I don't know what else to write as I seem to have already asked the question in the "Subject" box.

possibily. depending on the context of the video. I like a nice humiliating pie scene.

 

I've never been in on the humiliation aspect of wam. Though I like it to see a scenario where the woman is a little horrified at first of having gotten messy, I like it when that changes to her enjoyment of the situation. If she's not having a good time at all, neither am I while watching. But we're all different, that's just me.

Hell No! Not as long as its not going too far.

From the Free Online Dictionary:

"sa·dism (sdzm, sdz-) n. 1. The deriving of sexual gratification or the tendency to derive sexual gratification from inflicting pain or emotional abuse on others. 2. The deriving of pleasure, or the tendency to derive pleasure, from cruelty. 3. Extreme cruelty."

Is the woman involved feeling actual physical or emotional pain?

If so, and it is not stopped...then that qualifies as cruelty. And if the perpetrator derives pleasure (of any kind -- note Definition #1 and #2 are not synonymous in defining the type of pleasure) from her agony, then, yes, sadism it is.

Consensual roleplay between consenting couples or models doing scenes, for good compensation I would assume and, I also assume, with the producer keeping her safety and comfort in mind?

Nope. No. Don't think so. Definitely not sadism. Nowhere near the ballpark.

The pie/slime thing isn't a thing that I do, but I have to admit that most of the pictures that I see here look more like people having fun than anything else.

Enjoy.

Nessie

 

I'd argue it's a very, very light form of sadomasichsm. Similar to tickling, for example. (Another of my kinks).

To paraphrase Mr. J. Winnfield: Ain't even the same league, it's not even the same frickin' sport.

I think the best way to look at this would be to draw a parallel between sploshing and spanking. It is possible to roughly grab a woman, turn her over your knee, and ridicule her while swatting her so fiercely her bottom will still be red at sunrise. It is also possible to give a woman a playful pat on the ass as she walks past. Unless you are both method actors performing a scene in a play, the former is clear-cut sadism. Yet in the right context, the latter act can be both harmless in consequence and complimentary in meaning. Spanking behaviors span a continuum with sadism at one extreme and gentle affection at the other. It seems to me that pies and slime reach across a similar span.

I believe there are masochists in the world who could be excited by something like a human sundae treatment or muddy wrestling in formal clothes if the experience has a strongly abusive context. Yet I am also certain there are non-masochists out there who would take the same experiences as sensual fun -- a treat rather than a punishment. Some people are wired to think a piefight fun even when it interrupts a profoundly dignified moment while other people are wired to think being hit with a pie is shameful under any circumstances. Variations in the demeanor and presentation of the individual on the "giving" end of messy play may make it easier to exploit these tendencies. (Though, of course, you should never try to make someone feel major distress if you are not consensually involved with a confirmed masochist.)

In short, I believe WAMming can be sadistic, but only in the context of a strong performance that elicits emotional distress from the recipient. Destruction of significantly valuable attire, belittling mockery, helplessness via restraints, display before an audience, and general manhandling could all serve as triggers for a masochistic sexual response. That said, inasmuch as there is conventional thinking about sadism, physical pain is at the heart of the phenomenon. Play with food, mud, et al. has a place on the periphery of sadism; but that place is not easy to attain and it may be considered invalid by some opinions on the subject.

Regards,
messydom

P.S. Though there may also be special circumstances involving hot beverages, frozen ice cream, etc.; those scenarios seem to place the focus on the physical discomfort rather than the mess. After all, if messy fun is the point, then desired results can be attained even after cooling the hot drinks or waiting for a frozen dessert to become soft and nearly melted before use.

I gotta agree with CSJ - a little bit of shock (feigned or otherwise) at the start of a scene is entertaining, but there's no pleasure in WAM for me if the women partaking in it is genuinely upset by the experience. I like the idea that after a while they decide they haven't got anything left to loose so may as well enjoy the experience, or actually end up genuinely liking it (and therefore wanting to do it again; instilling the WAM 'bug' in them!).

I've seen WAM scenes where the girl pretends to find it gross and shocking that she is being messed up, but these are all staged scenes, and to that extent it's roleplay - even in those roleplays, if I was doing that to a girl, I'd hope that she'd still secretly be loving the fact that she could be so rebelious to just get covered in filth and throw away all her good looks for a short while, and hopefully also like the fact that it turned me on to see her like that.

But to conclude, WAM for me is about sensuousness (is that a word?)... it should be about the feel of getting messy.
If the girl likes that, even if she pretends not to, then it's a turn on.
If it makes her cry, then it's not.

Whether the act of getting messy is deemed sexual or not is entirely contextual for me.

I'm unsurprised, considering the question, to find messydom responding. (Of *course* I'm a creepy stalker guy. )

While there's not really much else I can say that he hasn't already, I'd like to expand upon his postscript a bit starting with a personal anecdote.

Not too long ago, I had a playdate with a good friend of mine. We had been bandying about the idea of messy play for a while and we finally had a weekend where I had the house to myself so I was all too happy to indulge. She identifies as a sadomasochistic switch tending toward submissive and, needless to say, this played heavily into our weekend. (Real quick side note: Can one really consider a play weekend a "scene?" It seems far too un-concise.)

