When introducing the main types of motorhomes, we typically stick to the common Class A, B, and C categories. But there are two important motorhome types that some might call ‘tweeners’ – the Class B+ and the Super C RV.
While Class B+ RVs are designed to provide more luxury than your standard class B camper van, the best super C RVs are designed for more rugged, off-road use than a standard class C motorhome. Let’s learn more about Super C RVs and some of the top-selling models you can find at Camping World dealerships nationwide.

What is a Super C RV?

A Super C RV is essentially a heavier-duty upgrade to a standard Class C motorhome. Most Super C motorhomes are built on a larger, heavier truck chassis, such as the RAM® 5500 SLT, the Freightliner® S2RV, and the Ford® F-550 Chassis.
Many Super C RVs also boast more powerful diesel engines, allowing them to tow heavier loads than an average Class C motorhome. Still, the significant identifying feature shared by Class C and Super C RVs is the cabover bunk area above the driver’s cockpit.

What are the Pros and Cons of Super C RVs?

Here are some of the most important advantages and disadvantages of Super C RVs, as compared to other motorhomes:

Pros

• Towing Capacity. Larger diesel engines and beefed-up towing packages allow you to tow heavier loads.
• Interior Living Space. A larger, heavy-duty chassis allows for bigger builds with more spacious floorplans.
• Holding Tank Capacities. Larger fresh, gray, and black water holding tanks allow you to camp longer between dump station visits.
• Extended Wheelbase. A wider wheelbase provides more stability and security when navigating this RV through various road conditions.
• Exterior Storage. Massive basement compartments provide ample room for grills, camping chairs, pop-up shelters, and more.
• Suspension. Upgraded suspension for a smoother, more comfortable ride and an improved ability to handle unmaintained roads. Learn more about RV suspension.
• Engine Maintenance. The engine is located under the hood in the front, providing easier access for mechanics than what’s required in Class A diesel motorhomes.

Cons

• Maneuverability. Larger RVs require more care and precision from the open highway to entering gas stations and parking lots. Still, most Super C RVs fall under the 26,000-pound limit, meaning you don’t need a special license to drive them.
• Fuel Efficiency. On average, this RV type gets less than 10 miles per gallon. This is closer to what you’ll get with most Class A diesel RVs but less than you’d get with a compact Class B RV.
• Price Point: Super C RVs start at a higher price point than standard Class C motorhomes, making them a more direct comparison with Class A diesel pushers.

Learn more about the pros and cons of diesel versus gas RVs.

Camping World’s Best Super C RVs

These are four of the top-selling Super C motorhomes you’ll find on Camping World lots:

Dynamax Isata 5 28SS with Xplorer Package

Powered by a Cummins 6.7L I6 turbo diesel engine, the Dynamax Isata 5 28SS boasts a 10,000-pound towing capacity for towing a larger toad or even a boat like the Nepallo. With a Quad-View camera system, you’ll have views from the hitch, the top of the rear wall, and on both sides for easy maneuvering in and out of campsites.
The exterior is equipped with a TV mount under the armless patio awning, which dramatically reduces the chances of bumping your head as you’re moving about outside your RV. The cabover mattress measures 50” x 80” for a comfortable secondary sleeping area, and the booth dinette can be upgraded to a tri-fold sofa or theater seating, depending on your preference.
Find a Dynamax Isata Super C near you.

RV Specs

• Length: 31’2”
• Chassis: Ram® 5500 SLT Chassis - Factory 4-Wheel Drive
• Sleeping Capacity: Up to 4
• Freshwater Capacity: 78 gallons
• Waste Water Capacity: 45 (gray) and 45 (black) gallons

Jayco Seneca Prestige 37L

https://youtu.be/kGFppR4bQDU
Of the Super C RVs on our list, the Jayco Seneca Prestige 37L boasts the highest sleeping capacity. As Chris says in the video, it’s full of luxury amenities like solid surface countertops with an undermount, stainless steel sink in the kitchen, a 50” LED TV, and a 40” electric fireplace below the entertainment center.
The overhead bunk above the cockpit boasts an impressive 750-pound weight capacity, and the included cargo net can handle up to 300 pounds if you use that area for gear storage. The JAYCOMMAND® control center powered by Firefly helps you control all the RV's interior systems from the control panel or directly from your smartphone using the mobile app.
Outside, the Seneca Prestige boasts a hitch receiver with a 12,000-pound capacity. It also has features like a water filtration system and a Thetford macerator system that would be pricey add-ons for many motorhomes. With slide-out toppers above all the slide-outs and the industry’s largest travel-view window in the entrance door, Jayco has thought of it all with this prestigious Super C RV.
Explore new and used Jayco Seneca motorhomes.

RV Specs

• Length: 39’4”
• Chassis: Freightliner® S2RV Chassis
• Sleeping Capacity: Up to 9
• Freshwater Capacity: 72 gallons
• Waste Water Capacity: 81 (gray) and 50 (black) gallons

Thor Motor Coach Magnitude XG32

Ideal for couples or small families, the Thor Magnitude XG32 boasts a nearly full-length slide-out on the driver’s side. This dramatically increases the floor space between the theater seating on the passenger side and the dinette and kitchen on the off-camp side.
It also creates extra floorplan space for a sizeable bathroom with a 32” x 32” corner shower, a mirrored vanity, and plenty of storage for linens and bathroom essentials. The bedroom features a second slide-out that houses the 60” x 75” queen bed that’s laid out opposite a massive closet and dresser.
The exterior features a powered patio awning, an exterior 32” TV with a built-in, Bluetooth-enabled sound bar, an exterior shower and LP connection, and a 100-watt solar charging system with a power controller. This 50-amp coach also comes standard with the Winegard® Connect Wi-Fi Extender +4G and a rooftop satellite mounting backer.
Check the price of Thor Magnitude motorhomes in your region.

RV Specs

• Length: 33’8”
• Chassis: Ford® F-550 Chassis
• Sleeping Capacity: Up to 4
• Freshwater Capacity: 75 gallons
• Waste Water Capacity: 47 (gray) and 40 (black) gallons

Tiffin Allegro Bay 38AB

Tiffin’s Allegro Bay 38AB is one of three floorplans offered in this Super C model. The 38AB sleeps up to six, making it ideal for families traveling with kids and their friends. Because every adventure starts with the journey to your destination, the Allegro Bay is powered by a Cummins® Quiet B6.7 360-HP diesel engine with a six-speed Allison transmission.
You can expand your destination selection with this Super C, as it’s equipped with an Onan 8,000-watt diesel generator that’ll keep your electrical systems running as long as you keep diesel fuel in the tank. Plus, its better optional upgrades include solar prep and three 200-watt solar panels with a 30-amp charge controller.
This 50-amp Super C RV also boasts plenty of holding tank capacity for boondocking trips, but the interior makes you feel like you’re glamping no matter the destination. A 20-cubic-foot refrigerator is one of the largest in the industry, and the residential microwave with an air fryer makes reheating camp meals as simple as the touch of a button.
Discover Tiffin Allegro Bay Super C RVs nationwide.

RV Specs

• Length: 39’4”
• Chassis: Freightliner® S2RV Chassis
• Sleeping Capacity: Up to 6
• Freshwater Capacity: 150 gallons
• Waste Water Capacity: 70 (gray) and 45 (black) gallons

Thor Motor Coach Magnitude RS36

The Thor Magnitude RS36 is another 4x4 Super C RV with a 6.7L Power Stroke Turbo Diesel engine that delivers up to 12,000 pounds of towing capacity. Even if you don’t tow, that powerful engine won’t have any trouble with this RV’s heavy-duty construction, which features a welded tubular steel floor, a welded tubular aluminum roof and sidewall cage construction, and Vacu-bond laminated roof, walls, and floor.
Inside that beefy package, Thor equipped the RS36 with all the features you need for comfortable easy navigation. That includes safety features like lane departure warning and pre-collision assist, comfort amenities like adjustable pedals and heated remote exterior mirrors, and an entertainment system with an 8” color LCD touchscreen and voice-command recognition.
To keep you comfortable and keep your systems running throughout the camping season, this 50-amp coach is built with dual 13,500-BTU air conditioning units, a 100-watt solar charging system with charge controller, and a 6,000-watt Onan diesel generator with automatic generator start to keep your appliances powered when camping off-grid.
Check the price of Thor Magnitude motorhomes in your region.

RV Specs

• Length: 37’8”
• Chassis: Ford® F-600 Chassis
• Sleeping Capacity: Up to 6
• Freshwater Capacity: 75 gallons
• Waste Water Capacity: 40 (gray) and 40 (black) gallons

These Super C RVs are some of the most rugged luxury RVs you’ll find. At a similar price point, here are a few other collections of luxury RVs you might be interested in:

• Camping World’s Guide to Luxury RVs
• 2022 Luxury Fifth Wheels
• Four Class B+ RVs That Goldilocks Would Love

Which of these Super C RVs is your favorite? Let us know in the comments below.

