informed consent were confirmed when I saw pictures of the participants reading waivers that are mostly coated in blood.

In the second and third photos, where they're reading their waivers while two of them are in headlocks and the third has duct tape in her hair, seems like it would be evidence that they're consenting under duress.
posted by ardgedee at 3:56 PM on October 30, 2015 [3 favorites]

My thoughts exactly, ardgedee.
posted by Atrahasis at 3:57 PM on October 30, 2015

I'm not at all interested in McKamey Manor (where we get to be the victim for hours) and am totally interested in visiting the Japanese haunted house in NoxAeternum's link (where we get to be the hero).
posted by Joey Michaels at 3:59 PM on October 30, 2015 [10 favorites]

And for a different look at the haunted house, a Westerner looks at how the Japanese conceive the artform.

The author has an interview up at Jezebel today. Her experimental haunt is so close to my house I can practically see it from my window, but I am waaaay too much of a wuss to go. Even for SCIENCE.
posted by soren_lorensen at 4:03 PM on October 30, 2015

This 2015 updated blog entry lists McKamey as #1 on their list of The Seven Most Extreme Haunted Houses in America but none of them sound like my idea of a haunted house.

The haunted houses on our list cater to adult audiences and involve waivers, extreme physical contact, safe words, abduction, violence, nudity and electric shock.

Electric Shock. Pass me a Mars bars, would you?

I swear I remember a conversation about NY's Blackout (No. 3 on the list) here on the blue but damned if I can find it. Maybe it was tied into another, more general Halloween post.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 4:04 PM on October 30, 2015 [1 favorite]

> His single-storey detached house started hosting Halloween haunts for children about 15 years ago. Gradually they became rougher, for adults only, with the host filming and posting the results online. “We were pretending to cut hair but YouTube critics said, yah, fake, so thanks to the naysayers we had to ramp it up and bring more reality to it.”

The participants are not his customers. They're just props he uses to earn whuffie from the anonymous masses craving more intense torture porn.
posted by ardgedee at 4:05 PM on October 30, 2015 [33 favorites]

I'm pretty sure that signing a legal waiver is in no way going to protect them if someone say, has a heart attack and dies, suffocates in mud or becomes a paraplegic for being beaten or thrown to the ground. "But they said it was ok" isn't something I imagine will hold up in a court of law. I'd love to hear an actual lawyer pipe up on this. Also, how is this fun? I just don't get it.
posted by Jubey at 4:06 PM on October 30, 2015 [2 favorites]

IIRC in most US jurisdictions, you also cannot consent to assault.
posted by crush-onastick at 4:06 PM on October 30, 2015 [4 favorites]

Isn't this the same as organised football hooliganism except that it's monetised?
posted by stanf at 4:07 PM on October 30, 2015

Russ claims that someone did have a heart attack in the past.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 4:08 PM on October 30, 2015

Surely if they could have been sued they would have been sued already?
posted by dilaudid at 4:15 PM on October 30, 2015

According to the article from The Guardian, there are 27,000 people on the wait list for this awful thing. It makes me really sad that this place exists and people yearn for this brand of horrible abuse. I don't understand the thrill of "getting" to eat your own vomit, amongst other treats.
posted by but no cigar at 4:19 PM on October 30, 2015 [8 favorites]

According to the article from The Guardian, there are 27,000 people on the wait list for this awful thing. It makes me really sad that this place exists and people yearn for this brand of horrible abuse. I don't understand the thrill of "getting" to eat your own vomit, amongst other treats.

It's the same reason that there are "hot sauces" that are essentially pepper spray as a condiment.
posted by NoxAeternum at 4:22 PM on October 30, 2015 [5 favorites]

I'd be interested in hearing a lawyer's opinion about the contract the participants sign, and whether there's protection for McKamey Manor in the event of serious injury or death.

It's Ok, in the event of serious injury or death, when the police arrive they'll find that the house is deserted, crumbling and hasn't been inhabited in years. And a records search will show Russ McKamey died decades ago...
posted by happyroach at 4:23 PM on October 30, 2015 [74 favorites]

I always feel like these just don't add up. By all rights, this shouldn't be able to exist. In our supposedly hyper-sensitive hyper-litigious society, it seems like an unlicensed uninsured full-contact "torture experience" shouldn't survive it's first session.

They're just props he uses to earn whuffie from the anonymous masses craving more intense torture porn.

This is the only way it makes sense to me, that the participants are in some way or another 'in on the con' and all the bluster and hype is just to make it look more convincing. Is his "content" being monetized in any way? Or is it really just internet points.
posted by anazgnos at 4:26 PM on October 30, 2015 [5 favorites]

No. Insanely fiery hot sauce and this brand of "entertainment"? Not even the same league.
posted by but no cigar at 4:28 PM on October 30, 2015 [12 favorites]

Who are these 27,000 people that are supposedly on the waiting list? Do any of them actually exist? That's a good way to make sure no reporters can actually verify that any of this isn't bullshit.
posted by dilaudid at 4:28 PM on October 30, 2015 [16 favorites]

anazgnos, that's rather what I think. That it is not just the kidnappers who are "actors" but also the kidnappees. That all of them (except possibly those on the waiting list) are pretending to be part of the most extreme torture porn haunted house ever. I'm not sure what they gain from it materially, but I've certainly known people who would get sufficient emotional gain from being in on the pretend whether as an acknowledged actor or an unacknowledged one (an alleged participant) that it's what I tend to believe is going on here.

If only, because as noted above, you cannot contract to perform illegal activities, which is why you can't consent to be assaulted and why you can't sue someone who did not carry out your murder for hire after you paid them to.
posted by crush-onastick at 4:31 PM on October 30, 2015 [5 favorites]

Which, to finish the thought, means that you'd get shut down pretty quickly, running these sorts of events. I know the article says they were denied the right to charge for it and are thus looking for a new place, but you'd get shut down whether money changed hands or not.
posted by crush-onastick at 4:34 PM on October 30, 2015

Here in Canada I'm pretty sure the law says you can't consent to be assaulted.

IIRC in most US jurisdictions, you also cannot consent to assault.

If these things were true, wouldn't boxing and hockey be illegal in Candada, and boxing and football be illegal in most US jurisdictions? Outside a sporting venue, punching or tackling someone would be assault.
posted by layceepee at 4:41 PM on October 30, 2015 [3 favorites]

This is not the first metafilter thread about one of these "extreme halloween" experiences, there was a first person piece a year or two back about another underground halloween torture session (I think they made him dig his own "grave", then abandoned him by the roadside) that both screamed BS and was full of totally unverifiable details. I can't find the thread though.
posted by anazgnos at 4:42 PM on October 30, 2015 [1 favorite]

In the U.S. you can definitely consent to assault, otherwise there'd be no boxing or UFC or similar. Heck, even many sports, let alone martial arts, are only possible because of consent to assault.

Not to mention issues of medicine and surgery.

