I think I'm missing something, as in the pic in question, there is no deception, the person featured is a wammer and fully aware of the kink, so it's completely different to something like where the office creep tries to arrange a gunge tank at a works do just so he can (without their knowlege or consent) get off to watching (or film and later get off to watching the videos of) the cute female engineer from the Facilities department who he thinks looks hot, getting gunged?

Or is it the possibility that it was actual random passers by, and not a specific assistant, who did the actual pouring? TBH at a properly organised event I'd expect the event insurance would insist that there was a trained "pouring assistant" rather than just let the public chuck custard at someone, for health and safety reasons, without which no license would have been granted by the local council to stage the event on their streets. The rules round doing stuff in public these days are severe, you can't just rock up to the high street and set up a gunge tank, council and police would shut that down ASAP on safety grounds if the right permissions and licenses weren't in place.


That's a good point. I think a lot of people who are wammers but have never tried their hand at production tend to assume it's a lot more lucrative than it actually is, and so assume if they do it for charity they'll raise a ton of money, when the reality is rather different, and there are many better and more effectve ways to fundraise.


Likewise. I remember someone once asking, on a promo thread about a swimsuit filling scene, did that mean that people into swimwear wam would have a permanent massive horn on if they went to a beach - to which of course the answer is no because self control is a thing. I'm into wet and messy women in boilersuits and boots, but I don't get aroused if I go to Kwik-Fit and there's a female technician changing tyres, even though I would if the same technician in the same overalls was taking part in a (fully informed consent) wam scene.


Can't argue with that. Though in the case of pics posted here, we can't ever actually know (unless the person in the pics comes and tells us) why they did it and what they experienced. It would be entirely possinle for a wammer to take part as a stooge just on the basis "well I don't mind getting mucky, so it'll be less onerous for me to be the stooge than someone who hates being messy, but this isn't a fetish event so won't be fet-reacting. But could stick some of the pics on UMD afterwards because someone there might like them", which would be completely innocent. Deliberartely doing it for gratification on the other hand, yes, agreed. Out of order.


Ok, I see where you're coming from, but that's not been how it currently works.

MM did change the rules some years back to exclude "sneak-shot" stuff, situations where photographers take shots (typically with long lenses) without the subjects being aware they are being photographed - it used to be called "candid wam". That's not permitted here, the rule is that all subjects must be "witting", i.e. aware they are being photographed or filmed. But "in the wild" stuff, both TV/movie and public events, have always been allowed. The legal basis is that before anyone appears on TV they sign the equivalent of a model release, and that in most juristictions, there is no "expectation of privacy" in public places. Differenty in a private place - sneak into someone's house, hide in a cupboard, and then film the person who lives there trying on sexy outfits, that would be illegal, but if they walk down the street in the same outfits, you can freely photograph them (though doing so aggresively might breach harassment laws).

So "wittiing public wam" where the subject can reasonably be assumed to know they are being photographed or filmed (generally, they are looking towards the camera, or they are taking part in a public event where these days dozens of camera phones will invariably be recording the proceedings), has always been allowed. The things that are currently banned are sneak filming, and anything containing, or made specificlly for, kids.


They look to be fairly standard adult sized, given the first pic had a second messy person in it, they probably also took a turn in the stocks. I don't think they have to be an exact fit per person, just "roughly adult sized"?

Are you thinking the person who's the subject of the pic is also the organiser, rather than just someone who volunteered to take part? Impossible to tell from a pic though.


I thought kink-farming was tricking innocent people into performing fetish? In the case of the uploaded pic, it's fairly clear the subject is into wam and aware they are being photographed, so I don't see any kink-farming in that?




I used to know a foot fetishist, and his thing was to walk through the city centre looking at women's feet walking past (but respectfully, not staring or bending down or hassling people, just observing). So the answer to that is "probably!"

I sometimes walk through the gay distrcict of a major nearby city. I don't claim to be any kind of looker, but knowing how diverse people's tastes can be, if any gay men get pleasure from watching me go past in overalls and wellies, they're more than welcome to enjoy the view.