I had whipped up a batch of instant pudding and while it was far too cold to play with right out of the fridge, it was still plenty chilly when we actually got around to it. I shall forgo the specific details as they aren't exactly relevant to my point. After we had showered, cleaned and snuggled under the blanket to warm her back up, she went on to describe how being covered in frigid pudding pushed the same buttons as when she was, for example, being flogged. There was the same adrenaline rush that pain gave her but the sensationalism of WAM combined to form something different. She had difficulty at the time describing her experience and understandably so.

Of course, to me this seems just like a temperature play scene. But messydom brought up a very good point. If messy play was indeed the sole purpose, then the materials used certainly could have been brought to a more reasonable temperature. I would argue though that the two are more conflated than other kinks. To broaden that, I'd even go so far as to say that WAM is an excellent tool with which various kinks are indulged outside of sheer messy play. However, that topic is for another time and (perhaps) another place.

If one uses WAM in temperature play and temperature play, by its nature, contains the sadist/masochist relationship, then wouldn't it follow that WAM also involves s/m dynamics? Or am I awake far past my window of rational thought?

This also brings into question identification. If one approaches a scene intending to cause discomfort using a liberal application of cold pudding, is it temperature play or WAM or a bastardization of both? Riffing off of messydom's postscript more directly, certainly cold can be applied without resorting to coverage of pudding so what significance does the pudding have? Is it 50% WAM and 50% sadism/temperature play? Certainly, the focus of such a scene need not be solely on physical discomfort or messy play.

To briefly answer your question: Depends.

I know I can't really back that up much more but the guy above me did a damn fine job of doing so.

Although there are different things that turn people on in WAM and some people enjoy a slightly sadistic side to it, I would put forward that in most cases the answer falls in the following category:

Is WAM sadism? No, not really.
Is WAM domination? Depends on the situation, but in a lot of cases yes.

Personally, I have a theory that my mind took me to WAM as a fetish so that I could enjoy domination of a partner without actually having to hurt anyone.

Interesting question. Using Nessie's definition, which I tend to accept, I would say that under controlled circumstances it's not. I also think humiliation, which is a very important aspect of wam to me, does not equal sadism/masochism.

We also have to recognize there's a major difference between sadism and masochism. Sadism is the perception of the observer or inflicter of the punishment that the recipient is suffering physical or emotional pain. The recipient may not feel that way, but if the observer/inflicter does, that might still count as sadism. The presence of masochism, at least to me, is based purely on the subjective perception of the recipient.

For me, I love the humiliation aspect of receiving a great wamming (and NEVER think I'm being a masochist) and also enjoy (although not to the same extent) the playful experience of wamming another (which I certainly don't consider sadistic). I absolutely refuse, however, to suffer pain for the sake of my fetish, and I absolutely could never physically or emotionally harm another, and certainly not for the sake of participating in wamming.

To fully answer the question though, I'm sure there must be those out there who participate in this fetish to advance some form of sadism or masochism. But I'm also sure that's not everyone's purpose.

I quoted the online dictionary, which appeared not to include in its definition the possibility that anyone would enjoy suffering. According to the dictionary, one must enjoy the suffering of another to be a sadist.

So...is it still sadism if the the recipient of the dishing-out likes suffering? I mean, pain, and discomfort...they're unwanted. Icky. They're undesirable. Pain hurts and discomfort is nasty!

So, if you LIKE pain and discomfort...and you want it...wouldn't a sadist dishing it out to you now be enjoying your pleasure instead of your suffering?

But if you like it, it isn't suffering...is it?

I don't know. Gotta say, the world of consensual sadosmasochism is a world that I don't understand. I don't think it is wrong to do it...but I'm not about to join in any time soon.

Like you, I don't suffer pain for my fetish. I don't even tolerate psychological discomfort. There's no point. Pain hurts. Being tormented is a libido-killer.

Deep mud is soft and huggy and it never, ever hurts.

If I watch a scene that does include a model acting panicked and sometimes going under, I like it when the producer includes outtakes. The model pops out of the mud, smiling, wiping the grime off her face. Sometimes the crew applauds.

This reassures me that:

"No models were harmed or even made uncomfortable during the creation of this film."

I can't call myself a sadist if I watch something that the model didn't mind doing and got paid well to do.

Nessie

 

"Is Pieing/Sliming a woman considered a form of sadism?"

Sure! I think so! If sadism is making someone "miserable" by some humiliating or painful means, then yes.

While "playful" WAM is great fun, enjoying the tactile sensation of the mess, or just flaunting "proper" behavior, the start of slapstick comedy was to humiliate or cause pain for someone for the enjoyment of someone else ( the "nasty" customer, the bully, the snooty lady, someone who wrongs you by "accidently" messing you up, etc.) The term "slapstick" even comes from a hinged stick that was used in vaudeville to hit someone with. The hinged part would slap or hit on the other part, making the noise of the hit a lot louder and seemingly more painful.

I guess part of the issue is whether the "pain" is inflicted for real or faked for show. If you know it's fake (as in a movie), you can enjoy it without feeling guilty. If it's for real, most people would feel guilty for enjoying someone else's pain. As mentioned by another poster, someone who enjoys pain is a different story. I enjoy pain as part of sex or WAM. It's not "fun", just because I like it. I feel that I feel the pain or humiliation and that turns me on, but I still feel the pain, and it's uncomfortable. Maybe any other "submissives" on this forum can add their feelings about this.

Sorry for rambling on so long..........

Norman