But I'm with The Whelk. My brother in law used to run a haunt that was mostly about actors being loud and threatening and scary, and I can get that at a redneck bar any time of the year. If I've got limits in fear I want to explore they're definitely more in the quiet and creepy direction.
posted by straw at 4:45 PM on October 30, 2015 [2 favorites]

But Blackout NY has been so successful that they have opened a Blackout LA, Blackout Chicago, and are opening one in SF next at $50.00 a ticket for the experience. So it does hold some sort of appeal for paying customers.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 4:45 PM on October 30, 2015 [1 favorite]

This particular experience doesn't sound like something that I'd enjoy, and as a rule I expect to be compensated for doing things that I don't enjoy, so I don't think I'd ever participate in one of these. But...

The human experience is fucking vast, and the long tails of our bell curve contain room for all sorts of interests. I've been to parties where people have been spit on, pissed on, held underwater. I've watched friends get fucked with strap-ons while they were suspended from flesh hooks in their shoulders and knees. I've been to events where the main attraction was being burned with hot wax, I've seen skin split by bullwhips, I've held someone's hand while she was branded, wrapped a dude's leg in Saran Wrap to hold the blood in after he got something carved into his leg, and helped a customer pull a six-inch steel bar out of his urethra.

All of these moments will be lost, like tears in the rain...

People are fascinating, wonderful creatures, and part of what makes them that way is that they don't all want the same things. I wouldn't attend this, I wouldn't encourage people to attend this, but I think that there being people who both want to attend this and are able to do so is kind of neat.
posted by Parasite Unseen at 4:46 PM on October 30, 2015 [24 favorites]

From the Union Tribune article (emph. added):

They sign a waiver allowing a certain amount of physical harm, although McKamey does not give participants a copy of the form and declined to release a copy to U-T Watchdog.

This... does not seem prudent to me.

In any case, if this is truly on the up-and-up and not just an elaborate hoax, the participants seem to be putting a lot of faith into the competence -- never mind the intentions -- of this Russ person and his cohorts. I mean, just off the top of my head (although without knowing the exact protocols of what they're subjecting the participants to), I can imagine a bunch of things that can go wrong: any number of bacterial (salmonella, e. coli, etc...) or viral (hepatitis, HPV, etc...) infections transmitted through the various goops and gunks they appear to use, dry drowning if they're doing water stuff, nerve damage through ineptly applied restraints, harness hang syndrome if they're doing suspensions. I skimmed one of the videos and in one of the post-event interviews, the participant can't remember what happened after some point and the interviewer informs her that she passed out (or nearly passed out) at that point. This... also does not seem super prudent to me.

Finally, still assuming that this isn't a hoax, it seems to me that the underlying premise of this whole thing is that psychological trauma isn't "real" trauma. I mean, it seems like the whole idea of this thing is to do stuff that might or might not instill PTSD in the participant.
posted by mhum at 4:47 PM on October 30, 2015 [8 favorites]

well, no, sports are not assault (nor battery, if you want to get technical about it) because there are rather rigid rules about how you can tackle someone, rigid rules about what contact you can have with other players and rules about what happens if you haul off and clock your opponent (even in boxing or martial arts matches). There's also someone whose job it is to stand there and ensure that all the contact which happens within the sporting event conforms to the rules and expectations.

None of which is apparent in a "no safe word" torture environment.
posted by crush-onastick at 4:47 PM on October 30, 2015 [4 favorites]

you cannot consent to assault.

Let me tell you about these bondage assault machines. After you pay your $12 they literally clamp you in with steel restraints and then for the next few minutes they own your ass, and that machine whips you around and turns you upside down and generally fucks with everything your body expects to be normal. No safe words, no escape switches. Once you're on the ride you finish the ride.

It's called a roller coaster and it's perfectly legal everywhere. People lose their wallets and get off of them puking and vowing never to do it again and it's considered good great fun.

Add a little sex or ick to it though and suddenly society freaks out that BAD THINGS WHATEVER.
posted by Bringer Tom at 4:52 PM on October 30, 2015 [4 favorites]

Um, no actually I think most people who have been waterboarded and tortured would agree it's not remotely similar to being on a rollercoaster.
posted by dilaudid at 4:57 PM on October 30, 2015 [55 favorites]

Re: consent to assault, the maxim is volenti non fit injuria and yes, in some circumstances at least you can consent to assault.

Whether the waiver holds up and what people are even consenting to here and what is the standard of care etc. are all much more nuanced issues and basically why we have lawyers.
posted by AV at 4:59 PM on October 30, 2015 [3 favorites]

I read about this last year and I'm also extremely skeptical that it's real.
posted by showbiz_liz at 4:59 PM on October 30, 2015 [2 favorites]

Conveniently enough, Lowering the Bar today has a useful article: What You Need to Know About Haunted-House Law.
posted by zachlipton at 4:59 PM on October 30, 2015 [6 favorites]

Parasite Unseen: "All of these moments will be lost, like tears in the rain..."

Yes, of course, BDSM interests exist and are totally fine. But, I would be hard-pressed to call the activities described here as safe, sane, and consensual, with the apparent lack of safewords being a pretty big red flag. Yes, the participants give consent at the beginning of the event, but nowadays we understand that consent can be withdrawn later. By removing safewords, these guys are not allowing the possibility for consent to be withdrawn.

Also, keep in mind that this Russ character appears to be a complete stranger to the participants and strangely secretive about his M.O. (the Union Tribune article describes a vignette where he hooded an electrician before bringing him to his house). So, I come back to the trust issue. Like, why should anyone trust this guy to not fuck up?
posted by mhum at 4:59 PM on October 30, 2015 [14 favorites]

Having the pre-victims harass and harangue McKamey's torturers on facebook beforehand is a nice touch, like wrestlers doing those pre-match taunting sessions. They have to "hype" their appearance, play up the heel angle so their comeuppance will be sweeter.

That the McKamey guy seems so serenely calm and even blithe,that he uses the term "smoke and mirrors" repeatedly, specifically in reference to former victims going online and calling him out...it all starts to look like kind of a hard sell.
posted by anazgnos at 5:01 PM on October 30, 2015 [1 favorite]

I find myself confused about one thing: if there are no safe words, how are people declaring that they are done and getting out before the end of the 8 hours? If there's no safe words and no outs, wouldn't everyone be forced to go the full time rather than washing up on this dude's sofa for cookies and milk after a few hours?
posted by soren_lorensen at 5:02 PM on October 30, 2015 [3 favorites]

Add a little sex or ick

I am not at all prudish, I love haunted houses and scary things and I would say that being force-fed your own vomit is more than a little ick.
posted by triggerfinger at 5:04 PM on October 30, 2015 [8 favorites]

I want someone to sign up with the hidden goal of defeating all the kidnappers and leaving them duct taped to cactuses with other cactuses in uncomfortable places.

someone pls do it for the vine
posted by poffin boffin at 5:05 PM on October 30, 2015 [35 favorites]

Oh triggerfinger don't you know that it's just our prudish Puritan legacy that makes us think vomit eating is gross. If we were hoopy froods we would just call that a slow Thursday night.
posted by winna at 5:11 PM on October 30, 2015 [12 favorites]

Yes, of course, BDSM interests exist and are totally fine. But, I would be hard-pressed to call the activities described here as safe, sane, and consensual, with the apparent lack of safewords being a pretty big red flag. Yes, the participants give consent at the beginning of the event, but nowadays we understand that consent can be withdrawn later. By removing safewords, these guys are not allowing the possibility for consent to be withdrawn.