All three of the nation’s major stock indexes hit record highs today after the latest data showed inflation cooling. Standard and Poor’s 500, more commonly known as the S&P 500, measures the stock performance of 500 of the largest companies listed on U.S. stock exchanges. Today it was up 61 points, or 1.2%. The Nasdaq Composite is weighted toward companies in the information technology sector. Today it was up 231 points, or 1.4%. The Dow Jones Industrial Average, often just called the Dow, measures 30 prominent companies listed on U.S. stock exchanges. Today it was up 350 points, or 0.9%. The Dow ended the day at 39,908, approaching 40,000.
Driving the hike in the stock market, most likely, is the information released today by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in the Labor Department saying that inflation eased in April. Investors are guessing this makes it more likely that the Federal Reserve will cut interest rates this year.
People note—correctly—that the stock market does not reflect the larger economy. This makes a report released yesterday from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, or CBO, an important addition to the news from the stock market. It concludes that the goods and services an American household consumed in 2019 were cheaper in 2023 than they were four years before, because incomes grew faster than prices over that four-year period. That finding was true for all levels of the economy.
That is, “for all income groups…the portion of household income required to purchase the same bundle of goods and services declined.” Those in the bottom 20% found that the share of their income required to purchase the same bundle dropped by 2%. For those in the top 20%, the share of their income required to purchase as they did in 2019 dropped by 6.3%.
These statistics come on top of unemployment below 4% for a record 27 months, and more than 15 million jobs created since Biden took office, including 789,000 in manufacturing. According to Politifact, three quarters of those jobs represented a return to the conditions before the coronavirus pandemic, but the rest are new. Politifact noted that it is so rare for manufacturing jobs to bounce back at all, that the only economic recovery since World War II that beats the current one was in 1949, making the recovery under the Biden-Harris administration the strongest in 72 years.
And yet, a recent Philadelphia Inquirer/New York Times/Siena College poll found that 78% of Pennsylvania voters thought the economy was “fair” or “poor.” Fifty-four percent of them said they trust Trump to handle the economy better than Biden, compared with just 42% who prefer Biden.
The divorce between reality and people’s beliefs illuminates just how important media portrayals of events are.
In the landslide election of 1892, when voters elected Democrat Grover Cleveland to the White House for the third time (he won the popular vote in 1888 but lost in the electoral college) and put Democrats in charge of the House of Representatives and the Senate, Republicans insisted that the economy would collapse. The previous administration, that of Republican Benjamin Harrison, had openly and proudly worked for businessmen, and Republicans maintained that losing that administration would be a calamity. Democrats, the Republicans insisted, were really socialists and anarchists who wanted to destroy America.
As Republican newspapers predicted an impending collapse, fearful investors pulled out of the market. Although economic indicators were actually better in 1892 than they had been for years, as soon as Cleveland was elected, the nation seemed to be in terrible trouble. Money began to flow out of the stock market, and the outgoing Harrison administration refused to reassure investors. By February 1893 the stock market was paralyzed.
In mid-February, financier J. P. Morgan rushed to Washington to urge Harrison to do something, but the calm of the administration men remained undisturbed. Secretary of the Treasury Charles Foster commented publicly that the Republicans were responsible for the economy only until March 4, the day Cleveland would take office. His job was to “avert a catastrophe up to that date.”
He didn’t quite manage it. On Friday, February 17, the stock market began to collapse. By February 23 the slaughter was universal. Investors begged Harrison to relieve the crisis, but with only eight days left in his term, Harrison and his men maintained that nothing important was happening. The secretary of the Treasury spent his last few days in office sitting for his portrait. The New York Times noted that “[i]f the National Treasury Department had been retained especially to manufacture apprehension and create disturbance it could not have done more effective work.”
Secretary Foster had one more parting shot. When he handed the Treasury Department off to his Democratic successor, he told the newspapers that “the Treasury was down to bedrock.”
When Cleveland took office on March 4, 1893, a financial panic was in full swing. As he tried to negotiate that crisis, Republicans sagely told voters the crash was the result of the Democrats’ policies. When Democrats turned to an income tax so they could lower the tariffs that were hurting consumers, Republicans insisted they were socialists. When unemployed workers and struggling farmers marched on Washington to ask for jobs or launched railroad strikes, Republicans insisted that Democrats stood with the mob, while Republicans were the party of law and order.
Republicans promised voters that they would restore the health of the economy. The 1894 midterm elections reversed the landslide of 1892, giving Republicans 130 more seats in the House—a two-thirds majority—and a majority in the Senate. The economy had begun to recover before the election, and that uptick continued. The Democrats had plunged the country into a panic, the Chicago Tribune reported, but now “American manufacturers and merchants and business-men generally will draw a long breath of relief.”
How the media covers events matters.
Allison Fisher of Media Matters reported today that with the exception of MSNBC, national television news failed to cover the extraordinary story reported by Josh Dawsey and Maxine Joselow on May 9 in the Washington Post that Trump had told oil executives that if they gave $1 billion to his campaign, he would get rid of all the regulations the Biden administration has enacted to combat climate change.
In the 1920s, President Warren G. Harding’s secretary of the interior, Albert Fall, went to prison for a year for accepting a $385,000 bribe from oilman Edward L. Doheny in exchange for leases to drill for oil on naval reserve land in Elk Hills and Buena Vista, California, and Teapot Dome, Wyoming. Fall was the first former cabinet officer to go to prison, and the scandal was considered so outrageous that “Teapot Dome” has gone down in U.S. history as shorthand for a corrupt presidency.
—
Notes:
https://www.cnn.com/2024/05/15/economy/consumer-price-index-inflation-april/index.html
https://www.cnbc.com/2024/05/15/cpi-inflation-april-2024-consumer-prices-rose-0point3percent-in-april.html
https://www.nytimes.com/live/2024/05/15/business/cpi-inflation-fed
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/60166
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/60267
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4645068-more-americans-trust-trump-on-economy-inflation-than-biden-poll/
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2023/dec/13/joe-biden/fact-checking-joe-biden-on-manufacturing-jobs/
https://www.inquirer.com/politics/election/pennsylvania-poll-trump-biden-economy-20240514.html
Chicago Daily Tribune, November 7, 1894, pp. 11–12.
New York Times, March 4, 1893, p. 6.
Chicago Daily Tribune, March 8. 1893, p. 1.
https://www.mediamatters.org/msnbc/national-tv-news-exception-msnbc-failed-cover-trumps-scandalous-big-oil-proposition
Twitter (X):
WhiteHouseCEA/status/1790736092506808377
https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/may-15-2024

Hi all!
I have a student working on the Hummel right now and I just can't remember if the trill in measure 81 is supposed to start with the note above (concert Eb) or on the lower note (concert D). I'm pretty sure there's a style rule here, but I just can't remember it!
In both this Tine Thing Helseth recording and this Allison Balsom recording, they start on the note above.
But in this Maurice Andre recording, it looks like he starts on the lower note.
Is one correct over the other? Thanks in advance for the insight!

w

This in an interview in Damage Magazine with Andrew Scull on why we are in the crisis of homelessness and general anarchy with the severely mentally ill on the streets that we are. BTW it is interesting to se what kind of frankly disturbed people that actually lead the dinstitutionalization movement were and how they could in any way compare what was a well meaning and generally good system to the nazis shows how America in the 50s and 60s allowed fantasists too take over

