Shit, this is a lot of words. WHOOPS!
HappyCamper said: I believe one very early Neil Edwards video featured a mother/daughter piefight.
Amateur Pies volume 5. Which is hot as hell, by the way.
I don't know, it's a weird thing . . . mother/daughter WAM content has been featured more than once (there was a B2BM video, too, if I'm not mistaken--including a vote where the UMD/WAM community overwhelmingly wanted to see Mom get it from her daughter--and possibly more), and I know I've seen two sisters or female cousins going at it with mess here at least a couple of times over the years on the UMD/other places. And that all seems to go over fine.
The second you bring a guy into it, though, people suddenly discover this is taboo in droves. It's happened before with this guy, and a while back there was a guy posting pictures of his sister that got people similarly squicked out. And I'm willing to bet that if you flipped it around--have the girl post WAM photos of her and her male relatives--the outcry would be significantly lessened . . . but only if she was in the pics, too, of course.
Then again, barch's stuff weirds me out, too, when stuff like AP5 does the exact opposite, and I don't know why that is. I'd like to think I'm accepting enough that I don't fall into the "it's not creepy if it's all HAWT CHICKS, YEAH! *fappo*" trap that some here do, but hey, I'm still a straight dude, maybe that's all there is to it.
It could also be that there's an element of voyeurism and potential non-disclosure in these pics, too, however. Like, I don't know what went on behind the scenes at the Amateur Pies contract signing, but having watched the video more than once, I'm pretty sure there's no way you go through that shoot *not* knowing it's a fetish video. And I'm sure Neil told them it was beforehand. And I think one Actually Positive thing to come out of the "producers that jack off" thread is what looks like a pretty solid community consensus that disclosure to the models that they're doing something sexual--even if all clothes are on and it's "PG" rated--is an important thing. We might disagree on what level of disclosure is necessary (do you need to say "this is a fetish and here's every website I'll be advertising/selling the videos on" or just "this is a fetish, and I'm selling the clips"?), but we know some kind of disclosure absolutely is.
But with barch's stuff, it's tough to tell. Maybe everyone involved in the pics knows that the photos are being taken for and posted as fetish material on the internet, and if so, I guess that's cool. Even if I'm still weirded out, there's nothing *wrong* about it.
But they sure seem like they're just supposed to be candid family/friends gatherings for entirely fun and non-fetish purposes. Not that even *that* should be the issue with most UMDers, considering how much of that very same kind of content is linked here from YouTube, etc., but we're assuming that the person who sends us the YouTube link is not the guy who suggested getting messy and made the video.
And that *last* part is really, I think, where the creepy comes for me. A consensual, professional photo/video shoot with fully-informed models is fine for me, however the women in question might know each other . . . it's their lives, and if they don't have a problem with doing it, then who the hell am I to call moral condemnation? And "found" WAM from TV/movies/home videos also seems cool* . . . once someone goes on TV that can be seen by anyone, or posts their stuff online in public spaces, I figure it's fair game for WAMmers, since the consent is in allowing ones image to be public, and once you do that, you have no reasonable expectation to control it.
But if you're a WAMmer, and you set up a bunch of events where people will be getting messy, and you do this so you can get off on it, but you don't have the stones to tell them that so its all a big underhanded secret? Yeah . . . *that's* definitely over a line to me, and that's what it kinda seems like here.
I don't think there's anything wrong with enjoying real-life WAM from people who don't know about the fetish that just happens upon you (it's happened a surprising amount of times to me, with absolutely no instigation on my part), but if you're the one getting people messy (or talking them into/"suggesting" they get messy because it would be a "funny" "prank" and "slapstick comedy"), taking fetish pics, and putting them online . . . you're a creeper. Sorry.
Even if you happen to be a HAWT CHICK.
* That said, a friend of mine--who actually edits all of my WAM fiction--says she thinks the whole "looking up old WAM clips and fetishizing people who just thought they were doing something innocent" thing is scummy, especially since we have a ridiculous amount of both free and pay WAM content produced specifically as fetish material available for anyone who wants it. Why perv on someone who might not like it's image, when you can do the same on someone who fully knew what she was getting into, instead?
It's not my point of view, but I can see where she's coming from.
EDIT: And I started typing this pile of tl;dr text before midniter posted . . . wasn't trying to stir up shit that he might have wanted to let lie, and I certainly wasn't implying that there was any kind of actual family fucking going on--even though I stand by the idea that getting people messy for fetish purposes without letting them know that's what you're doing is fucked-up and wrong--regardless of whether it's "consensual" in the sense that the person agreed to get messy, and whether you're related to them or not.
Then again, if barch's daughter knows about the whole WAM fetish thing, more power to them both, I guess.
It might still have the sheen of weirdness to me, but who cares what I think, I'm a long-winded fetishist.