I would personally never play without a safeword, particularly not when dealing with total strangers, but plenty of people do. And although this event isn't something I'd want to do, if I had to choose between it and any number of other things that people do for fun and consider fairly benign (football, mountain biking, boxing), I'd probably wind up picking the torture-house.

Oh triggerfinger don't you know that it's just our prudish Puritan legacy that makes us think vomit eating is gross.

No one is arguing that it's not gross. To the contrary; it being gross is the entire point.
posted by Parasite Unseen at 5:12 PM on October 30, 2015 [1 favorite]

I would say that being force-fed your own vomit is more than a little ick.


Hell, that ain't shit! Springer had vomit fetishists on his show ages ago. That was network television, this place is positively tame!
posted by mrbigmuscles at 5:19 PM on October 30, 2015

I was sort-of kidnapped once when I was a kid, about 10 years old. My best friend at the time started hanging out with a new kid. They invited me to new kid's house, and we went up to his bedroom. They asked me what my biggest fear was, and I said it was claustrophobia.

They then pushed me to the ground and held a blanket over me. I started screaming, and they laughed and held me under the blanket for a good couple of minutes. They let me up and I told them I wanted to go home, but they said "you're not going anywhere!" I looked to the door and noticed they had taken the door knob off the door; it had a basketball for a handle and it was sitting on his desk.

So I started panicking a little and got bad, bad vibes, so I began thinking of ways to escape. I figured the best way was to map out a plan in my mind, practice it in my mind, and then execute it at the right moment. The door knob had a nub exposed, so I figured I had to grasp really hard and turn in order to get the door to open. Then I remembered the front door was locked, so I planned to escape out the side door. So I ran through the plan in my mind a couple of times: grasp nub, race down stairs, run out the backdoor, and get home.

Now the next challenge was the right moment. New kid went into his walk-in closet and said to my former "best" friend that he was stuck in a suitcase; I assumed he was trying to see if he (I? I'm assuming) would fit into it. So my old friend went in there to help him out. That was my moment. I ran to the door, grabbed and turned the nub, ran down the stairs, and raced out the side door. I remember them chasing after me until I got out of the house.

I remember telling my dad when I got home and he just chuckled and kept reading the paper. I ran into those kids again and they beat me up in a less ornate way. I learned years later that the new kid ended up going to federal prison for a couple of years for some fucked up crime.

Summary, I have no idea why anyone would want to pay money for something like this.
posted by gehenna_lion at 5:20 PM on October 30, 2015 [32 favorites]

When I was fairly young I somehow managed to see a scene from a movie that has stuck with me ever since because it repulsed me so much. I don't remember the film (I seem to think it might have been Midnight Express) but I remember believing that what I saw was the prisoners throwing a man into a tub of vomit and holding him there. I have no idea if this is accurate or what the movie is but it's what I thought I saw and it stuck with me as being one of the worst things I could imagine.

In conclusion, vomit is gross.
posted by triggerfinger at 5:27 PM on October 30, 2015

I've got to admit I find this personally interesting and terrifying - for a long time, since too young really, I've wondered if I could hold up under torture. Would I give up the people I love, how long until I cracked...

This is some weird, twisted way of digesting the fact that our democracies torture people, both turning it into a fantasy (so it's palatable) and making it real (so we know that we can/could swallow it).
posted by litleozy at 5:39 PM on October 30, 2015

There are a lot of people who wonder if they could survive prison, survive boot camp, survive Survivor, etc. Some people are thrilled with the idea of challenging themselves and pushing their own boundaries.

As to the tortured turning into the torturers, I can see this would be much like hazing: "I survived these gross indignities, now it is your turn."
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 5:50 PM on October 30, 2015 [3 favorites]

i need each individual kink involved here to be listed separately so i can shame them all in the most complete and methodical manner possible
posted by poffin boffin at 5:59 PM on October 30, 2015 [13 favorites]

Honestly I don't give a fuck if people want to do this, I don't care how creeped out anyone is by it, if you want to eat literally anyone's puke and call it your hottest night ever just dooooo it it's 2015 no one cares ffs, call me when it's sexy cannibals, I just want to know as fact that this isn't something someone could be signed up for without their consent or prior knowledge. assuming it's even real at all and not just another moronic troll for attention.
posted by poffin boffin at 6:02 PM on October 30, 2015 [5 favorites]

I don't want to look at the videos, but if they have ads on them, then I am firmly in the "this is theatre" camp.
posted by SecretAgentSockpuppet at 6:03 PM on October 30, 2015 [2 favorites]

This just feels like one of those shocking "Just before the Fall of Rome" moments, where at some point in the future, teachers will say things like, "In the waning years of the civilization, before the disasters, wars, famines and barbarian hordes, ordinary citizens actually paid to be tied up, tortured and forced to eat their own vomit."
posted by thivaia at 6:08 PM on October 30, 2015 [17 favorites]

Then later on, historians will have to explain to everyone that "McKamey Manor" was just the term for a stadium exit.
posted by teponaztli at 6:11 PM on October 30, 2015 [37 favorites]

The guy who apparently wants to be on a reality tv show seems extremely exploitative, if true.
posted by hermanubis at 6:29 PM on October 30, 2015

He is 19, worked as an actor at the manor a year earlier and is studying associative justice in hope of becoming a DEA agent.

Man. The general public are entitled to their kinks, but it's really problematic (though not too surprising) for people with these sorts of extreme domination fantasies to serve in law enforcement positions.
posted by threeants at 6:42 PM on October 30, 2015 [12 favorites]

In the US, you need a license to be a professional boxer. They're issued at the state level.
posted by Pirate-Bartender-Zombie-Monkey at 6:49 PM on October 30, 2015

why do I hear Detective Tutuola describing this to an ADA
posted by theodolite at 6:53 PM on October 30, 2015 [18 favorites]

I just finished reading Viktor Frankl's "Man's Search for Meaning." These people make a mockery of that and, I can't help thinking, of the suffering of others.

Seriously fucked up. They need therapists.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 7:19 PM on October 30, 2015 [7 favorites]

New Crazy Billionaire Plan: Create a Rear Window situation for these people.
posted by robocop is bleeding at 7:23 PM on October 30, 2015 [2 favorites]

Seriously, is there any evidence of a person talking about going through this haunted house, aside from in articles or promo materials about the house? You'd think there'd be a blog post, something...
posted by showbiz_liz at 7:27 PM on October 30, 2015 [7 favorites]

you cannot consent to assault.

Well, this is technically true. You can't consent to assault (in the battery sense), because by definition it is contact without consent.

Once you consent, the act is not capable of being assault. Hence contact sports...etc.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 7:58 PM on October 30, 2015 [4 favorites]

I experienced these things as a child in the US who was born to very terrible man.