Andrew Scull
What was Psychiatric Deinstitutionalization?
Andrew Scull
Apr 22, 2024 21 min
An interview with sociologist and historian of psychiatry Andrew Scull about the history and legacy of psychiatric deinstitutionalization.
The first school for the deaf founded in the United States. Opened in 1817 as the Connecticut Asylum (at Hartford) for the Education and Instruction of Deaf and Dumb Persons, the name later changed to the American School for the Deaf. Hiram P. Arms, Library of Congress, 1881.
Damage Magazine: What did care for the mentally ill look like before the rise of the asylums?
Andrew Scull: Well, that's going back a very long way. The asylum becomes the primary response to serious forms of mental illness beginning in the early nineteenth century, and as far as America's concerned, 1820’s, '30s, '40s. Before that, it depends a bit on where you are geographically. If you're talking about the United States, as far as we know, virtually everything revolved around the family. It was the family's responsibility to somehow cope, as best they could, with a deranged member. If there were no family members, then communities often intervened in an ad hoc fashion, often simply by locking them up in some informal fashion, as best they could, particularly if somebody were considered to be a dangerous person because of their mental distress.
That had been the case for many centuries in England. Beginning, even in the late seventeenth century, we see a handful of small, private madhouses operated for profit beginning to emerge, and a few charity asylums, the most famous of which dates all the way back into the twelfth century. That's Bethlehem Hospital, or Bedlam, as it was called. But we're talking about a very, very tiny fraction of people institutionalized in such places. At the end of the eighteenth century in England, there were maybe a couple thousand in such institutions, and a very wide range of experiences for those who were confined in them.
The asylum is essentially a nineteenth-century creation. It became apparent that mental illness bankrupts people, that it makes them unable to provide for themselves, and because its victims are incapable of work, mental illness tends to crash household resources. So whereas medical care remains a commodity you have to pay for, increasingly in the nineteenth century, on a state by state basis in the United States, state asylums begin to emerge, paid for by the public. The lunatics, as they're then called, are confined largely at public expense, sometimes with subventions from the family if they have some money.
There is a small private sector that emerges in the United States and some of those hospitals persist all the way down to today. The McLean Hospital, in the Boston area, being one example. Others of them have changed location, or names. There was one called the Hartford Retreat, set up in Connecticut at a time when Hartford was a very affluent part of the country. That, now, is called the Institute of Living—an attempt, I think, to disguise what it's about. Unfortunately, its address is “Asylum Avenue, Hartford, Connecticut,” so it doesn't quite work.
So, asylums begin in America. Once the notion has arisen that asylums might be able to cure mental illness, in a time of extreme optimism about what they can do, the main driving force spreading that notion and getting states to sign on to the expense of building these places is a woman named Dorothea Dix from Boston. At a time when women had no vote and were largely excluded from public life, this single, moral entrepreneur travels the length and breadth of the United States persuading good ol’ boy politicians that they need to spend money on this project.
Thanks to Dix and others, asylums grow rapidly in both number and size. So by the end of the nineteenth century, asylums of 1000, 5000, and even, in the case of Milledgeville, 10 or 12,000 patients, had arrived on the scene. From then forward until at least the middle of the twentieth century, the major official response to serious mental illness is to put people in institutions. Not everybody ends up there, of course, but we're talking by 1950, half a million people, on any given day, in state and county mental hospitals across the US.
DM: In accounting for the rise of the asylums you talk about moral entrepreneurs like Dix, and about the economic burden of caring for the mentally ill on individual families, but were there broader political economic shifts that gave rise to what you call the “empire of asylumdom”?
AS: Yes. I think there were. Geographical mobility, urbanization, the separation of work from the home, all of these things multiplied problems for families. They often broke extended families down. They made it much more difficult for families to use traditional expedience to cope with people at home.
This is also a time when states, including the United States, start to invest in institutional solutions to all sorts of social problems: poverty in the form of workhouses, prisons in the form of penitentiaries, and much more elaborate prison regimes, even institutions for other kinds of people who are seen as socially problematic, or have problems that are hard to cope with—institutions for the blind, institutions for juvenile delinquents. The nineteenth century sees the rise of that whole enterprise. Of course, it's dependent upon the expanding power of the state, its ability to tax, but also on an ideological shift that sees these kinds of institutions as a solution to the problems of crime, mental illness, or poverty.
Dorothea L. Dix, Superintendent of Army Nurses for the Union Army, holds a book and sits in a room with a medical bag on the floor, 1865. Liljenquist Family collection, Library of Congress.
DM: What was the “moral treatment”? Where did it come from? And how did it influence asylum practices?
AS: In the late eighteenth century, in France, in England, in Italy to some degree, you have the rise of institutions trying to cope with people rather than keep them scattered among families. In those institutions, there's very little in the way of external control, at that time. There's a wide variety of things tried out. Almost by trial and error, some of the people managing mental patients develop a technique, which is known in France as traitement moral and in England as moral treatment.
Fundamental to this moral treatment approach, to its early successes, and to the optimism that it generates is the idea that human nature is malleable; that it's a product of environmental influences, that people can be coaxed back to sanity, or to the common sense that the rest of us think we share. That's done partly through the physical environment. This is why asylums are so central, early on, because in those institutions you can control things much more, but you also create a moral architecture. Moral treatment wants to do away with straightforward imprisonment as much as possible, to substitute for it incentives for people to behave themselves, coax them into reasserting their own powers of self-control over their behavior. Reward them when they do that, and penalize them, but not through harsh punishments, when they don't.
So all aspects of the environment are terribly important. You locate asylums in pleasant surroundings. You disguise the fact there are bars on the windows by painting them to look as though they're the usual wood dividers of windows. You allow people who behave themselves to take tea with you in the English ritual, at four o’clock in the afternoon. You encourage them to take pets because that brings them out of themselves.
To be clear, the point was not to reason with people about their madness. Moral treatment proponents are very clear that you can't do that. This is not Freudianism. This is not getting people to talk about their mind, it's getting them to suppress it. When I say “suppress,” that highlights the other side of moral treatment, which is that it becomes a series of techniques for controlling people's behavior and evolves eventually into a ward system, which the Canadian American sociologist, Erving Goffman, analyzes in the mid-twentieth century.
So if you act out, if you behave badly, you move down the hierarchy to an ever more impoverished environment until you are with people who are demented and otherwise incapable of normal communication. The basic message is, “If you behave yourself, we'll start to improve your surroundings. If you want to see the outside world at all, you better control yourself.” Eventually it becomes this organized routine, this set of rules, that really is no longer the kind of individualized moral therapy that it started out being in the early nineteenth century. Over time, patients lose their autonomy, they lose their ability to make choices in their lives. From the point of view of those running the institutions, that makes it easier for them to cope. But from the patient's point of view, it kind of exacerbates whatever pathology already exists.
DM: You have written in Madness in Civilization: "Few would dispute the claim that asylums operated along moral treatment lines provided a more humane environment than the worst of the traditional madhouses. Well, actually the French philosopher Michel Foucault and his followers would." What was Foucault's characterization, and why is it wrong?
AS: I have a lot of quarrels with Foucault as a historian, which he really wasn't. He was a philosopher and social thinker. I would say I see a more complicated, more nuanced picture than Foucault does. There was a Roman god named Janus, who had a face facing forward and a face facing backward, two-sided. Foucault, for me, is too one-sided. He sees the defects, but fails to acknowledge anything on the other side of the equation. It's all oppressive. It's all hopeless. I'm, by no means, a naive optimist about the situation. I don’t subscribe to the meliorist notion that these asylums were wonderful places. They clearly were not, in many, many ways, particularly as time passed. The thing they did provide was a roof over people's heads, food (which was often pretty awful, but nonetheless was food), clothing, and some attempts at social stimulation, for at least a fraction of the patients.
But it’s certainly true that asylums did become awful places over time. When patients were locked away like this, out of sight and out of mind, there was a lot of hidden violence. You were asking ill-educated, ill-trained attendants, who were the people most of the patients saw most of the time, to turn the other cheek when patients exhibited no gratitude, when they were violent, when they would throw feces at you. So, the subculture of a certain degree of violence was certainly there, no matter how hard anybody tried to eliminate it.
Patients also came increasingly to be blamed for their own status. They were seen as lacking some of the central qualities of humanness, if you like. When you look at the writings of alienists, or psychiatrists, as they came to call themselves at the end of the nineteenth century, they start talking about these people as defective, as people who have the sort of pedigree of mongrel dogs, as if they'd be wrapped up in a sack and thrown into a pond and drowned. So there's this very harsh language that then mutates into an untrammeled willingness to experiment on patients, in ways that in retrospect look quite horrific. It's the isolation of these institutions, and the stigma attached to mental illness, and the powerlessness of the patients, that permits this kind of thing to happen over and over again.
By the last third of the nineteenth century, mental hospitals had lost their luster. They had lost much of their claim to be therapeutic institutions. In part, it was an over-exaggeration, but they're seen as places where once you enter, the only way you're going to come out is in a pine box. Now, that's not actually true. Even in the depths of late nineteenth-century pessimism, perhaps a third or a little more of each year's intake would leave within a year. The thing is, if you didn't leave within a year to eighteen months, you were unlikely to leave, except when you were dead.
So, the institution's reputation becomes one of a kind of warehouse, if you like. Then in the early twentieth century, faced with that reputation, we see the emergence of attempts to break with that pessimism. These often move social policy in directions that, looking back, seem rather pernicious. So we have, for example, the connections of mental illness to eugenics, to the fact that it appears to be to some degree a hereditary disorder, as it still is thought to be. This is when we see the rise of involuntary sterilization and other interventions increasingly directed at the body. Attempts to shock people back into sanity, attempts to operate on their brains, to operate on other body parts, assuming that infections elsewhere in the body are poisoning the brain. In a pre-antibiotic era, you've got to rip out the bits that are infected, whether it be teeth, tonsils, stomachs, or colons. So, there are a lot of interventions of that sort: insulin coma therapy, ECT, lobotomy, and a lot more besides.
The mentally ill become shut up in a double sense. They're obviously locked away, but they also lose all their civil rights, and their voices are not listened to. They're seen as the product of their mental illness, and therefore, to be disregarded.
DM: Aside from the bad reputation that the asylums had gained, and the obvious inhumanity of the new methods adopted in the twentieth century, what else drove deinstitutionalization?
AS: The nineteenth century solution to the problems of criminality, poverty, and mental illness was to build big institutions, and that persisted well into the middle of the twentieth century. In New York state in 1950, if you looked at the state budget, 30% of it went to New York state's mental hospitals. They were a huge expense. There were conferences of governors in the late '40s and '50s, where they all asked, “What are we going to do? This is a huge problem.”
It was becoming more expensive, and thus a more pressing problem, for a couple of reasons. First of all, many of these institutions had been built 50, 100 years before and were decaying, particularly because they hadn't been invested in during both the Great Depression and World War II. Also, after World War II, union strength was growing. The attendants in the mental hospitals were unionizing. Work weeks had been 80 or 90 hours a week, and you lived on the premises. If you were an employee, you were trapped every bit as much as the patients. But now work weeks became 50 or 55 hours. That added to the expense of things.
There were also a lot of journalistic exposés of the mental hospital, later supplemented by the work of sociologists and anthropologists. Right after the war, a number of American journalists had been to the death camps in Germany and in what's now Poland. These returning journalists came back and visited America's mental hospitals and said, “These are America's death camps.” Due to the wartime shortages of food, attendants, and physicians, the hospitals were probably at the nadir of their status in those years. So Albert Deutsch, for example, was a journalist who'd written the first positive history of mental illness in America. He went around and produced a series of newspaper articles that were published in a book called The Shame of the States, where he explicitly compared what he'd seen to Belsen and Buchenwald. He wasn't alone in making that comparison.
So the reputation of the mental hospital was plummeting. It was in a very bad way. And yet, by 1955, on any given day, there were 500,000+ patients in these hospitals. Today, it’s less than 40,000, and our overall population has doubled. If we still institutionalized at the rate we did in the mid-'50s, there'd be over a million people in mental hospitals. Obviously, there aren't. A lot of them, however, are back in the jails. Dorothea Dix's campaign, in part, was to rescue mental patients who were confined in colonial and early national jails, and put them in reformed asylums. Now, the three largest institutions coping with the mentally ill in America are LA County Jail, Cook County Jail in Chicago, and Rikers Island in New York—all of them hellholes, without exception.
