I think I was in my early 20's, before I got my license certainly not as socially aware as I am now. If some one asked me now, I would say no, and even looking back if I could transport my mind back I'd say most likely not. It hadn't developed into a kink as it is now for me. But I still see you point and acknowledge my mistake.

This is one of the tricky things about having a kink/fetish for something most people consider nonsexual. You're probably not going to encounter someone being whipped on the ass in a leather suit during a typical day, but you may see someone get messy. I was at a backyard wedding in my early 20s and two very attractive women asked someone to smear cake all over their faces. They probably weren't thinking about it in the same way I was but almost certainly everyone else there wasn't. Definitely put up my best poker face and definitely did not take any pictures.

I have never been in a situation to be WAMmed publicly. The idea makes me uncomfortable since I'm not into voyeurism or the humiliation aspect of it. Anyone that would ask me to get pied or gunged in public would think I hated the stuff funnily enough. I've read stories about people getting heavily pressured into it. You generally can't come out and out say that you don't want to do it because you'll get aroused, especially if it's a work related event.

To elaborate on my earlier answer:

Any situation where someone with a fetish is manipulating other people, or setting them up to be manipulated, who aren't aware of the kink element, into performing fetish actions, is an absolute hard no. None of "us" should be involved in the running of charity or work events where people get gunged, and if we happen to work for an organisation where someone else is arranging something like that, we should not get involved.

I have a personal example, at a previous workplace a team, including some very attractive women, were doing a Tough Mudder race, and asked if I'd come along as a photographer and take pictures. I declined, and when pushed I explained that given I have a fetish for fully clothed women in sportswear covered in mud, it wouldn't be appropriate for me to attend an "innocent" event to take pictures. I've always been "out" about WAM, which is how they knew I was a photographer. Now I have no problem separating kink from life - I don't get any reaction to news photos of fully clothed people caught in floods for example - but even so, given my fetish, I didn't think it appropriate to attend that event, and especially not as a photographer.

Now if someone was to set up a "Fetish Mudder" event, strictly over-18s only, where it was made clear to all taking part that there is a fetish interest in the activity and they'd be being filmed and photographed for that purpose as they tackled the course, and only to participate if they consented to that, then that'd be completely different, as we'd have fully informed consent.

One of the things I daydream about if I had a big win on a lottery would be to fund the production of a fully clothed, very messy, adults only TV game show, which while made to be entertaining to a mass audience would also be filmed from the WAM POV, so the director and camera crews instructed to get good clear shots of the clean contestants going into the mess, the various messy activities happening, and them clambering out of the various tanks covered in gloop - with no random cut-aways to the hosts, no intrusive score cards blocking the view, etc. But everyone involved, including all crew, all contestants, and even the studio audience, would be informed as part of the signup process that there is a fetish interest in what they're going to be doing / seeing / working on, and only to participate if they are OK with that. Again, fully informed consent.

Nice to know I'm not the only one who has considered a similar type of scenario with my imaginary lotto winnings. In my scenario, the host, co-hosts, announcer, and presenter/assistants would all be women fully aware of and employed specifically to get messy on a regular basis while doing their job during the course of the series production.

I'm extremely sensitive to anything that can be perceived as non-consensual so I would say, yes it is wrong.

I believe this because it's being made purposefully for a sexual reason. The line I draw is the intent.

Everything is a fetish. I know tights and stockings are one of the most common fetishes of them all. I wear them to work quite often and possibly some people I work with find it really sexy. But they're not giving me stockings to wear so they can look at them.

When I was in high school my class did this weird video game show project. Funny game shows are really popular in my home country, so we made a parody. I didn't do any planning I just did filming and editing. It was a messy themed game show and if you got a question wrong you get covered in food and stuff. It was like fun for me because my interests, but I didn't push for this to be the project, it just happened. I actually argued against doing it because I knew it would make me uncomfortable.

I hope that makes sense. It's problematic if it's done with kink in mind, if it's not then I think it's fine.

Also, if it's an all adult event it's still suspect, but if there is any involvement of anyone under the age of consent, no way. Burn it all down. Absolutely not. Bad.

So many no's and others but so few people explaining their point of few.

My guess is it is but I want people to get me messy and if I can't get it with consent, I will get it any way I can.


Interestingly the person who's pic was part of the reason for this post (along with the I'd do anything messy4 type vids) has voted but no response giving their side. The pic has been edited to remove the person who probably had not consented to being on a fetish site. It has been reported despite my self and violet commenting it has hundreds of views no other comments. Is this more telling than a the poll itself (that said circa 10% of those who voted thinking it's anything other than creepy behaviour shocks me)

For transparency I want to add that MM has since messaged me re the post I reported with the public wam for charity- they've explained
' Just letting you know that I found the reason why you were not sent the automatic feedback that you're supposed to get when I dispatch those flags, and that was totally my fault. I had my own account set to a development mode where folks weren't sent my feedback automatically.'