I promise it is survivable if anyone is wondering.

I cannot see how anyone who does not have amazing disoccosative skills would choose to do something like this.
posted by AlexiaSky at 8:18 PM on October 30, 2015 [12 favorites]

"You can't consent to assault (in the battery sense), because by definition it is contact without consent. once you consent, the act is not capable of being assault. Hence contact sports...etc"

The Anglo-Saxon legal tradition ONLY JUST BARELY allows contact sports. You are only limitedly allowed to consent to people beating on you -- even if you're aware of what you're consenting to, English law thinks it's an offense against the general peace. Law students spend inordinate time on the legality (just barely) of boxing. There is a huge body of law relating to liability of contact sports just after the whistle is blown: for example, a hockey player who is already unavoidably careening towards another player may be liable for a hit after the whistle, despite such a hit being legal before the whistle and the skates making it impossible to stop.

Also liability waivers are often complete bullshit, you can't disclaim negligence or wilfull violence.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 8:23 PM on October 30, 2015 [6 favorites]

Interesting stuff. In principle, I am totally fine with people going to crazy extremes like this. However, it does seem like there are a lot of sloppy and dangerous practices that they should really change, especially if they want to go pro. For one thing, you really need medical staff on hand for some of the things they were doing (e.g. essentially waterboarding). Also, clients should be able to read the waiver in peace before anything begins. A few things like that.

Although I was originally pretty neutral, after seeing some of those videos, I think the "actors," especially Russ, might have a screw loose. They really seem to enjoy breaking people. If he manages to actually go commercial, I hope it's something super-expensive that he only does for really rich people, like some kind of reverse Hostel.
posted by Edgewise at 8:25 PM on October 30, 2015 [3 favorites]

Not a lawyer but I can't imagine any insurer that knows what is going on here would even consider taking on this risk. The guy would have to be taking in enough millions to pay an insurer enough for the very likely gross negligence causing death that could arise at any time -- it would be very, very easy for the sort of things they are doing to go very, very wrong. I hope this guy knows what he's doing because I would not trust that any waiver for this sort of thing offers any actual protection.
posted by Hoopo at 8:39 PM on October 30, 2015 [2 favorites]

But, I would be hard-pressed to call the activities described here as safe, sane, and consensual

I'm sure I'm not the only person who is not in love with the "safe" and especially the "sane" in that old phrase, actually. But running something like this without a safe word just seems like a bad idea.
posted by atoxyl at 8:40 PM on October 30, 2015 [1 favorite]

Oh hey a haunted house post!

Margee Kerr is a good friend of mine (she's awesome, everyone go buy her book right now). It's great fun hearing her talk about all the fun things she has planned for ScareHouse. She's the nicest person ever but it's hard to remember that when she's strapping electrodes to your feet.

My wife works for Terror Behind The Walls in Philadelphia so I sort of married into the haunt family. McKamey Manor and other "extreme haunted houses" are somewhat controversial in the industry. I'd be willing to bet that all people ("kidnappers", victims, etc) in their videos are paid actors or otherwise not normal customers. The long wait list and all that other stuff are also probably just marketing stunts.
posted by Diskeater at 8:41 PM on October 30, 2015 [4 favorites]

Look, we live in a world where a disturbingly large number of people think 50 Shades of Grey is a fucking training manual. The waiting list doesn't surprise me so much.
posted by Samizdata at 8:46 PM on October 30, 2015 [1 favorite]

(And no, the pun was not intended, or even noticed until after I hit submit.)
posted by Samizdata at 8:46 PM on October 30, 2015 [3 favorites]

I'm sure I'm not the only person who is not in love with the "safe" and especially the "sane" in that old phrase, actually.

We prefer RACK in our house. Risk aware consentual kink.
posted by hwyengr at 9:00 PM on October 30, 2015 [1 favorite]

That Japanese Haunted house sounds fun. If I was an eccentric millionaire, then I'd definitely open up some sort of haunted puzzle solving experience and operate at a loss. Make a giant, spooky, decaying manor, and then set up a timed murder mystery for guests to solve!
posted by codacorolla at 9:07 PM on October 30, 2015 [5 favorites]

I'd rather eat my own vomit than do this .. Oh, wait.
posted by h00py at 9:30 PM on October 30, 2015 [2 favorites]

I don't think you'd have to operate at a loss, codacarolla. I did a project on haunted houses once and what I found out is that people love them and they're printing money. An upgraded video game like experience would I think be extremely popular and people would pay whatever you wanted.
posted by bleep at 9:33 PM on October 30, 2015

NoxAeternum: “And for a different look at the haunted house, a Westerner looks at how the Japanese conceive the artform.”

Japanology Plus from a few weeks ago was about "arty" haunted houses in Japan. I was impressed because it made me interested and I'm the kind of person who stays out of haunted houses so nobody gets karate chopped.
posted by ob1quixote at 9:37 PM on October 30, 2015 [5 favorites]

The fact that he's opposed to swearing or drinking coffee is a straight-out-of-central-casting tidbit. Oh, the professional sadist has a wide puritanical streak? Quelle surprise!
posted by middleclasstool at 9:41 PM on October 30, 2015 [4 favorites]

It hurts my heart that humans participate in this kind of thing.

Normalizing hitting or terrorizing another person, or normalizing having these kinds of experiences seems deeply wrong to me.

I've played lots of contact sports. I've competed with others mentally in business and for fun. But the goal of those activities is not pain or fear.
I also think BSDM is ok, as there is consent and safe words.

But this seems to have a goal of deepest fear and deepest pain. I think it's impossible for any of the participants to not be emotionally charged/scarred.

The reason torture isn't allowed by most countries is it violates human dignity. I think this willfully violates human dignity. This is not ok.
posted by littlewater at 10:09 PM on October 30, 2015 [11 favorites]

I reckon if you actually wanted to kidnap, torture and murder people, this would be a good cover. You could do all sorts of things to the unwilling victims in the house right in front of anyone, and people would just think they too had signed up for it, or that it was theatre. Even if you actually murdered them in full view of the paying customers, they'd probably think it was a trick to create extra atmosphere.
posted by lollusc at 10:15 PM on October 30, 2015 [2 favorites]

If this isn't a hoax, I'd be surprised if this were illegal. It seems like the same abuse women go through in degradation porn, and that's legal, supposedly for the same reasons.
posted by JLovebomb at 10:23 PM on October 30, 2015 [1 favorite]

Shrug. Airbnb has worse.
posted by adept256 at 10:49 PM on October 30, 2015 [3 favorites]

I mean you put marks on people, visible wounds, gashes, bruises, black eyes, and ripped hair that they could walk into any trauma center or police station with, but nobody does. Instead they just go on your dedicated facebook group to complain, so you can respond by going "oh, they're just haters". Nobody in this situation is acting the way anyone in this situation would act.

So, what do you call the act?
posted by anazgnos at 11:03 PM on October 30, 2015 [1 favorite]

Ehh, the whole "they had visible marks on them so why didn't they go to the police" angle is not a good one to pursue, for a lot of reasons.
posted by teponaztli at 11:26 PM on October 30, 2015

So, what do you call the act?