Of course, another side effect of the relatively abrupt discontinuation of the asylum system, and its non-replacement by anything substantial, is the homeless problem that confronts cities all across the United States, and particularly along the west coast.
Rikers Island, 2006. Wikimedia.
DM: I want to provide a summary judgment of the asylum as an institution, and maybe you can say why it's wrong, or how it needs to be complicated. In brief, it’s an institution that started off with good intentions, under the belief that through the moral treatment people could be brought back to some kind of common sense. But over time, through an increasing emphasis on biological factors, they became more inhumane towards asylees' individual subjectivity, and at the same time institutions that, because of a lack of funding and being overstretched for the populations they were trying to deal with, just sort of fell into ruin. Is that a fair summary judgment of the asylums?
AS: I think it's not far off the mark. The early moral treatment institutions, when they began, had 50, 100, 120 patients. On Long Island, in the 1930s and '40s, you had institutions of 10, 15, 20,000, and any chance of individual attention to a patient simply vanished in the face of that kind of growth. It really, in part, was a function of simple mathematics. The early people thought they could cure 60, 70, 80% of patients in the asylums. In fact, maybe 40% would leave within the year, and then the rest would accumulate. Of course, some died. But over time, that inevitably created a situation where a larger and larger fraction of the whole were the chronic patients, and the new incomers, as a fraction of the whole, were less and less. That fed into the sense that these were places that didn't work and didn't cure. Once that perception spread, getting states to allocate substantial sums of money to keep these places running, at a reasonable level, became almost impossible.
The old phrase, "Out of sight, out of mind," really did apply. Patients were isolated. Except for the occasional journalists penetrating the scene, patients were largely invisible, and families lost hope. Connections to families, over time, attenuated and disappeared. So it really was a very difficult situation. That said, it's still important to recognize that even in fairly horrible conditions, patients had a roof over their head. They had some kind of food and some kind of clothing, and occasionally some social activities. It's, on the whole, a negative picture, but something where you have to bear in mind what the alternatives might've been and have proved to be, I think, since we've abandoned this system.
DM: There were two books that appeared in 1961. You've mentioned one already, Erving Goffman's Asylums, and then Thomas Szasz's The Myth of Mental Illness. Together they comprise something like a foundational critique of, not just the asylum as an institution, but the entire paradigm that informs the asylum as an institution. What do you make of these two works today? Were they accurate in their critiques? Were they overblown?
AS: Well, they were part of a broader movement in the '60s to criticize the psychiatric enterprise. They're rather different, I think. But overall, both of them contributed to delegitimizing the asylum system and did so by pointing out, often quite powerfully, its drawbacks and its defects, without really talking about what the alternatives were likely to be, if indeed they existed. Goffman tended to imply that the institution was the problem itself, that it tended to create the very behaviors that legitimized its existence in a kind of paradoxical fashion. It undermined patient autonomy. It created behaviors that to outsiders looked bizarre. But he had very little sense, other than talking about a certain “betrayal funnel,” about why it was that people ended up in these places. I think that was a huge failing in the book.
Szasz was... how to put it? He was an extreme libertarian in his politics. The Left often, in the '60s, adopted him, but they didn't realize what they were adopting. Szasz was a violent opponent of any state support for anything and considered that the mental hospitals were equivalent to concentration camps or prisons. He thought the people running them, his fellow psychiatrists, were acting in the interest of the state, not the patient. This condition called mental illness was, in his view, a myth because there was no physical cause of the condition. It wasn't an illness like pneumonia or tuberculosis. It was a socially constructed thing, a way of coping with people whose behavior we didn't like, and we couldn't abide. Under the guise of helping them, Szasz claimed, people were railroaded into these institutions that were nothing better than holding pens, prisons.
In the late 1960s, the purview of public interest law, which had emerged mainly around the Civil Rights Movement, began to expand. Some of those lawyers began to move from civil rights to talking about gay rights, to talking about the rights of mental patients, to talking about feminism and the rights of women. So they often seized upon these critiques of the mental hospital, and the critiques of the whole concept of mental illness, to launch a legal attack on these institutions.
There was a very famous case in Alabama, where George Wallace was the governor. It's called Wyatt v. Stickney. Stickney was the mental health commissioner for the state of Alabama. He actually invited the lawsuit because he wasn't getting any money out of Wallace to run his mental hospitals. He thought this lawsuit might help. So the lawsuit was launched, and it was heard by Judge Frank Johnson. He was a federal judge who'd been in law school with Wallace and loathed Wallace. He had testimony about what the minimum American psychiatric standards for a mental hospital would be, how many doctors per 100 patients, how many nurses, how many attendants, what the budget should be like, etc.
He decided the case and said to Wallace, “You have to provide these conditions.” Wallace's response was to discharge about 4,500 of the 5,000 patients in Alabama’s hospitals. Then for the 500 remaining, why, then he met the rules. So it was kind of perverse, but I think the lawyers bringing that suit, in part, actually wanted to get the patients out. What happened in the 1960s was this odd convergence of the Left and the Right in the critique of institutional psychiatry.
On the Left, they'd been convinced by the stories of the abuses in mental hospitals, of the travails of the patients, the loss of civil rights that confronted somebody who was declared insane. On the Right, for people like Szasz, these were examples of the state spending money it shouldn't have. I shared a lecture platform with him a couple of times. Once up in Canada, for example, two topics came up that kind of shocked the left-wing audience that assembled to hear him. This was a time when there were a series of murders in New York by somebody called the Son of Sam, who had gone around shooting courting couples in their cars and killing them. He'd finally been caught and pleaded insanity. The audience asked Szasz what he would do. He said, “Well, if he were my patient, I'd turn him into the police. Once he was convicted, I'd be happy to throw the switch and electrocute him.” There were gasps from the audience, but that was Szasz's position.
Then, the second thing that came up was about the safety net, social welfare, and social security, and Szasz said, “That should be abolished. People should provide for themselves, and if they can't, that's their tough luck.” So you had civil libertarians attacking the institution because of its failings. You had Szasz and people like Ronald Reagan, who became governor of California at the crucial moment, also wanting to abolish these places for a rather different reason. They didn't like the state intervention, but they also didn't like the amounts of money it was costing.
DM: How did deinstitutionalization proceed through different phases?
AS: Mental hospital populations peaked in 1955 in America. They begin to decline, somewhat slowly, for the first decade. Then from the late 1960s onwards, the pace of discharge picks up very sharply. Eventually, mental hospitals are largely emptied, and it becomes very hard to get into them. The psychiatrists often embrace the idea that this was all because of the advent of modern drug therapy, anti-psychotics, antidepressants. There's a lot of evidence that shows that's not the case, from a whole variety of perspectives. Some states adopted the drugs early, some adopted them later. Some state’s systems, like California’s, had hospitals that used drugs extensively, and others that didn't. When you look for patterns, you don't see what you'd expect to see. The hospitals that weren't using drugs were discharging patients more rapidly than the ones that were.
Yet when you look at the pattern of discharge, what you do see in the late 1960s is a massive discharge of old patients, patients over the age of 65. Then what you see from about 1972 forward is that that discharge pattern extends to younger patients. So what's going on at that point?
The first point, the '60s discharges among the elderly, that's Johnson's Great Society program. It's the passage of Medicare and Medicaid. Those old patients, if they're in the state hospitals or on the state budget, if they're discharged and go to nursing homes and board and care homes, they're on Uncle Sam's budget. So there's an incentive to move the patients out. You can see, as the elderly population in the mental hospitals goes down, the elderly population in the nursing homes goes up. It's a parallel development. What happens in 1972, under Richard Nixon of all people? Supplemental Security Income, in addition to social security, which provides a stipend to people who are disabled, including those who are mentally disabled.
You get the emergence of what I call a new trade in lunacy, another one of these things where entrepreneurs batten onto a new source of income. Problems emerge here because they're only lightly regulated, if they're regulated at all, these alternatives to the mental hospital. And the amount of profit you make is inversely proportional to how much you spend on the patient. So the patient brings in a check for $300. If you spend $290 of that on the patient, they probably get better living conditions, but you only make a tiny amount of money. If you spend $180 on them, well, you make a lot more money. So the logic of the marketplace dictated that these places did not provide great care. Then when we get into the 1990s, there’s welfare reform, which is one of Bill Clinton's great initiatives, and before that we have Reagan and Bush. So the safety net, which was never terribly strong, gets weakened and weakened and weakened. Now the states aren't providing, and the feds aren't providing, and you have a festering problem.
A homeless encampment in downtown Los Angeles, near City Hall, 2021. Russ Allison Loar, Wikimedia.
DM: What is needed for the care of the mentally ill today? Is it too much to say that we need to re-institutionalize in some way?
AS: Well, that's an enormously complicated question. What's happened over the last 50, 75 years is much more complicated than I've been able to talk about here. One of the great changes, of course, has been the psychopharmacological revolution, the arrival of drugs. Those have become American psychiatry's almost sole and singular remedy for serious mental illness. If you look at patterns, very few MD psychiatrists offer psychological counseling of any sort anymore. Yet when we look at mental illness, we see a problem that may well have not only biological roots, but also environmental, social, and psychological roots, and certainly environmental, social, and psychological impacts that have to be addressed.
So to the extent we narrow our focus to simply medication, and medication which is a band-aid rather than a cure anyway, we’re only addressing the symptoms of some fraction of patients. Half of all patients with depression aren't helped by antidepressants, and a large fraction of people with psychosis aren't helped, or only helped a bit, by these drugs, which have powerful side effects as well. So we've got to move away from biology as the sole solution to the problem.
We are also going to have to provide, but I don't think the political will is there to do it, some sheltered housing. This is going to be very controversial, but we also have to ask: to what degree are we going to involve compulsion in the system, and to what degree are the courts going to even allow that to happen? Both commitment statutes and court rulings about what you're allowed to do to somebody against their will have made it a very fraught legal situation to actually introduce an element of compulsion. It depends on whether you buy Szasz's view that this is all a myth, or you accept that there's a reality to psychotic illnesses, whether you accept the proposition that some people lose the ability to make appropriate choices about their lives. If you take the position that the state should not be able to compel somebody to get treatment, then I think you're facing a massive problem. But if you allow that compulsion, first of all, are you going to get it past the courts? Assuming you do, how are you going to guard against the kinds of abuses that existed back in the past? We would need to invest very substantial resources in this problem.
The difficulty is that this is a very unappealing population. Mental illness carries with it stigma. It always has. In every society I know, people recoil from it. Many people with serious mental illness are not going to get better. It's one thing to invest money where you're going to see a return, if you like, in the form of somebody being rescued. I don't want to imply that people never recover. Of course, that's not true. But with patients who were chronic in the asylum, patients who at best are going to improve a bit but are still going to be probably incapable of providing for much of their daily living, they're a burden. How do you persuade a public that has been sold on the idea that we're all individually responsible for ourselves that there is a collective obligation to provide a minimum level for all citizens? It's a hard sell. When you see budgets being cut over the last 70 years, programs for the mentally ill are always among the easiest to cut, and the hardest to increase.
Then the further problem is, "Do we have effective treatments?" The answer is, "Well, for some fraction of patients, yes. We have things that will make their lives significantly better." So, it's not a completely hopeless situation. But for many mental patients, what's going to happen to them with the best tools we have at hand? Drugs, cognitive behavioral therapy, whatever interventions we're talking about here. We can control their symptoms a bit. We can get them back, to some degree, in control over their lives. But being able to abolish their problems completely, we don't have that magic bullet. We simply don't possess it. I wish we did, but the honest answer to that situation is that we have, at the best, palliative measures.
Right now mayors across the United States, in New York, in Portland, in Seattle, in LA, in San Francisco, they’re all realizing they've got a huge problem on their hands. The public, which is increasingly seeing how having our streets full of people, some of whom are seriously mentally ill, is damaging the very social fabric of daily life. So there's some pressure on the other side. Whether that will result in punitive responses, or more caring and effective responses, remains to be seen.
■
Andrew Scull is Distinguished Professor of Sociology and Science Studies at the University of California-San Diego and author of ~Madness in Civilization: A Cultural History of Insanity, from the Bible to Freud, from the Madhouse to Modern Medicine~.

