Ethics has always been an interesting subject to me and how people can have such varied perspectives and justifications for things.

I'm curious on people's perspectives on models being coerced into wam without their knowledge of the fetish. I'm not going to call any one or any video in particular out here, but I just wanted to spur some conversation on the subject.

Obviously most of us are cool with impromptu, innocent wammings--ie a surprise pie, wam in tv shows/movies, game shows, fundraisers, charities, etc. Maybe some less than others, ie I know charity stuff can be iffy.

Heck, I know most of us even enjoy a wamming that is completely unexpected.

What I question though is the videos that you just know have a "wammer's touch". Videos you just know are wammer inspired, such as the models being given specific instructions to look up during a slime, wipe their eyes in a certain way, etc.

Deception is one thing. But is it a wammer's responsibility to tell the models the full nature of wam as a fetish? What if the model doesn't ask? Is don't ask, don't tell a reasonable justification? If the model does ask, is a white lie or partial disclosure ok? Does it make a difference if the model is a professional model (more likely to know how things work) or just a girl next door?

Some of the "wammer's touch" videos out there on youtube don't advertise or try to sell their stuff. Does that make things more ok, even though it's clear they are wammer inspired?

For the record, I always am upfront with my models about where the content will end up and that it has fetish roots. I would rather avoid drama down the road, so I make sure I'm clear on the background upfront.

Thoughts/perspectives?

When I read this thread, I immediately thought of the guy on YouTube who's been shooting a "music video" for about 2 years now, if I'm not mistaken.

I hate when producers are deceitful. There's a producer whose download store rarely has clean face pics of the models in the thumbnails. Which leads me to believe they either didn't sign a release or had no clue that it was actually a fetish video.

I didn't want to call anyone out, but you nailed it on probably the biggest example of this.

Let's keep it generalized though. I'm not trying to attack anyone here.

Granted these videos can produce good work that most of us will still watch. But should we have more responsibility to the models?

I agree. Pieing the girl from our class/office would in my book be on a personal level. Much like asking her on a date or taking her to bed or what have you. As long as it's between you and her. Taking it publicly I think is another story.

What I struggle with mainly is the people on youtube who post several videos and you just know are wammers. Most of these I seriously doubt go about grabbing consent forms and telling them it's going to be viewed largely by other wammers. Part of me wonders if it's wrong that they probably aren't being completely upfront with the models, but then again, if they are just posting it to youtube and not profiting from it, keeping the channel relatively creeper free, etc, does that make it ok?

Not trying to judge so much. In the end I'm sure one of the models is going to put two and two together and give such guys a good slapping. Just trying to see what people think about the subject.

It is absolutely immoral to sexualize someone without their consent. A guy I went to college with would pretend to be shooting videos of girls for a school project but would then post the content on fetish sites (some of it was girls getting hit in the face with pies). Once someone found out what he was doing he was kicked off campus. It also turned into a legal issue because he didn't have proper releases or 2257 forms for the women he video taped. I am not sure what happened to him but it clearly didn't work out well.

While it may seem innocent to hit someone with a pie in the face while fully clothed if you are selling the videos for people to jack off to then it's not innocent.

There's a difference between being tasteless and being immoral, and our judgment of which is which has got to depend on context.

We'll probably all agree: if there's nudity and/or it's for a fetish audience, you should be frank, and absolutely have a duty not to deceive. Failure to abide by those duties is both tasteless and immoral.

But if it's for a general audience and only has a few wam-like 'cues' that only a wammer could pick up on (e.g., looking up during a pie in the face), then it's not a slam-dunk case. What if the producer has a nebulous grasp of their own feelings, and/or doesn't know how to relate these secondary feelings to the video? We might still call these producers tasteless or generally bad, but are we really going to go out of our way to call them immoral? If so, then we should probably pack up and sell Hollywood, because that's a city raised on awkwardly sublimated sex!

Models should always be told what they will be doing.

Of course, most don't care. Some quite enjoy it.

This was an interesting read, good topic for discussion.
It straddles that awkward thin line where animalistic fetish and secretivity meets reality and professionalism...

I guess everybody is different when it comes to morals and intent - not everyone would hand in a wallet full of cash to a police station after all

Agreed. Sex + no consent = immoral. I'm talking more grey areas though like obvious wam youtube channels that aren't promoting anything sexual, but are obvious to a wammer that it is for fetish kicks.

Good point on Hollywood!

Whenever someone approaches me saying they'd be interested in modelling, I send them a document that spells out in great detail exactly what they'd be doing, and what it's for, including a paragraph stating "While our emphasis is on fun, be aware that this is still a form of fetish modelling, and the images we produce are generally purchased by people who find the sight of a fully dressed woman being gunged attractive or arousing from a sexual point of view. If you're not happy with the idea of people using your image in this way, you should not participate."