The Aristocrats!
posted by scrump at 12:10 AM on October 31, 2015 [25 favorites]

This is deeply fucked up.
posted by spacewaitress at 1:08 AM on October 31, 2015

Even the text of the FPP turned me off, so badly that I wanted to comment. But I couldn't comment unless I had RTFA. So I did and the article was even more terrifying. I'm fine with whatever people inflict on each other, as long as there's a safe word... The first thing they did was lay them face down in a storm drain. No safe word to get out? No fucking way.
posted by bendy at 1:09 AM on October 31, 2015 [4 favorites]

Like, the women who are the victims here aren't rich, and they're not lining up to pay him. They're being cajoled into it by the guy who runs this bullshit. No money even changes hands; the article said he runs it as a "nonprofit" and asks for dog food as payment.

This is abuse.

Read the Guardian comments. Some of them make it sound like the guy is running a cult.
posted by spacewaitress at 1:14 AM on October 31, 2015 [2 favorites]

for example, a hockey player who is already unavoidably careening towards another player may be liable for a hit after the whistle, despite such a hit being legal before the whistle and the skates making it impossible to stop.

Most of the time at most they get a short time out for bare-fisted brawling or hitting people with their sticks, though, so there is clearly some leeway.

The place in the FPP link and the places in the top-seven link just don't sound like my idea of fun at all, and I don't quite understand why all the people in the various videos are just passively accepting the unpleasant treatment. I assume they are getting off on it (in the enjoyment sense, if not the sexual sense), which just isn't my thing but I'm glad the venues exist for people who want that kind of experience.
posted by Dip Flash at 1:35 AM on October 31, 2015

So... MeFi IRL?
posted by oceanjesse at 3:08 AM on October 31, 2015

Also not a lawyer, but the whole thing re: consent with this and consent with sports seems to be something like the following. You can consent to things like assault, but you can never consent to having your consent taken away from you. For instance, you could never legally sign away your rights, and sell yourself into slavery.

I mean, you could sign a contract saying that you would do certain actions that would effectively constitute being in slavery, but you would at any moment be able to stop and say that you are going to express your right to leave.

This I imagine is effectively what happens in say, boxing. You're consenting to getting beat on, but you have the right to at any time decide to eject yourself from the match, and if you were barred from doing this and someone kept beating on you, you'd have grounds for a complaint.

So the issue here is the whole claim waiving away your consent and your right to withdraw your consent at any point in the future. That's legally not allowed. You can sign whatever you want saying you can't withdraw your consent in the future, but it doesn't mean anything. So there's grounds for legal action if in the middle of this you try to leave, but are refused.
posted by Dalby at 3:20 AM on October 31, 2015 [3 favorites]

You can consent to things like assault, but you can never consent to having your consent taken away from you

It's more complicated than that in English law, as far as I remember - there isn't a general defence of consent to actual physical injury (wounding, bodily harm). Instead there's a specific list of situations where you can consent to being physically hurt and any consensual wounding outside the list is criminal. Whether sex is on the list is controversial, thanks to R v Brown, but my sense is that you have to show that your activity has some social value or something to get it out of the general rule (no physical injury, with or without consent) and into an exception (physical injury acceptable provided there is consent).
posted by Aravis76 at 3:57 AM on October 31, 2015

In Malay fairy tales/black magic rituals, eating your own vomit is a key step in acquiring supernatural power. Maybe that's the big draw, guys.
posted by BinGregory at 5:16 AM on October 31, 2015 [3 favorites]

why do I hear Detective Tutuola describing this to an ADA

“That's messed up.”
posted by Fizz at 6:22 AM on October 31, 2015 [2 favorites]

Can we all agree though that anyone that uses the term "haters" non-ironically is probably an a-hole?
posted by Hutch at 7:36 AM on October 31, 2015 [5 favorites]

Why is this unbelievable to people? I could name at least a dozen people I have personally known who would pay for something like this. I've been in and around the kink community for 20 years. None of this is shocking at all. (Note: not my thing, at least not as the victim...)
posted by desjardins at 8:12 AM on October 31, 2015 [1 favorite]

It is kind of sad that this is a topic (or even range of topics) which Metafilter has forgotten how to do well. We used to have fun and engaging threads on BDSM-y topics with some frequency, but now they always get invaded by sealions loudly wondering if consent is even possible for such activity.

And this activity is a universal human constant. People do it sexually via BDSM. They do it nonsexually via "modern primitive" practices. They have done it for thousands of years, before that primitivism was modern. They have done it in religious contexts and for self-discovery. They have done it in semi socially acceptable ways like climbing mountains where everyone knows not everyone makes it back down alive, jumping out of airplanes, and on and on and on. They voluntarily board roller coasters and yes, the comparison between roller coasters and the other practices I've listed here is both apt and exact. I have done both BDSM and roller coasters and the roller coaster was far more intense.

The core image of one of the most popular modern religions is of a dude being tortured to death, the greatest heroes celebrated by that religion are people who were tortured to death, and being tortured to death for your faith is considered one of the greatest glories you can give to that god. Periodically cults of that religion have engaged in more direct self-torture such as flagellation to demonstrate their faith. This is all considered not only normal but exalting.

Masochism has never exactly been universal but it seems to obsess a significant minority of every human culture. Most such people seem to be drawn to it naturally, but sometimes people seem to be seduced. And absolutely none of this is understood very well by the medical professionals because of the ridiculous stigma and stupid assumptions which poison their thinking. But it is real and fairly constant and culturally universal, and nearly all human societies have had mechanisms to engage these impulses; things like the OP exist mainly because ours does a poorer job than most have.
posted by Bringer Tom at 8:30 AM on October 31, 2015 [5 favorites]

but now they always get invaded by sealions loudly wondering if consent is even possible for such activity.

Except that this is no more BDSM than 50 Shades is; it's abuse. On top of that, it is not possible to give irrevocable consent. Plus this is almost certainly fake.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 8:32 AM on October 31, 2015 [19 favorites]

I think if they weren't trumpeting "no safe words!" so aggressively people would be a lot less upset. Especially for something as extreme as this, it's easy to imagine someone signing up for something out of bravado, having a bad reaction at some point during the experience, and needing to nope out... and not having any route to doing that. Especially in a situation between multiple people on both "sides" of the house, who do not know each other going into this? It, uh, does not exactly seem like responsible kink or properly informed consent is going on here.
posted by sciatrix at 8:50 AM on October 31, 2015 [3 favorites]

Yeah, I'm not a BDSM-hating prude, AT ALL -- details elided because public internet, but trust me, BDSM and kink in general is not something I have a problem with. This isn't that. This is horrifying to me on a thousand levels, except for the one where i'm pretty sure it's a hoax.
posted by KathrynT at 10:28 AM on October 31, 2015 [5 favorites]

> I've been in and around the kink community for 20 years. None of this is shocking at all.