Casting directors serve a vital role in the success of TV shows. Casting directors are tasked with sifting through thousands of actors in an attempt to cast the perfect person for each role, large or small. I can't think of many shows where the casting directors did a better job than Drake & Josh. Every leading and supporting actor fits their role perfectly. Drake Bell and Josh Peck's chemistry is undeniable. Jon Goldstein and Nancy Sullivan seem like a real married couple. Miranda Cosgrove perfectly portrays a sadistic little sister. There isn't a single miscast.
Even all of the reoccurring characters are cast perfectly. Allison Scagliotti was the perfect choice for Mindy Crenshaw; she expertly portrays a teenage brainiac with a hard shell and a warm heart. Yvette Nicole Brown is hilarious as Helen Dubois and who could forget Jerry Trainor as Crazy Steve? I couldn't imagine another actor as Crazy Steve.

I had a neat chat with u/gawthgirl that ended up being a comment that I thought worth posting separately. A common narrative in the Drake and Josh fan community is that Drake is the star and Josh is the butt of the joke, the silly fat kid, the buffoonish incompetent who suffers while Drake shines and gets all the female attention and is always described as the most attractive of the brothers. Josh Peck has described feeling insecure that Drake 'got' all' the 'girls'.
That's not how I see it; to me, this is Josh's show.
Josh Nichols is moral, kind, likable and my sympathies are always with him. Drake Parker, in contrast, is disloyal, selfish, shallow, dim, and small minded. Josh is the hero of the series that I cheer for, the one I want to do well, the character who works hardest and deserves the best. I feel like Drake is the butt of the joke, the character who is most derided and held in contempt by the show's morality.
One aspect of the series that seems to declare Josh Nichols character to be the star of Drake and Josh (at least for me): the Mindy character is in love with Josh, and she loved him before he slimmed down and got in shape, so she loves him in a very deep and intimate way.
Part of this is because of my tremendous fondness for actress Allison Scagliotti who forever endeared herself to me as the spunky, snarky Claudia Donovan on Warehouse 13 but is equally excellent as Mindy. Scagliotti excels at playing characters defined by intelligence and self-possession and determination.
The two career-defining characters that Scagliotti plays, Mindy and Claudia, are genius level intellects who have the knowledge and skill of MacGyver and Mr. Spock and it's all contained within the body of a very cute girl who dresses in practical yet distinctive street clothes. Allison Scagliotti is one of the most beautiful women in the world, but what stands out to me is her physical confidence.
Neither Mindy nor Claudia are realistic characters because no girl or woman can be an expert in every STEM subject and have a sharp witticism for every occasion, but to me, Allison Scagliotti represents female intellectual empowerment. Her screen presence exudes brain power. She always comes off as smart. When I think of intelligence, I think of Allison Scagliotti.
And Allison Scagliotti plays Mindy, and Mindy is in love with Josh. Mindy is unamused and unmoved and uncharmed by Drake Parker's witticisms or hedonism or flourishes or music or hair or clothes. She is in love with Josh's goofy humour, affable vulnerability, goodhearted decency, loving empathy and gentle patience.
Mindy tells me that Josh is the hero of the show, and since Allison Scagliotti plays Mindy, I take her word for it that this is Josh's show and Drake is the ridiculous sidekick.
So yes, fine, Drake 'got' 'all' the girls, more than Josh. So what? Josh was chosen by the best girl, the greatest woman in the world.
Admittedly, I think anyone Allison Scagliotti plays is the greatest woman in the world, and no one in real life can ever be an Allison Scagliotti character. Even Allison Scagliotti can't be an Allison Scagliotti character.

It’s a myth that scrutinizing sexual histories is gendered behavior, and it’s contradicted by four decades of research. Men are being shamed for having preferences that women exhibit freely.

• Jacoby and Williams (1985): Clearly, one's desirability as a date or marriage partner does depend, in part, on one's previous sexual behavior... Although virgins are consistently desired as partners, this preference is expressed as frequently by females as by males. Thus, the traditional double standard finds no support here. Neither does the "egalitarian" standard (the supposed tendency to choose someone of approximately the same experience as oneself) implied in the work of Istvan and Griffitt (1980). Rather, we find a strongly held single standard that, for both genders, approximates the traditional views held by males. A consistent preference is shown for the date or marriage partner with no more than moderate sexual experience, regardless of the respondent's past sexual behavior. We have called this the "selfish standard” (pg.1064)
  
• O'Sullivan (1995): A goal of the current study was to determine whether information about men's and women's sexual past influenced judgments of their personality characteristics and desirability as a dating partner or spouse. As with studies that have conceptualized sexual experience in terms of experience with various sexually intimate behaviors (Garcia, 1983; Istvan & Griffitt, 1980; Jacoby & Williams, 1985; Sprecher, 1989; Sprecher et al., 1991), little evidence of the sexual double standard was found. Of particular interest, women did not receive more negative evaluations than did men when described as having had high numbers of past sexual partners in casual, noncommitted relationships. (pg.175)
  
• Sprecher et al. (1997): These findings are consistent with other person perception studies, which have also generally found that low levels of prior sexual experience are considered more desirable in a mate than are high levels… Surprisingly, we did not find gender differences in how the different versions of the sexuality item were rated. Both men and women preferred chastity in a partner most and extensive prior sexual experience the least. This lack of gender difference is consistent with results from prior mate-selection studies examining preferences for chastity (pg.335)
  
• Marks and Fraley (2005): Targets were more likely to be derogated as the number of sexual partners increased, and this effect held for both male and female targets. These results suggest that, although people do evaluate others as a function of sexual activity, people do not necessarily hold men and women to different sexual standards… Although the sexual double standard seems pervasive, empirical research does not necessarily show that people evaluate sexually active men and women differently. (pg.175-176). To date, there has been little evidence that women are evaluated more negatively than men for having many sexual partners. (pg.181)
  
• Allison and Risman (2013): Our results confirm previous research findings that frequent casual sex is still stigmatized among many college students despite the cultural perception of ‘‘hooking up’’ as normative. With our measurement of attitudes toward frequent hooking up, the modal category (comprising nearly 50% of students) is to lose respect for both men and women who hook up ‘‘a lot.’’ While attitudes are conservative overall, patterns also reveal that gender egalitarianism in attitudes is prevalent. The majority of men and women hold both sexes to the same sexual standards when evaluating hooking up… Both women and men lose respect for hooking up among the opposite sex with greater frequency than they do for their own sex… If the results here indicate minimal presence of the double standard and a good degree of convergence in men and women’s sexual attitudes, it must be noted that the directional change in attitudes is toward less acceptance of frequent casual sexual pleasure outside the bonds of relationships. (pg.1201-1202)
  
• Jones (2016): Research on heterosexual relationships has consistently shown that an extensive sexual history in a man or a woman will often deter future partners (e.g., Peplau et al. 1977), at least for long-term relationships (Sprecher et al. 1997). (pg.25) Although previous research suggests that social perceptions of sexually experienced men and women diverge with cultural norms, research on actual desirability of a mate suggests that both men and women prefer partners with moderate sexual histories… Moreover, Sprecher and Hatfield (1996) showed that men and women are equally scrutinized for their extensive sexual histories when long-term committed relationships are being considered. Sprecher and Hatfield (1996) further suggest that all individuals (not just men) are concerned with a partner’s sexual history in long-term relationships (pg.26)
  
• Stewart-Williams, Butler, and Thomas (2017): Contrary to the common notion that male promiscuity is tolerated whereas female promiscuity is not, both sexes expressed an unwillingness to get involved with someone with a high number of past sexual partners. For long-term relationships, there was virtually no difference between the sexes in this respect. For short-term relationships, in contrast, men were more tolerant of female promiscuity than women were of male promiscuity (thus, in a certain sense, the traditional double standard was reversed in the short-term context). This is not the first study to question the existence of the double standard (pg.1103)
  
• Kennair, Thomas, Buss, and Bendixen (2023): The study of SDS has yielded several important results. First, we found a lack of evidence for SDS effects in the traditional direction. Second, we found that people were more discerning of a prospective mate’s sexual history in long-term versus short-term contexts and that women were more discerning than men… In line with our second prediction, facts about a prospective partner’s sexual history generally led to women toward more negative appraisals of than men, regardless of whether they were making judgments for themselves or for same-sex friends.
  

.