(snip of much good stuff - pretty much agree completely)


Nailed it. The pic rules have to be grounded in what the pic shows, not guesses and speculation about the background. Pic has a kid in it - banned. Pic has actual scat in it - banned. Pic has people who may not know they were being photographed - banned. Pic or vid is from a show made specifically for kids - banned. Pic is an AI generated wam scene of a real person who didn't know they were going to be placed in a wam situation - banned. But in the case of the pic in question, there's no-one else in it, and it's clear the subject not only knows they are being photographed, but is also an actual wammer. So while the advisability of charity wam is definitely questionable, the actual pic fully complies with UMD rules as they stand.


I think the justification for that is that when you appear on TV you know the audience could measure in the millions, participants have all signed model releases, and there's no way to tell how anyone in that audience is going to react to or use the content. Someone might wank themselves silly gazing at a freeze-frame of the boots you have on. Or spend six hours trying to replicate your makeup look. Or add a screen-snip of a visible part of your skin to their collection of 40,000 screen snips of people's skin tone from TV which they vaguely plan one day to get an AI to analyse. Or they could just have it on in the background and no-one's actually watching it. Or they might all be sitting round on a sofa like The Simpsons watching TV as a family. Or 20 years later a random clip of your bit of the show might become the punch line to a joke in the actual Simpsons. So adding "watching for fetish reasons" doesn't really make that much difference?

Ok this has got way longer than planned and I have work to do so, so leaving it here for now. But I guess my main point is that any rules on photos have to be based on what's actually provable in the photo, not speculation about the context, simply for practical enforceability

This asssumes the person who did the pouring consented to pouring gunge on the wammer, but the person who uploaded it edited them out of the pic so they obviously didn't have consent.



It's either a random or even if the assistant was legally allowed to be there again they removed them because they didn't have consent and people complained about it.

You are telling me that people that appear on TV shows know that their appearances might show up on a fetish site and that they sign on for that? Come on.

Feels like you're being deliberately obtuse at this point

This is the point for me, it's not that they were unwilling it's that the people doing the wamming didn't know it was a kink.

Since there is a lot of guess work perhaps someone should just ask the sponsoring business and charity if the participants knew. If everyone knew it was a kink then I am sure there would be no issue.


Not saying I would but would clear it up quickly

Who and why is everyone obsessed with adjectives beginning with o lol

The other person was drenched in custard but facing away from camera, so it wasn't clear they knew the photo was being taken. This broke the "must be witting" rule and is why the first version of the pic was taken down. Once they were removed the pic complied with the rules so was allowed to be reuploaded.

I have gotten the report on why it's been allowed to stay up. It's the ethics behind how he got the whole set up is what is an issue at least for me. And I imagine people here on this tread have the same issues.

No, not at all, it's rather that once someone signs over their rights to be broadcast on TV, they have absolutely no control or knowlege of where that footage may end up or what someone might do with it. Technically of course for anyone other than the TV station that produced it (or anyone they sell or license it to) to re-post it is copyright infringement but I think that horse has well and truly bolted and isn't ever going back in its stable.


I get that. And TBH I'm not personally against your position, which I'm taking as "nothing at all should be posted, shared, or linked, to, on a fetish site, unless everyone in it, and anyone not in it but involved inm the production of it, was fully informed and consented that it is fetish material." I just don't think you'll get the community at large to agree, as there does seem to be an insatiable desire from some people for "mainstream" or "found" clips and images.

Personally, I still remember the absolute revalation when I got my very first Messy Fun VHS video in the Autumn of 1995, and realising that these utterly gorgeous women were not only going to totally destroy themselves with mess and mud for my pleasure, but that they were all completely aware of the reason for the videos being made, and freely and willingly consented to be fetish models for people like me to masturbate to. For someone who, until six months earlier when I got my first modem and dialled into this strange new "Internet" thingie, had though he was the only person on the planet who got aroused looking at fully clothed women getting wet and messy, this was mindblowing on a scale that is difficult to comprehend now.

After that I soon lost all interest in mainstream stuff. I do still take a look at some of the clips that get posted here, partly as a mod to check there are no kids in them (some people really don't seem to understand that you can't mix kids and fetish, so constant vigilance is needed), but also sometimes to look at outfit, scenario, or contraption ideas, as ideas to copy in my own productions.