If the "experience" were explicitly sexual it would make me feel a lot less squicked out, tbh. It's the apparent non-sexual sadism involved -- and the possibility that there is a sexual thrill which would be furiously denied by the puritanical sadist -- that weirds me out along with the "no safeword" deal.

Something about it just doesn't seem upfront.
posted by postcommunism at 10:53 AM on October 31, 2015 [4 favorites]

FFFM did you even read past the sentence you quoted? Because the rest of my comment pretty much is the answer to yours.

I would also appreciate it if you do not pervsplain to me why my sexual paraphilia does not somehow meet the standards you have erected for legitimacy, which I suppose do conveniently allow for the legitimacy of your sexuality or thrill-seeking level.

Several people have checked into this very thread to mention that they would, in fact, be interested in taking the OP ride or something similar.

it is not possible to give irrevocable consent.

Of course it is -- the law just doesn't recognize it, and you could get in a lot of trouble for it. That hasn't stopped a lot of people from doing things the law forbids to generate powerful feelings. See for example the whole "drugs" thing.

My wife reacted to the Armory tour, which is heavy on the whole safe word thing, by commenting "but they sucked all the fun out of it." These people exist. Just because you don't understand them doesn't mean that they don't or that their desires are somehow not legitimate.

I don't personally understand people who plonk down $200K to climb Mount Everest. It's expensive, dangerous, and not particularly unique any more. But I would be a considerable fool to argue that there is no attraction to it, since it obviously attracts enough people to make the summit a crowded place.

You don't get to nope out of your Everest attempt when you get caught in a storm. You don't get to nope out of the roller coaster or the fact that you joined the Army. You don't get to nope out of the fact that you just jumped out of an airplane or off a cliff in a wingsuit. The fact is we let people enter situations where they won't be able to nope out all the time and there are long lines of people willing to enter those situations. But we only freak out about it when we personally get squicked by it.
posted by Bringer Tom at 11:14 AM on October 31, 2015 [6 favorites]

If the "experience" were explicitly sexual it would make me feel a lot less squicked out

And this is one of the most commonly and seriously misunderstood things about masochism; while it can be linked to sexuality, in many cases it isn't. Sometimes the payoff is a religious epiphany or an undifferentiated feeling of bliss. You sometimes see people who are doing it in a sexual context being rather blase about whether they get an orgasm or not, since that isn't really the payoff for them. It's much more subtle than most people realize and there are a great range of approaches to it.
posted by Bringer Tom at 11:18 AM on October 31, 2015

> Of course it is -- the law just doesn't recognize it, and you could get in a lot of trouble for it.

I think you're reading "irrevocable" in the sense of the agreement between the participants of the session, while the person writing "irrevocable" means its legal enforceability.

In any event, if there are no safe words, then it's not clear to me how they make the session stop before the eight hours are up, since nobody has run the full gantlet.
posted by ardgedee at 12:01 PM on October 31, 2015

Well, no. If someone joins the Army and the stress of combat gives them PTSD, or they physically or mentally get seriously injured, we have medical discharges. If someone signs up to go skydiving, panics in the plane--or has a heart attack!--or otherwise can't go through with the dive right before hopping out of the plane, we let them back out. If someone winds up unprepared and injured on Everest, there is the option of medical evacuation.

For all of those events, there are safeguards in place for unexpected and/or emergency situations, in cases where the person who signs up for the test breaks down and cannot, for whatever reason, continue. Sometimes these rescue operations are difficult or expensive, but we as a society invest the resources and energy to make them available anyway because it is not always possible to tell ahead of time what a given person can or cannot withstand. For something like this, where it is the EASIEST THING IN THE WORLD to just let a given participant slip out the door or call an ambulance, it strikes me as negligent in the extreme to provide nothing in the way of a safeword.
posted by sciatrix at 12:04 PM on October 31, 2015 [6 favorites]

then it's not clear to me how they make the session stop before the eight hours are up, since nobody has run the full gantlet.

The fact that there are no safe words does not mean there is no attentiveness to whether the ritual is producing its intended result. Someone who is getting a payoff from masochistic play will generally be active and filled with unfakeable tension. A common non-safeword out is to go limp, as this is something that will happen naturally with a lot of bad outcomes but is almost impossible to do voluntarily. There can be layers of safety which aren't visible precisely because the person enduring the torment doesn't want them to be visible.
posted by Bringer Tom at 12:25 PM on October 31, 2015 [1 favorite]

Right.... But you're assuming that all this place's employees are skilled at reading body language, skilled enough to read nonverbal cues of "enough!" from a whole bunch of different people they've never met before, while being paid to handle people in groups which means they have to split their attention among multiple clients, any of whom may be dropping into shock. And god knows what their hiring practices are! I'm not saying your play parties are inherently unethical, Bringer Tom, I'm saying that this seems like a recipe for someone to slip through the cracks and receive serious damage. There are so many red flags.
posted by sciatrix at 12:38 PM on October 31, 2015 [4 favorites]

I think part of what is making this confusing for me is that I think "fear" and "pain" are being conflated in a way that, in the context of a haunted house, isn't really...I don't know...suitable?

I think traditionally, haunted houses are supposed to be scary and part of how they instill that fear is to use the threat of pain. But they could never cause you ACTUAL physical pain.

Fear without pain is enjoyable to a lot of people, as is pain without fear. I think it gets less clear when we are looking at pain and fear combined.

Roller coasters and skydiving can be called thrill-seeking behavior (fear without pain). As mentioned by sciatrix, there are always opportunities to back out up until the thing actually starts (i.e. after you jump out of the plane). But even though the fear may be extreme, you are usually not in real physical danger (leaving aside rare occurrences of equipment malfunction or things like heart attacks). If you were, there would be no way these things would be able to operate, not least because they wouldn't be able to get any insurance coverage.

BDSM can, I think (correct me if I'm wrong), be called pain without fear (for the submissive partner, because safe words of some form are utilized). Other things that fit under pain without (intense) fear are body modification, surgery and violent sports. Again, as far as I know, as soon as the fear becomes too intense, a participant can always back out.

Things that have both fear and pain usually fit pretty squarely in the realm of abuse or torture. This haunted house is using both pain and fear to achieve maximum scares, in a way that pretty much every other haunted house does by just using fear (or fear + threat of pain). In addition to that, people aren't explicitly given an option to back out at any time.

So there are two things (in my mind anyway) with this haunted house: 1) Fear & pain together look a lot like abuse or torture (which is illegal for good reason) and it's hard to think of examples where it is not considered as such, and, 2) there is never an explicit option to back out. Both of these issues on their own are problematic, put together it's hard to see why it would ever be allowed in any way, even in the minds of people like me (and probably most people in this thread) who don't otherwise have any problem at all with people doing whatever they want to do to get their kicks.
posted by triggerfinger at 12:43 PM on October 31, 2015 [7 favorites]

I think the disconnect here, Bringer Tom, is in the contexts and scales we're envisioning. I think--and do correct me if I'm wrong--that you are envisioning basically highly motivated, highly trained doms/employees with a lot of emotional investment in the well being of the people they are working with--the sort of scenario you see in situations with experienced enthusiasts.