• Zhana Vrangalova: From past research, we know that most people of both sexes prefer their partners to be on the non-promiscuous end of the spectrum… This is not surprising, given that most people are looking for monogamous relationships. Moreover, most men (80%) and women (62%) chose the "never promiscuous" target as their ideal, suggesting that most people of both sexes prefer not only someone monogamous, but also someone with a limited sexual history and little interest in casual sex, past or present. (4/11/2016)
  
• Steve Stewart-Williams: One takeaway is that we can’t always trust widespread views about men and women. A lot of people are convinced that the sexual double standard is alive and well in the Western world. But our study and many others suggest that it’s a lot less common than it used to be. It’s not that no one cares about a potential mate’s sexual history; most people do care. But people seem to be about as reluctant to get involved with a man with an extensive sexual history as they are a woman. (12/19/2016)
  
• Justin Lehmiller: Overall, participants rated those who had 0-14 partners above the mid-point of the scale, which tells us that they were more willing than unwilling to get involved with them. It was only when someone got to 15 or more partners that ratings fell below the mid-point and people were more reluctant to get involved… Men’s and women’s ratings were similar for long-term partners. (10/20/2017)
  
• Lucia O’Sullivan: Researchers have found a consistent negative bias against individuals with “higher” numbers of partners—we tend to view these people as poor choices for long-term partners or friends, although occasionally acceptable for a casual, short-term fling. Highly experienced men typically are rated as negatively as highly experienced women, even though we generally expect that women will fare worse than will men in the judgment game. This convergence in our distaste for both highly experienced men and women is found time and again, no matter how researchers assess such attitudes (Conley et al., 2013; Vrangalova et al., 2014). (9/11/2018)
  
• Andrew G. Thomas: Second, we found considerable overlap between the responses of men and women. Men were slightly more forgiving of a large sexual history than women, but this effect was small and tracked the same “pattern” as women. In short, there was very little evidence for a “double standard." (12/9/2021)
  
• Leif E. O. Kennair: Perhaps you've also embraced the notion that men who have multiple sexual partners are truly revered, whereas women who engage in the same behavior are scorned – the purported sexual double standard. However, a recent survey reveals that this notion is, in fact, a fallacy. "We have yet to discover the presence of customary double standards imposed on women," asserts Leif Edward Ottesen Kennair, an esteemed professor at the Department of Psychology at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU). Conversely, men face slightly harsher judgments than women regarding brief sexual encounters. However, despite evidence to the contrary, the myth remains persistent, and a significant number of individuals continue to hold onto this belief. (5/16/2023)
  

This is sort of a follow on to my previous post several months ago (Controlling Winter Indoor Humidity Levels).
Background: I live in a Seattle suburb. My house is a 1370sqft ranch built in 1975 and is occupied by 4 people. I have done some air sealing of the ceiling-plane/attic-floor. Master bedroom is ~200sqft. Guest rooms are ~100sqft.
I've been dragging my feet installing an HRV but recently got a Aranet4 CO2 monitor. The readings have reinvigorated my desire to get the HRV.
The HRV I install will be in a conditioned space but because of the size and layout of my house, the ducts will not. I know because of this, I'll need to run the HRV continuously. I've been reading and working through sizing the ducts and I came across an article on GBA by Allison Bailes regarding air velocity in the ducts. This has opened up a series of questions about the system design because of the chart near the end of the article.
How much air does each room need? I understand recommendations for HRV sizing for the house (0.35ACH is 64CFM for my house), but I can't find much information about what to do for each room. If I make it proportional to the floor area, the master bedroom would require ~9cfm and the guest bedrooms ~4.5cfm. This seems like it would be very hard to measure and since the minimum sheet metal duct size is 3", the air velocity would be quite low. The volumetric flow rates also seem too low when occupied by two people sleeping with the door closed. If I go for 7.5cfm per person (2 people per room), that's still only a velocity of 300fpm (3" duct) which is less than recommended in the article linked earlier.
Possible solutions I've considered:

1. I'm overthinking it. As long as I put enough insulation on top of the duct, 300fpm should hopefully be enough velocity that I don't have to worry about condensation.
2. Use 2" or 2.5" flex duct used in high velocity HVAC systems. This would also give me an option for a diffuser unlike #3.
3. Somehow transition the metal duct used in the rest of the system to PVC pipe. I haven't found a clear answer online if using PVC for duct is even a good idea.

Option #1 is what I'm hoping is acceptable. I'm open to any and all suggestions. Thanks in advance for all the advice and feedback.

St Kilda 2024 Preview

Founded: April 2, 1873
Entered V/AFL: 1897
Entered AFLW: 2020
VFL Affiliate Team: Sandringham Zebras
VFLW Affiliate Team: Southern Saints
Club Motto: "Fortius Quo Fidelius" (Strength Through Loyalty)
Club Song: "When The Saints Go Marching In" by the Fable Singers
Home Ground: Marvel Stadium, VIC (cap. 56,347 since we don't close the 3rd level)
AFLW Home Ground: RSEA Park, Moorabbin VIC (cap. 8,000-ish)
Premierships: y'all know how many (1966)
Runners Up: 6 (1913, 1965, 1971, 1997, 2009, 2010)
Wooden Spoons: IRRELEVANT STAT
​
CEO: Carl Dilena (ACTING) (2024-)
President: Andrew Bassat (2018-)
Coach: Ross Lyon (2007-2011, 2023-)
Captain: Jack Steele (2021-)

2024 Leadership Group:

POSITION:	NAME:
CAPTAIN	Jack Steele
VICE-CAPTAIN	Callum Wilkie
LEADERSHIP GROUP	Rowan Marshall, Seb Ross, Jack Sinclair

Changes from 2023: + Marshall, - Membrey

2024 Coaching Panel:

POSITION:	NAME:
SENIOR COACH	Ross Lyon
ASSISTANT COACH	Corey Enright (Defence), Brendon Goddard (Midfield), Robert Harvey (Forwards)
VFL SENIOR COACH AND DEVELOPMENT	Jake Batchelor
DEVELOPMENT COACH	Lenny Hayes
HEAD OF DEVELOPMENT AND LEARNING	Damian Carroll

List Changes from 2023:

IN:	OUT:
Riley Bonner (PSD)	Oscar Adams (delisted)
Lance Collard (draft - pick 28)	Jack Billings (trade - Melbourne)
Paddy Dow (trade - Carlton)	Jack Bytel (delisted - Collingwood)
Hugo Garcia (draft - pick 50)	Nick Coffield (trade - Western Bulldogs)
Angus Hastie (draft - pick 33)	Leo Connolly (delisted)
Liam Henry (trade - Fremantle)	Jade Gresham (free agent - Essendon)
Liam O'Connell (Cat B Rookie)	Tom Highmore (delisted)
Arie Schoenmaker (draft - pick 62)	Dan McKenzie (delisted)
Darcy Wilson (draft - pick 18)	Jack Peris (delisted)

2024 Playing List:

#	NAME	POSITION	CAREER GAMES (STK GAMES)
1	Jack "snags!!" Higgins	FWD	102 (59)
2	Marcus "WINDY" Windhager	DEF	37
3	Zak "zak attak" Jones	MID	136 (46)
4	Lance "milne but smoller" Collard	FWD	0*
5	Brad "brad & matt are just one guy named Mad Crouch" Crouch	MID	160 (65)
6	Seb "methuselah" Ross	MID	198
7	Nasiah "our messiah" Wanganeen-Milera	DEF	41
8	Brad "not bradley" Hill	MID	233 (84)
9	Jack "man of" Steele	MID	158 (141)
10	Mitchito "the cheeto" Owens	KEY FWD	30
11	Hunter "injury magnet :(" Clark	MID	87
12	Max "max & ben are just one guy named Men King" King	KEY FWD	71
13	Ryan "i still miss jack lonie" Byrnes	MID	48
14	Liam "AFL's best diablo 4 player" Stocker	DEF	51 (23)
15	Paddy "daddy wow" Dow	MID	73 (0*)
16	Dan "because i'd get dropped" Butler	FWD	129 (84)
17	Isaac "lol adelaide x2" Keeler	KEY FWD	0
18	Jack "JACK JACK JACK JACK" Hayes	KEY FWD	6
19	Rowan "lost AA ruck spot to a fullback???" Marshall	RUCK	110
20	Dougal "f---ing dougal" Howard	KEY DEF	120 (75)
21	Zaine "second coming of christ" Cordy	KEY DEF	132 (14)
22	Darcy "castaway" Wilson	MID	0*
23	Liam "years of development" Henry	MID	43 (0*)
24	Angus "the most scottish-sounding name i've seen" Hastie	DEF	0*
25	Mattaes "the POU" Phillipou	FWD	24
26	Josh "what's a-" Battle	KEY DEF	100
27	Arie "because every team needs at least 1 unlikeable" Schoenmaker	KEY DEF	0*
28	Tim "precious timothy <3" Membrey	KEY FWD	160 (159)
29	Jimmy "public enemy #1" Webster	DEF	150
30	Matthew "oh yeah, he exists" Allison	KEY FWD	0
31	James "big jim." Van Es	KEY DEF	0
32	Mason "MAAASON WOOOD >>> COOOLINGWOOOD" Wood	MID	117 (52)
33	Ben "roughy's curse" Paton	DEF	67
34	Hugo "not that weird french robot" Garcia	MID	0*
35	Jack "the mullet has given him power!" Sinclair	DEF	165
36	Riley "zaine cordy but from port" Bonner	MID	93 (0*)
38	Tom "participation medal recipient" Campbell	RUCK	56 (2)
39	Olli "oh yeah, he exists (again)" Hotton	MID	0*
41	Angus "angus is the new jack" McLennan	DEF	0
42	Max "the big MOOSE" Heath	RUCK	0
43	Cooper "good old scoops" Sharman	KEY FWD	31
44	Callum "our entire backline" Wilkie	KEY DEF	109
45	Liam "every team gets one irish guy" O'Connell	DEF	0*
47	Anthony "HAMMA-NITI" Caminiti	KEY FWD	18

* = Joined the Saints ahead of the 2024 season

2023 Summary:

2023 Finish: 6th (13 wins, 10 losses, 107.8%)
2023 Trevor Barker Award Winner: Jack Sinclair
2023 Leading Goalkicker: Jack Higgins (36)
2023 Membership Tally: 60,239 (club record - 13th in the AFL)
Best Win: Geelong in Round 23
Worst Loss: Adelaide in Adelaide
Best Moments: Rowan Marshall nailing a late set shot vs Geelong to lock us into finals, starting 4-0
Debutants: Anthony Caminiti, Zaine Cordy*, Mattaes Phillipou, Liam Stocker* (R1), Jack Peris (R18)
* Club debut only
​
u/chookie94 (highlights):

1. Development of the kids - I dont think anyone expected the kids to do so much heavy lifting but NWM and Owens were vital in our rise to finals.
   