For example a while back someone posted a clip from a reality show where two teams of contestants lie down on a giant "Battleships" game board, so the people are the ships taking up 3 squares each, with tubs of gunge above where each person is lying, if the other team scores a "hit" then the person below gets gunged, and because of the three-squares (and hence three gunge tubs) arrangement, the middle one, when it goes, falls straight on the contestant's lower trunk and flows into their crotch - which to me is top notch gunging. However in the TV show version there are multiple faults, the contestants are strapped down so the straps between their legs kind of block seeing that part of their shorts getting it, the scene constantly cuts away to the presenters or a close-up of the face of the person who just got gunged, and a whole bunch of other fails. So no, I didn't download a copy for wank-bank material, but I noted the general idea as somethihg our people could perhaps play some time, minus the straps, wearting more varied outfits, and shot so we can see all the mess engulfing the players clearly and completely with no interuptions or cutaways.

But, I realise I also have "producer privilege". If I see an idea, or an outfit, "in the wild" that I'd like to base a gunge scene on, then I already have all the facilities and a team of models willing to recreate things, and the knowlege and experience to put something together. Most wammers don't have anything like that privilege level so I'm not going to cast judgement on those who do still collect and enjoy mainstream clips, at least as long as no kids and they aren't trying to track down the social media of the presenters and bombarding them with inappropriate messages.

27 years ago it would have seemed impossible that "candid wam" (sneak filming, unwitting participants) would ever be banned - but eventually it was. The community has definitely evolved, in a positive way, over the years, largely down to MM's very careful stewardship. We'rte lucky to have this place. And the majority definitely seem to agree that tricking people into performming wam (as in actually getting wet or messy) is wrong. I think that's a good place to be so far, though therte's always room for progress.

Interesting that none of the delibarate "No" votes have actually spoken up. Not that long ago, I'd have expected furious argument from those in favour of the opposing view.

I'm sure that deep down they know it's pretty indefensible, they're just too depraved or too poorly adjusted to accept it. There was one person earlier in the thread saying that because they couldn't get someone to WAM with them consensually, they'd take what they can get via this. It'll just be more incel types like that.

I still hold hope that most of the people that said no didn't understand the question or the variables that have been discussed here. I wonder if there is a way to implement something where you can change your poll answer once you have a better understanding.

The people who said no and meant they think it is acceptable are not going to post in this thread because they don't care. They don't care that their desires are cringe as fuck. They don't care about consent or anything like that. They are the same people who think rape victims are buyer's remorse people. I don't think that for the most part they would add anything of value to the conversation. The only plus to that would be outing themselves as horrible human beings to the rest of us.

Seriously, why do so many people think this OK. Or are they suggesting a Kink event where everyone knows?

There we go a g rated family fun event in the park at 2 in the afternoon advertised and organised on a fetish site.

Screen shot removed so here is the link:

https://umd.net/calendar/setup-a-pie-fight-in-illinois

People can be forgiven for not knowing things. Twenty years ago, nobody even knew what fetish-mining was. What matters is that people recognise that it's wrong and correct their behaviour.

People can not be forgiven for everything for example suggesting children are welcome at an event set up because you have a pie fetish. Everyone should know this is wrong.

Thanks for your clarification of the meaning. I have decided not to post any more comments like this as what I see is humour is obviously annoying and upsetting people who take these matters, quite rightly, very seriously. I shall stick to the fetish stuff in the future as I am clearly out of my depth! Sorry if anyone has been offended.

T x

Either the link is now gone, bad url or something is up because the event doesn't exist as far as I can see and Google search of the url turns up "Event doesn't exist not exist" on a few store pages

Gotta go with Piemaster, here. It doesn't really matter whether or not such a term existed or not. If you don't have the moral compass to understand that putting on an event that runs the risk of putting kids and kink in the same universe is abhorrently wrong on all levels, then there really isn't any use trying to explain it.

Actually, because I am an old duffer, I had to look up what fetish mining was. Yes, the practice is wholly disagreeable and along with trying to coerce people into unsuspected fetish scenarios. If you think this is STILL OK have a listen to what this poor young lady has to put up with on her Youtube channel.

https://youtu.be/W6Aoz0ga5Ek?si=tbiLeU53v1YA7Vjz

This was the point I was making with the charity pic that started the conversation, look at comments to find the pic. There is no way in a high at in the afternoon kids were.not exposed to blatant kink. The difference in outfits versus the person cut out the equipment everything screamed kink. This point for lost in talks of findings and worrying organising kids events as part of a church.