I am thinking in the context of what I know about the hiring practices of other Halloween houses (fairly lax). I am also thinking in the context of worst case scenarios happening with relatively high volumes of people coming through, with staff who may or may not be feeling it that day, and with clients who may or may not have a ton of experience with masochism in the sense of kink, since they ate being advertised to under the aegis of a rather different type of institution.
posted by sciatrix at 12:46 PM on October 31, 2015 [1 favorite]

fake or not this is stupid as hell

my opinion that this is stupid as hell only further bolstered by all the 4chan/"anonymous" imagery from the facebook page

I think it'd be hilarious to find out where and when they do this and then call the cops on them in the middle of it, see how that waiver holds up
posted by Gymnopedist at 1:10 PM on October 31, 2015

In any event, if there are no safe words, then it's not clear to me how they make the session stop before the eight hours are up, since nobody has run the full gantlet.

The people who run the thing have the ability to stop, too. My guess is that they don't actually want to seriously injure and traumatize people, or there really would have been a lawsuit by now.

Except that this is no more BDSM than 50 Shades is; it's abuse.

I don't see how. This is not an experience you just stumble into. Do you think the participants know even less than the people in this thread? No, it's not BDSM per se but I suspect the motivations are similar.

BDSM can, I think (correct me if I'm wrong), be called pain without fear (for the submissive partner, because safe words of some form are utilized).

Nah, there are plenty of masochists who like to be scared, and a sizable minority who eschew safewords.

Look, I'm not saying this place is a great idea. It's a terrible idea. Lots of bad things could happen. It's just not an unrealistic idea, whatsoever.
posted by desjardins at 1:17 PM on October 31, 2015

> What incentive is there for the people to do this shit show after they already receive their money and the person doesn't want to anymore?

Because it's how they get their jollies.
posted by The corpse in the library at 1:30 PM on October 31, 2015

You're right, sciatrix. I consider sadism to be successful only if the submissive comes back voluntarily for more. Successful sadism is in large measure theatre for the benefit of the submissive. There is probably a layer of understanding to the OP which the reporters do not see because they are outsiders, and because their shock and disbelief may be part of the theatre of the experience for the actual customers.

And it seems from the OP that at least one of the submissive customers was a returner.

I think it is also useful to consider the comments likening the organization to a cult; this may be more truthful than most people realize, because the payoff of sadomasochistic play can resemble a religious epiphany, and whether we consider them trained or observant to standards we accept or not, the players probably have direct and realistic goals which they know whether they are meeting. If they didn't, they wouldn't be able to keep doing it.

And I find no reason at all to consider it a hoax. People really do this kind of thing. Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it isn't real.
posted by Bringer Tom at 1:41 PM on October 31, 2015 [1 favorite]

All the while, incongruous normality reigns in other parts of the house. Sweeney’s three young children sit on a sofa watching cartoons. They seem oblivious to the shouts next door.

What a fucked up thing to expose children to. I'm surprised no one's commented on this because I think the whole article hinges on these three sentences. If it's so "really real", how is it that CPS hasn't yanked those kids out of there? And if the kids are so blasé about it, why? Consenting adults with their kinks aside, I cannot imagine how the most progressive thoughtful parent in the world would be able to explain this to a child in a way that ignoring tortured screams would be a healthy response. Just how numb to violence are they? And if Dad is so comfortable manipulating people through fear and pain when "consent" is loosely defined, I shudder to consider what is possible with people who are unable to give consent.

I'm leaning towards hoax, with the journalist in on it, just for not following up on this casually dropped paragraph.

I get that people have explored the psychic limits of fear and pain throughout history, but history is also replete with examples of these situations getting way out of hand because of lawlessness, mental illness and cognitive impairment of various sorts. The comparison with mountain climbing, skydiving, contact sports is not at all apt here. In almost all other activities involving the thrill of possibly being hurt, the danger is generated by nature, weather, your own preparedness, your equipment, or being on somewhat equal footing as your competitor(not to mention the presence of various safety mechanisms of your own choosing ). Here, the danger rests entirely upon the whims of a stranger's psyche. Who am I to judge the morality of this (ignoring my serious questions about the children)? But if this is as real as portrayed in the article, it is certainly controversial, and very easily transformed to abuse and I don't feel as though it can be shrugged off as similar to other legal BDSM activities between consenting adults.
posted by Slarty Bartfast at 2:52 PM on October 31, 2015 [5 favorites]

It seems like McKamey Manor is to BDSM as Max Hardcore is to porn. I mean, it's undeniably an extreme. You don't have to be against kink to find this objectionable, and in fact the people I know who are most put off by stuff like this are the people I know who are really into kink. It goes really strongly against their values and sets a precedent they say could lead to someone getting seriously hurt. So I'm not really thinking of this as kink because it's so far outside how we typically use that word that I think it just ends up confusing things.

To me, this sounds like the reality TV version of torture porn - like we know that guy is just an actor, and that's just fake blood, and we want to see it for real. I think it's as real as reality TV, so maybe not very, but if nothing else the impulses behind it are real and I have no doubt that people sincerely want to do this. But there's also a big audience for this kind of thing, and as much as I don't want to pass judgment, the thought of there being an audience for extreme suffering makes me uncomfortable.
posted by teponaztli at 5:50 PM on October 31, 2015 [1 favorite]

But there's also a big audience for this kind of thing, and as much as I don't want to pass judgment, the thought of there being an audience for extreme suffering makes me uncomfortable.

Well I don't get an Insex / audience-focused vibe from the OP at all, it seems these guys are all about the immediate experience and they seem to mostly just be humoring the reporters.
posted by Bringer Tom at 6:17 PM on October 31, 2015

Isn't there a YouTube channel?
posted by teponaztli at 6:45 PM on October 31, 2015

Yes. The article mentions YouTube:

“We were pretending to cut hair but YouTube critics said, yah, fake, so thanks to the naysayers we had to ramp it up and bring more reality to it,” he recalls.

Which suggests to me that the extremes are being driven by anonymous viewers online, not by the women and men who are being "cajoled" (per the article) into participating.

Like I said: deeply fucked up.
posted by spacewaitress at 6:57 PM on October 31, 2015

I don't get the sense that they are trying to monetize it by making ad sales. The YouTube thing is about bringing in recruits. Making it real is about making it real for people who want to go through it.

What is very hard to understand if you're not into it is that some people really want to be overwhelmed as a form of entertainment. They don't want the fake haircut, they want the real deal with the real nuisance and humiliation that goes after. They don't want the fake torture with a password, they want the pain they can't stop voluntarily. When they watch it online they look for that authenticity too. They know when the knots are slipknots and the bondage is inauthentic and that ruins the porn for them.

The OP appears to be a weird little subculture and not entirely healthy but at the same time entirely natural and expected and human. If they squick you all I can say is be glad they're not hanging by flesh hooks, which is another thing people do voluntarily. The masochism rabbit hole is much deeper than you probably realize.
posted by Bringer Tom at 7:05 PM on October 31, 2015 [1 favorite]

I don't know. Fuck it. I don't have a background in kink or BDSM so maybe I'm not qualified to give an opinion. I just watched a "testimonials" video on their YouTube channel and while some of the participants said it was "awesome," a few of the people seemed traumatized.