2. The backline - with the forwards out injured, a lot was left to the backline to keep us in games. Sinclair backed up his AA form, showing he's the best half back in the comp while Wilkie got his recognition.
   
3. Marshall showed he is an elite ruck.
   
4. Beating Geelong to make finals - best moment of the season.
   

u/delusion-of-adequacy:
With Ross Lyon, Robert Harvey, Lenny Hayes, Nick Dal Santo, and Brendon Goddard returning to the club, St Kilda felt very St Kilda. Make no mistake, the time since Ross Lyon left has been tarred with failure - which I guess is also very St Kilda. Promising youngsters haven't developed, results on field have been mediocre at best, coaches have come and gone, and off-field decisions have left the club as depressingly irrelevant.
Bringing Ross back and surrounding him with people that witnessed our last true period of success (success for St Kilda is measured with different metrics than for other clubs) was a gamble. The likes of Voss at Brisbane, Buckley at Collingwood, and Hird at Essendon all show that club greats don't necessarily equate to on-field success. But sometimes, going back is the best way to go forward.
With a frankly un-Lyon approach to the youth, the Saints on-field performance last year was driven by the likes of Mitchito Owens, Mattheus Philliipou, and Nasiah Wanganeen-Milera. Obviously the senior crew of Callum Wilkie, Jack Sinclair, and Rowan Marshall earned AA (or AA40) nominations, but for the first time since 2004 - our youth showed legitimate promise. Saints fans have been starved of young players we can pin our hopes to - with brief glimpses from Jade Gresham and Jack Billings all we could point to that the future wouldn't be horrible. It's no coincidence that these players were moved on in the off-season, victims of an era that failed to develop stars and left our club reliant on trades or free agency to fill a gap in the 23-28 age bracket.
Making finals was fantastic, as was staying the eight all season long. But we never really threatened top teams as a legitimate premiership threat - which is why all the games that were put into the likes of Owens, Phillipou, Wanganeen-Milera, Marcus Windhager, Liam Stocker, Anthony Caminiti, and Cooper Sharman were so important. We blooded young players and taught them the Ross Lyon way, which should hold them in good stead in 2024 and beyond.
Last year was a huge success. If St Kilda manages to somehow double our premiership tally in the coming years, 2023 will be remembered as the first step taken towards that ultimate prize.

Best 22 for 2024:

(keep in mind this is excluding injuries & suspension)

u/chookie94
FB	Wilkie	Howard	Webster
HB	NWM	Battle	Sinclair
C	Wood	Steele	Henry
HF	Hill	Membrey	Owens
FF	Butler	King	Higgins
FOL	Marshall	Crouch	Windhager
INT	Stocker	Clark	Ross	Phillipou
SUB	Sharman/Dow

​
​

u/delusion-of-adequacy
FB	Stocker	Howard	Wilkie
HB	NWM	Battle	Bonner
C	Hill	Sinclair	Wood
HF	Owens	King	Phillipou
FF	Butler	Sharman	Higgins
FOL	Marshall	Steele	Crouch
INT	Windhager	Henry	Membrey	Dow
SUB	Wilson

​
​

u/explosivepanini
FB	Stocker	Wilkie	Cordy
HB	NWM	Battle	Sinclair
C	Hill	Steele	Wood
HF	Owens	Membrey	Phillipou
FF	Butler	King	Higgins
FOL	Marshall	Crouch	Dow
INT	Windhager	Henry	Clark	Hayes
SUB

​
​

James M
FB	Wilkie	Howard	Webster
HB	Sinclair	Battle	NWM
C	Hill	Crouch	Wood
HF	Owens	King	Henry
FF	Higgins	Caminiti	Butler
FOL	Marshall	Steele	Windhager
INT	Hayes	Clark	Phillipou	Sharman
SUB	Dow

​
​

u/Mrchikkin
FB	Wilkie	Howard	Webster
HB	NWM	Battle	Hill
C	Wood	Crouch	Sinclair
HF	Phillipou	Membrey	Sharman
FF	Higgins	King	Butler
FOL	Marshall	Steele	Windhager
INT	Owens	Paton	Hayes	Henry
SUB	Ross/StockeDow

​

u/MrMonkeyman07
FB	Wilkie	Howard	NWM
HB	Sinclair	Battle	Windhager
C	Hill	Steele	Henry
HF	Butler	Sharman	Owens
FF	Higgins	King	Caminiti
FOL	Marshall	Crouch	Dow
INT	Wilson	Byrnes	Wood	Phillipou
SUB	Stocker

​
​

u/xyLteK
FB	Wilkie	Howard	Webster
HB	NWM	Battle	Sinclair
C	Hill	Crouch	Henry
HF	Butler	Membrey	Phillipou
FF	Owens	King	Higgins
FOL	Marshall	Steele	Windhager
INT	Wood	Sharman	Wilson	Stocker
SUB	Byrnes/Clark

​

2024 Fixture:

Round	Opponent	Home/Away	Venue	Date/Time
1	Geelong	AWAY	GMHBA Stadium, VIC	Saturday, March 16, 7:30PM AEDT
2	Collingwood	HOME	MCG, VIC	Thursday, March 21, 7:30PM AEDT
3	Essendon	AWAY	Marvel Stadium, VIC	Saturday, March 30th, 4:20PM AEDT
4	Richmond	AWAY/NEUTRAL	Norwood Oval, SA	Sunday, April 7th, 3:20PM AEST
5	GWS Giants	AWAY	Manuka Oval, ACT	Saturday, April 13th, 1:45PM AEST
6	Western Bulldogs	HOME	Marvel Stadium, VIC	Thursday, April 18th, 7:30PM AEST
7	Port Adelaide	AWAY	Adelaide Oval, SA	Friday, April 26th, 7:40PM AEST
8	North Melbourne	HOME	Marvel Stadium, VIC	Saturday, May 4th, 4:35PM AEST
9	Hawthorn	AWAY	UTAS Stadium, TAS	Saturday, May 11th, 1:45PM AEST
10	Fremantle	HOME	Marvel Stadium, VIC	Saturday, May 18th, 7:30PM AEST
11	Melbourne	AWAY	MCG, VIC	Sunday, May 26th, 3:20PM AEST
12	West Coast	AWAY	Optus Stadium, WA	Saturday, June 1st, 4:35PM AEST
13	Gold Coast	HOME	Marvel Stadium, VIC	Saturday, June 8th, 7:30PM AEST
14	Brisbane Lions	AWAY	Gabba, QLD	Friday, June 14th, 7:40PM AEST
15	BYE
16	Port Adelaide	HOME	Marvel Stadium, VIC	TBC
17	Sydney	HOME	Marvel Stadium, VIC	TBC
18	Adelaide	AWAY	Adelaide Oval, SA	TBC
19	West Coast	HOME	Marvel Stadium, VIC	TBC
20	Essendon	HOME	Marvel Stadium, VIC	TBC
21	Brisbane Lions	HOME	Marvel Stadium, VIC	TBC
22	Richmond	AWAY	Marvel Stadium, VIC	TBC
23	Geelong	HOME	Marvel Stadium, VIC	TBC
24	Carlton	AWAY	Marvel Stadium, VIC	TBC

DOUBLE-UPS: Brisbane, Essendon, Geelong, Richmond, Port Adelaide, West Coast
\All times in AEDT/VICBIAS time*

Players to watch:

Riley Bonner
u/xyLteK: "Could be one of the best bargain pickups of the offseason. Has looked the goods in our preseason matches filling in for Sinclair, should make the Round 1 side."
​
Lance Collard
u/MrMonkeyman07: "If he gets a game this season, the human highlight reel will surely not disappoint"
​
Jack Hayes
u/explosivepanini: "have never got more than a glimpse of him. Marshall hasn't had any genuine coverage since Paddy's retirement and Hayes could unlock so much more team versatility."
​
Liam Henry
u/chookie94: "New addition and has been a stand out in the pre season. Was starting to come good for Freo late last season and will be hoping to continue that trajectory at his new club."
u/xyLteK: "Very exciting pickup from Fremantle. He will add a lot of class and speed to our midfield, definitely the one I'm most excited about."
​
Max King
u/chookie94: "Missed most of last season with a bad shoulder but when he did play, he still kicked 28 goals in his 10 games. With his shoulder now fixed, it's time for him to fulfil his potential of being one of the most dominant key forwards in the comp."
u/Mrchikkin: "Endured a horror year injury-wise in 2023, playing only 11 games, but still managed 28 goals. With a full pre-season should be on for a strong year."
u/MrMonkeyman07: "Hail to the king, baby!"
u/xyLteK: "This is looking to be the year where Maxy finally gets a clean run, so expect him to make a big impact here. We're a notably better team with him in it"
​
Rowan Marshall
u/Mrchikkin: "Was in arguably all-Australian form last season and barring any injuries should become one of the top rucks in the competition."
​
Michito Owens, Nasiah Wanganeen-Milera
u/delusion-of-adequacy: "Owens and Nas are being tied together as players that were incredibly impressive last season for their age. Now it's time for them to put a stamp on the league as stars in a team distinctly lacking in star quality."
u/explosivepanini: "Will be interesting to see how Nas handles extra attention from the opposition this year, especially if Sinclair is scheduled for more midfield minutes."
u/Mrchikkin: "Owens was forced to play as a key forward for much of the season due to the absences of Max King and Tim Membrey and performed his role excellently with 26 goals. Will look to move into the midfield this year, a position that favours his explosiveness and athletic ability. Nas made enormous strides last year playing off the half-back line using his silky left foot to great effect. There isn't any doubt in my mind that he'll continue to improve at a similar rate of knots."
u/MrMonkeyman07: "Owenshowed a fair bit last year, poised to assert his dominance over the competition"
​
Mattaes Phillipou
u/delusion-of-adequacy: "Played every game last season as the youngest player in the league but seemed to run out of steam towards the end of the year. With another pre-season under his belt and plenty of experience at the top level - including a valuable finals appearance - it will be interesting to see how he develops."
u/Mrchikkin: "Showed more than enough to suggest that he could be a future star of the competition, will look to increase his consistency and impact on games."
u/MrMonkeyman07: "Raw skills & talent, coming year of refinement"
​
Jack Steele
u/chookie94: "Looked a shadow of himself at times last year while he was battling through multiple injuries. With a full pre season and back to his previous playing weight, expectations will be he can return to his best form."
​
Marcus Windhager
u/MrMoneyman07: "Silky skills, huge tank, precipice of the breakout year"
​
Darcy Wilson
u/Mrchikkin: "Won the club's 3km time trial in his first season and could be on for an early debut in the midfield."
u/xyLteK: "At the end of the year, people will be asking how this guy slid to pick 18. Torched our entire list in the time trial pre-season, looked solid in our preseason games (despite getting caught out a couple times), he'll most likely play the majority of games this year."