So far I've only ever had two women change their minds after reading the document, and in both cases I'm far happier that they did so rather than find out afterwards and feel betrayed or used.

I would never knowingly shoot WAM, or anything that could be used as WAM even if it wasn't apparent to the participants, with someone who didn't know it was for fetish purposes, and that it was my own fetish as well as being for sale. I feel that because I know about this fetish, and am part of it, I am duty-bound to hold myself to a higher standard than say someone who doesn't have the fetish and who might shoot a WAM-friendly scene innocntly, thinking it was just comedic or general entertainment.

Even if I was just shooting free stuff for YouTube, I'd still not shoot anything that I thought anyone would get a WAM kick out of unless I could explain to the people taking part, in advance, that some viewers might find it interesting from that point of view, and get their OK to still shoot it (and age-check everyone if necessary).

To me informed consent is everything. If someone isn't informed, they can't consent, and I won't film or take photographs in that situation.

Note regarding Hollywood / broadcast TV: I think it's slightly different with actual celebrities - they already know that movie stars are often seen as "sex symbols" and will attract fans on that basis, and that anything they are involved in is going to be watched by a huge audience, some of whom may well get their sexual kicks from it. Likewise even ordinary people who appear on reality TV or gameshows know they are going to be watched by thousands of other people - they know they are on public view. But I still think anyone who actually has a fetish, and is involved in setting up or planning a show or scene that caters to that fetish, especially if members of the general public are involved as opposed to celebrities, really should inform the people taking part about the fetishistic elements. Again, informed consent is king.

The guy you went to college with, who was pieing girls for a supposed school project - are you sure it's not a certain producer who posts here on this forum?? I seem to remember hearing a similar story like that on this forum about 11,12,13 years ago.

Well said. I think that's where I am trying to go with this. The fact that we are involved in the fetish should give us some responsibility in disclosure...

I'm curious to see which producers post comments in this thread and which ones will avoid it like the plague. This thread might be very informative.

I think there should always be full disclosure. I personally get upset when I see a scene where the model clearly doesn't know they're involved in a fetish video. I really want to go into further detail, but we aren't calling out anyone by name in this thread, so I will refrain from doing so.

Well if a model has a portfolio site at onemodelplace or whereever, they usually have a check marks indicating if the model does fetish work. In that scenario I don't think it's too necessary to fully disclose unless she asks... But on the flip side if she does fetish work, she's mostly likely going to be game as this is a pretty tame fetish, so why not disclose.

Thanks for keeping the thread generalized. You guys can give examples if it helps... I just don't like to make waves in general which is why I said to try to keep it generalized. But that's just me... You guys can evolve the thread as you need to, as long as it stays in UMD rules.

Thanks for all the perspectives everyone by the way!

Another interesting line, though, in the Hollywood /informed consent thing, is that people have fetishes for all kinds of things. If you are filmed in sandals, I'm sure some foot or shoe fetish person will get into it, if you drive a mini cooper, I bet there's some fetish website out there for girls (or guys) in mini coopers, I bet there are some for just about any clothing/action/whatever that you do or take.

It is good for producers to get consent, but we shouldn't fool ourselves into believing that we can prevent some random stranger from sexualizing us for something we can't understand any time we are seen in public. Human sexuality is pretty weird, personal, psychological, and WAM is close to the more "commonly recognized" ends of the spectrum. People are more likely to think of it as sexual than a lot of the even less obvious fetishes out there.

Ethics and Pies....Jesus.

1) unequivocally, scamming, tricking anybody into anything thing is immoral and disgusting. Misinformation, dishonest manipulation, that's sociopathic behavior. Disclosure should be immediate and initial, when discussing such work.

2)everything is porn. If you can think it, somebody tugs the rope to it. I have no doubt that my own work inadvertently covers some unintentionally fetishes I am unaware of. You cannot cover every base. It's impossible. Intention matters. Brazil and Japan have been inadvertently make porn for us for decades.

3) therefore, sans proof to the contrary, I am content assuming non fetish videos, no matter how seemingly not, are pushing our buttons inadvertently. Plus the motivation for such a thing, from a logical standpoint, is suspect. If it's to fill some inner, shamefull desire, why post it for all the world to catch you. Or if not, why give it away for free when you could sell it here, for $14.99.

4) but i am not naive either. There must be people who do trick girls into this. Of course it's happening. However, it's an unsolvable puzzle. Unless they confess, or are caught we'll never know.