I'm just worried that the real customers are not the participants themselves (who, let us recall from TFA pay their way with dog food, fer chrissakes), but the viewers.
posted by spacewaitress at 7:11 PM on October 31, 2015

Sorry Bringer Tom, I missed your comment while composing mine. I very much don't want to get into an argument! I'm all for people getting their epiphanies where they can.

To me, this looks dangerous, frightening, and exploitative, is all.
posted by spacewaitress at 7:15 PM on October 31, 2015

No prob, spacewaitress, as long as we can find a middle ground. I understand the squick. Lots of what Insex did leaves me cold and a bit squicked. But also, when I first met my wife over thirty years ago, she had to give me an education because I wasn't hurting her enough. I was more into the bondage and control thing but she actually wanted a nice little dollop of pain for it to work for her. That set me on a bit of a quest to understand these things. Nothing about it is intuitive.

I think the best way to understand masochism is that it is a hack of the human nervous system. It requires setup and it has to be managed, but when it works it is a glorious and beautiful thing. I totally envy my wife for the intense body wracking feelings I can sometimes give to her. I know I will never feel anything like that because I don't seem to have the spark for it in my own body. But it is almost a religious experience to make that happen even for someone else. I can understand how the weird little cult of the OP is propelled. I know I would not like to take the OP ride, but I wish that I could like it because I have seen the power of the feelings that kind of thing can create. And it's like nothing even possible by any other technique in any human experience. I really think masochists manage to touch on physiological maxima like "how intense can pleasure be."

To be sure the amateurs in the OP aren't seriously investigating those limits, but they will be if they keep at it long enough.
posted by Bringer Tom at 7:25 PM on October 31, 2015 [2 favorites]

God damn it. I just watched the beginning of the mini-documentary on the Guardian site. They showed a YouTube video with over 1.7 million views, two thousand comments. Of course he's doing it for the money, or at least the notoriety, the attention. He flat-out says that he's always thinking about what makes for good cinema.
posted by spacewaitress at 7:30 PM on October 31, 2015

Dang! Missed your comment again.

Anyway, I think we might be having parallel conversations. I totally get the appeal of bondage.

But to me, this "haunted house" just looks like something else. Like a live snuff film where the participants don't quite die.
posted by spacewaitress at 7:32 PM on October 31, 2015

Well he is of course looking for the notoriety and attention. That's about getting recruits, not about funding the new wing on the mansion and a Bentley to replace the Rolls.
posted by Bringer Tom at 7:33 PM on October 31, 2015

Thank you for sharing your insight, Bringer Tom. Bodywracking pleasure is the best, and what you have with your wife sounds beautiful.
posted by spacewaitress at 7:34 PM on October 31, 2015

I got sucked into trying to figure this place out. Some relevant links:

"Infamous haunted house is back in San Diego" [San Diego Union Tribune]

"McKamey Manor 'Victim' [Amy] Speaks Out" [San Diego Union Tribune]

McKamey Manor's Video of Amy's Experience [YouTube]

"Exposing McKamey Manor" [YouTube]

"EXPOSING MCKAMEY MANOR" [YouTube - Focuses on Amy and her partner Jess's experience]

I found this whole concept pretty disturbing, personally. First of all, I don't know how someone could willfully (gleefully?) do this to someone else. And, like Slarty Bartfast, I also wondered how could someone subject their kids to the constant screams of terror. I watched some of the videos from the McKamey Manor YouTube channel and it chills me the way the "actors" talk to people.

Apparently, the proprietor, Russ, says that the "haunts" get streamed online to a group of people who control what happens to the guests [with cash presumably] and then bet on their reactions (Source). Perhaps this explains how he is able to afford running the place even after he lost his job. (Along with possible proceeds from a reality show: “We have a television show in the works. We’ve signed a deal for a pilot episode, a McKamey Manor type of ‘Fear Factor’ challenge show but in the horror world. We’re gonna be in New York City for six shows.” Source). Supposedly, the proceeds from the bets go to that Greyhound charity he mentions, but supposedly no one is actually being tortured either.

In regards to the legality of what happens at the place, how could anything even be proven when the guy is running the thing who knows where and the only evidence is the heavily-edited videos that he posts to YouTube? I have watched a few of these now and it seems like the more likely a person is to bring a complaint, the less evidence there is of any possible wrongdoing in the video they release of them. For instance, in the video they have up of a former Marine, they show them forcing his head underwater as he yells to be let out -- in a later clip, he agreed to quit only once he was pulled out for being clearly hypothermic. While in Amy's video, there is a part where the video becomes choppy and blurred -- it is unclear what exactly is happening but she is somehow being doused with water. This is where she begs them to stop. There seems to be many different versions of the "haunt" and some take place in the proprietor's backyard (like Amy's) while others (like the Marine's) seem to be spread across multiple sites; those from the media are likely getting an even different version. I don't think the "smoke and mirrors" he speaks of is in the participants' experience, it is in how he is running his operation.

I think the only chance they may have of being shut down is for some kind of illegal gambling and/or tax evasion. Maybe what someone needs to do is contact him and say they'd like to start placing bets on the haunts and see what shakes out.
posted by sevenofspades at 7:54 PM on October 31, 2015 [2 favorites]

Oh great so this new "The Player" series is another documentary like the movie Network.
posted by Bringer Tom at 7:59 PM on October 31, 2015

Except that this is no more BDSM than 50 Shades is; it's abuse.

I don't see how. This is not an experience you just stumble into. Do you think the participants know even less than the people in this thread? No, it's not BDSM per se but I suspect the motivations are similar.

For all the reasons listed above, I don't believe that any participants actually exist. This is fiction--just like 50 Shades.

pervsplain

I'm a happy kinkster, thanks, so please don't assume I'm coming from a place of not understanding BDSM and related kinks.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 9:30 PM on October 31, 2015 [1 favorite]

Mod note: One comment deleted. Bringer Tom, you need to stop trying to dominate the discussion here. Also, BT and everyone, we don't really need to turn this into a "show me your kink card" thing, which is getting a little afield of the actual post.
posted by taz (staff) at 3:42 AM on November 1, 2015 [6 favorites]

When I first heard about this I assumed it was some new project from Kink.com

It seems very like the guy that ran Insex.com, back before they were shut down by the Patriot Act (which blocked credit card transactions for extremely torture, etc)
There is a (disturbing + fascinating) documentary on insex, and yeah the guy seems quite similar to this guy's nonchalant overwhelming fascination with torture.


Also, this seems far less of a "horror" thing that it is an "extreme torture" thing.
posted by Theta States at 9:14 AM on November 2, 2015

Also, the most disturbing aspect of the video for me was his kids. Them commenting on "yes daddy likes watching torture on his computer" seems profoundly messed.
posted by Theta States at 9:16 AM on November 2, 2015