Players on notice:

Matt Allison
u/Mrchikkin: "Yet to play a game despite being on the list for 3 years now. In the final year of his contract so would need a big season to ensure his spot on the list."
u/xyLteK: "Entering his 4th year on the list without playing a game, this has to be the year that things click for him, or else he's gone at the end of the year."
​
Hunter Clark, Zak Jones
u/delusion-of-adequacy: "Zak Jones & Hunter Clark are both midfield options who seem incapable of avoiding injuries. If they can both get a good run at things, they should be a consistent feature in our team. That's a big "if" though."
u/Mrchikkin: "Jones will want to finally put his injury issues to bed. Offers a point of difference with his speed, but another injury-riddled year will likely be the final nail in his coffin."
u/MrMonkeyman07: "Clark has elite skills, Elite in traffic, turns everything around him in slow motion - including him. Tank needs work."
​
Arie Schoenmaker
u/Mrchikkin: "Taken as a late-draft gamble, will need to show that he is willing to conform to the standards required of a professional footballer otherwise his time in the league will be short-lived."
u/xyLteK: "Bit harsh on a guy who hasn't played a game yet, but his off-field issues have been well publicised and are the reason he slid so far in the draft. Hoping Arie can earn the respect of his teammates and make a notable contribution on-field"
​
Cooper Sharman
u/chookie94: "ended last season well but started the year outside of the best 22 despite the key forward crisis we were experiencing. With him turning 24 this year, time to show if he is a best 22 player long term or a fringe guy."
​
Seb Ross, Jimmy Webster
u/chookie94: "Ross has been a mainstay for years but with the kids now developing, pressure will be on for him to keep his spot in the best 22."
u/delusion-of-adequacy: "Seb Ross has been an incredibly valuable servant of the club - but our midfield continues to be our weakest link. With the likes of Liam Henry & Paddy Dow brought in, along with added midfield minutes for Jack Sinclair, Mitchito Owens & Mattheus Phillipou, expect to see Ross fighting to stay in our team."
u/Mrchikkin: "Coming into the back ends of their careers and while they remain loyal servants, could be pushed out by younger players soon."
u/xyLteK: "I had the luxury of writing this after the Simpkin hit, but gee whiz what an unnecessary brainfade that was. Jimmy is already in his 30s and on the fringe as it is, he will have to fight for his spot back once his suspension ends, not a certain lock for the team despite the R8 grudge match"
​
Dan Butler, Jack Higgins
u/MrMonkeyman07: "Small forward duo can be show stopping, but can go missing - with a few players knocking on the door for the FW Pocket it might motivate them to go harder."
​
Dougal Howard, Zaine Cordy
u/chookie94: "it will be a battle for who should be the starting full back. Howard had the spot until he broke his arm last year but Cordy's form meant he held his spot for the final. Only 1 fits into the best 22 so both are on notice to show it should be them."
u/delusion-of-adequacy: "Dougal Howard continues to frustrate. He is a vital part of our otherwise-undersized defence but will need to improve his decision making if he wants to remain in our best 22."
u/explosivepanini: "last year was the first time Howard's selection wasn't guaranteed, with Cordy proving to be a major upgrade at times. How will he respond?"
u/MrMonkeyman07: "Howard is on the outs as a key defender, but given the lack of KPD on the list it might be his saving grace"
​
Other
James M: "Everyone left over from 2020 or before. Question marks on Higgins if he is inconsistent again."

2024 Expectations/Predictions:

u/chookie94: Finish 6th and win a final, Jack Steele BNF, Max King leading goal kicker, Windhager most improved
u/delusion-of-adequacy: We seem to have an external expectation that St Kilda gonna St Kilda, that we'll be the team to leave the top eight. It makes sense considering our lacklustre end to the season, but I'm optimistic we can keep our spot. It's a competitive season, with almost every team having a legitimate belief that they can make finals this year, but I will predict we finish 6th again.
u/explosivepanini: Cautiously optimistic of a similar ladder position (6-8)
James M:
Finals surely, keen to see if we can crack top four
u/Mrchikkin:
Difficult to say with how close the competition is, realistically any finish from 5-14th wouldn't entirely surprise me but I would say that a finish around 7-9th seems the most likely.
u/MrMonkeyman07:
call me cooker - but somewhere between Finals & Grand Final
u/xyLteK:
Footy media has been quick to write us off this year, but I think we're looking solid and are in even better shape than last year. Competition for spots in the 8 is gonna be tight, so I'd have us in that 6th-8th range again.
​
Organizer:
u/xyLteK
Contributors:
u/chookie94
u/delusion-of-adequacy
u/explosivepanini
James M
u/Mrchikkin
u/MrMonkeyman07
u/xyLteK

A cameraman (Matthew Pohlkamp) with an eye for detail is hired by a travel agency to join an airplane pilot (Alicia Leigh Willis) to film Earth's natural beauty. But, the pilot herself has two problems: she has a reckless streak and is a true sexual predator. She becomes dangerously and romantically obsessed with her employer and wants the both them to be "soulmates," despite the employer being a married man. The pilot resorts to many drastic measures to have the cameraman all to herself, forcing him to fight for his very life.
Additional casting: Kelly Bishop as Matthew Pohlkamp's stern but well-meaning mother, Nicole Marie Johnson as Matthew's younger sister who works in the foster care system, Kristi Murdock and Bryson JonSteele as Matthew's novelist wife and puzzle-loving teen son, Shemeka Wright as Matthew's manager, Jon Briddell as Kristi's publicist, Ryan Francis, Jennifer Field, Crystal Allen, and Marc Herrmann as Matthew and Kristi's respective best friends, Gina Simms as a private investigator whom Matthew's manager hires to investigate Alicia Leigh Willis, Rachel Turner and Jamie Roy as Alicia's young adult self and her boyfriend in flashback, Steven A. Miller as a man Alicia hires to drug and "rape" Kristi, Cleo Anthony and Allison McAtee as local detectives, and Rib Hillis and Katrina Begin as an engaged neighborly couple.
Distributors: Nicely Entertainment and Mutiny Films.
Writers: Doug Campbell and Lindsay Hartley.
Executive producers: Lindsay Hartley, Carolina Brasil, Jared Cohn, Stien Davis, Ben Galera, Jubal Ace Kohn, Anselmo Martini, Nicholas Ryan, Michelle Schwarzer, Vanessa Shapiro, Demetrius Stear, and Richard Switzer.
Line producer: Ben Gelera.
Music: David Bateman and Sarah DeCourcy.
Stunts: Brenna Skalski (Lonely Crime Fanatic) and Evandra Aurelia (Illumeably).
Director: Doug Campbell.

Again, warning- Not for the squeamish.
I stood on the stool, ankles tied and hands secured behind my back, the noose was around my neck. For good measure, a rubber mask was placed over my head but I was able to see through eye holes.
“Slave, you remember how we did this the last time.” Regina said looking up at me. I’ll kick the stool, you’ll bounce a little but as long as you keep your chin pointed down over the rope you’ll be ok. We’ll let you spin a little, your feet will likely kick, that’s fine. When Hans feels like he has the shot or we decide it’s too much you’re coming down.“
I was relieved that we were discussing safety, I knew the goal wasn’t to kill me but still after the latest round of beatings, I feared something terrible could go wrong.
Allison had removed her boots and was now bare foot. For some reason, I found myself asking her why.
“I don’t want to slip when it’s time to get you down. In those boots, that’s not a guarantee.” She said
Regina too was barefoot and again smoking a cigarette as she looked on.
Hans said he was ready when we were so we shot the scene. Regina spoke into the camera and like an Oscar award winning actress, she had tears in her eyes.
“To all my loyal fans. I have decided to retire from this line of work. Thanks to you, I’m a wealthy woman. This will be the last time you’ll see me on camera so I wanted to make it spectacular!
With that, she placed the sole of her foot on the stool and shoved it out from under me. I felt myself fall a little and then a jerk. The pain was awful. I desperately struggled hoping to find something to stand on.
Hans had the camera pointed directly on my face. I felt myself fading out. I tried speaking but I was choking. This was bad, I was dying but Regina didn’t seem to notice. I was gurgling, I was wheezing, I was seeing black.
I awoke, on the floor. Regina slapping my face to get my attention.
“You’re fine, Slave, it’s over.”
I started crying. I started shaking as Regina cradled my head. She kissed my still masked forehead.
“I love you for what you do for me. You’re safe now. You’ll always be safe with me. I promise.”
Regina kissed me again, this time on the mouth of the mask. My wife’s love made me so happy.
Hans told Regina he needed one last shot. I started to bawl again, but he told me it wasn’t going to be painful.
Soon after that, I was placed in a plastic drum, my head sticking out from the top. A sign with the letters RIP was taped to me.
“Play dead, Slave. Let my audience believe I killed you.” Regina said.
I did as I was told.