Wouldn't it be nice if some of them chimed in on their perspective?

I'd bet at least most of the people with wam youtube channels are reading this

I won't judge guys... Just wanting everyone's perspective and how they handle the conversation with the models.

I love the wording of your explanatory paragraph! It tells them that you do it for the fun aspect, but some people will find it erotic. Fantastic!

Norman

Yeah, the "music video" guy is walking a fine line. I am almost sure the girls there don't know anything is up.

A week back some folks were raving about a particular YouTube channel... The guy pies girls in his dorm room and records it on his cell phone. I would wager he does NOT have signed consent forms.

But that brings up the other side of the equation: Plenty of folks on here enable this kind of unethical behavior. Do you just not link to those videos? What about shady producers? It took Scumbag Chris three solid years before he was finally kicked off of the UMD....

These youtubers aren't promoting on UMD or anything themselves. Not really sure we can judge them on if they have their records in check from here.

Shady producers, the mods should have some control over that.

On Chris... is it only me or is there new stuff that seems to be produced from him on sale on a regular basis?

interesting the mention of the Teresa duct taped videos. I left it a long time before subscribing to that guy on YouTube because I was worried about the link to wamming.
However, I have a larger suspicion that he knew how attractive it is to see a young woman tied up and messed up. Furthermore I wondered if he actually got turned on by messing up his niece. Which is a whole other story.

One thing to wonder about would be wet t shirt contests. Clearly the males looking on would be loving the sight of a bunch of girls getting soaked. But there can be a fine line between a wet t shirt contest and paying £1 to throw a sponge at a female in the stocks/pillory. In fact you might say that wammers would enjoy the latter more because they get to take part.

I doubt there would ever be signs at either event that state 'this may turn on some people, so any females taking part should expect men to view them in a fetish context'

There was actually an article in a small news blog about the guy and Theresa. After the first video, Theresa had to delete her pic of being pied off Facebook after being harrassed. http://www.gcdailyworld.com/story/1906505.html

I wonder if the YouTube channel was a similar situation. I too have wondered if they knew what they were doing. Their duct tape escape vids really creeped me out. Also, towards the last few months of the channel, the description started to read something like, "Everybody in this video is over the age of 18." Which lead me to believe either they knew it was a fetish or someone from a fetish community was harrassing them.

Put yourself in the model's place. Image you have a jeans fetish and jeans fetish website.

So you put a professional call out for models who you know damned well think they are going to be doing a shoot just for jeans without the slightest hint of a fetish.

Now you slap those pics up on "wankofftojeans.com" and they find out. Well, you're looking at a few things in the range of cease and desists for the photos to boyfriends/husbands showing up at your house with baseball bats.

This is interesting; thanks for the link to the article! That filled in some of the background that I had only heard bits and pieces of.

Norman

I assume he was posting here but I wasn't aware of this site back then. He was older then me so this probably would have been around ten or so years ago.

I was talking about the "grey areas" (which I don't believe are actual grey areas) too. Even if you are shooting fetish content not for sale but to put up on youtube with the clear intention of sharing with fetishist it's immoral. Someone awhile back linked to one of those videos on here where the description said the girl was told she was being auditioned for a film role but then they guy just aggressively hit her with pies and she clearly didn't enjoy it. I think it's sick that anyone would do that or even post something like that on here. The moderators should remove those types of posts but considering there are sites on here dedicated to wetlook videos of women who don't even know they are being filmed I doubt anyone here cares that much about consent.

I personally only find it erotic if I know that the women involved are aware of the sexual aspects of getting a pie in the face. The moment I suspect any duplicitous manipulation of the women, I'm immediately turned off.

Basically, the women have to WANT to be pied for fuck's sake (pardon the pun) and not because they've been scammed into thinking they're doing it just for fun.

It sounds to me that you're talking past each other. From what I can tell, everyone here agrees that it's wrong to deceitfully make something and put it up with an intention of sharing with a fetish audience. The case you describe sounds like black-and-white exploitation (especially since, aggressive, discomfort).

The real grey areas are when the thing is posted for a general audience, at least partly for fun, and the intentions aren't especially clear. Not to get bogged down in particulars, this appears to be the case with the music video fellow (who seems like he was a teenager who was in the process of growing up on the internet). And if it isn't the case with that guy, it could still be so for some other cases.

I used four models total (as of right now, only one of those clips is uploaded here).

Every one of them was told that even if there was no nudity involved, the video was still fetish and that it was intended to be arousing to men.

And every model was told that it would be sold on fetish sites.

That was the truth, and to say anything else would be wrong.

Nessie