As has already been said, the issue with these situations is the lack of informed enthusiastic consent from those who take part.

I can understand that people may want to explore the humiliation side of this fetish by getting messy in front of a crowd. So why not get in touch with kink play event organisers and venues to arrange to do your scene at a kink event? You've then got a crowd of people who've given informed enthusiastic consent to others getting their kink on around them, and will understand that by taking part they are part of that scene. In that setting it could even still possibly be done for charity if that was partly a genuine motive.

Back in 2012 I turned down a job last-minute where I would have been running events at a certain Orlando-area resort themed to the US-network-known-for-mess-that-shall-not-be-named. I would have been hosting poolside games where I could have seen bikini-clad moms getting pied and slimed every day - a dream job - but bringing unwilling participants into your kink is, as a Simpsons Facebook group would say, unrelaxo. I know there's a lot of deep-seated debate about the ethics of even watching certain mainstream clips, but the line for me is bringing actual people I'm seeing face-to-face into being unwilling participants in my kink. Seeing my wife get pied for charity, even if not everyone knows why if excites me? That's different, but setting something like that up without everyone knowing why I'm doing it feels a bit scummy. Safe, sane, and consensual.

This is the bottom line.

Agree so question is why was the pic reviewed and allowed back up. With one of the people cropped out.


The set up combined with the user name and the picture all screamed these are my kinks and it was done for "charity". Yes the quote marks are on the title. The person that was cut out was in shorts and t shirt, the person still in the pic evening outfit, super high heels and lace gloves etc, in fetish stocks, why is this relevant, look at the user name the pic title and then tell me do you think charity was this persons goal?


I mean it is possible that whilst set up on the high st outside Sainsbury with families walking by and possibly participating the user told each person before they poured the custard. Hi, this is a kink for me thank you for helping me live out my fantasies, or something similar. However I very much doubt that

All this^. Consent is everything.

No = No
Not asking = No
Not informing = No
No answer = No

We have enough stigmas following us around without people being total creeps with their kinks.

I don't think there is anything wrong with watching a charity event for fetish interests, especially if its some old youtube video but I do think its wrong to organize one or mislead people into participating. If an individual person wants to participate for fetish reasons thats up to their own moral compass.

I wasn't sure if the previous reports on that image had actually made completely clear what the problem with it was, and that they could have been interpreted as meaning that the second person may not have consented to being on a fetish site hence the cropping and replacment of the image. So I flagged it myself and spelt out the exact issue, that it was probably taken on a busy shopping street with the general public passing and viewing. MM has given a detailed response, which he's said can be shared, so I'm quoting it in full below. But the short version is, as long as everyone who is actually getting wammed in an image like this is aware of and consent to the fetish implications, and there are no kids anywhere in view, then things shot in public are allowed, so the cropped version is compliant with UMD rules.

TBH this is slightly different to the original post in this thread which I took to be more about manipulating vanilla people into participating in wam activity by deception, which I'd hope we all agree is an absolute hard "No!", whereas the pic referenced is someone who knows full well they are doing fetish activity, and so has consented.

MM's reply in full: This falls under our policy about public wamming, which is that it's allowed as long as all subjects of the photos are witting (the unwitting subject had been removed and the pic re-allowed). It is not against our terms if other members of the public are in attendance or even in the pic, so long as they are all adults, and anybody actually wet or messy is aware that they are the subject of fetish viewership. This picture is allowed under these terms, and if the community wants to have another debate on whether it should be allowed, the discussion will only make sense if we address the entire scope of posting *anything* not shot in private, as well as web finds which almost always contain shots of people never intending to be subjected to wam fetishists. Any lower-level discussion will end up being circuitous with people griping about things they don't like without actually furthering the underlying policy. To be morally consistent and honest with ourselves, the entire concept of subjecting non-wammers to a wam audience must be addressed as a whole. Here is a discussion from 2020: https://umd.net/forums/gonna-have-to-be-that-guy FAQ: "Is it moral to post discoveries?" https://umd.net/about_us#discovery [This response to this flag is welcome to be repeated/pasted anywhere necessary]

I agree with the sentiment that if you can separate yourself mentally from the event and act *and think* normal like "the next guy in line," it's fine to participate in public events that involve some form of WAM as well as some form of charitable cause. I've participated in polar plunges, a dunk tank, a foam party and a town-wide water battle and mentioned them here, but I didn't describe any other participants in any detail and took only selfies without anyone else in the background. I accompanied my family to most of those events.

I've also been recruited to help with the water balloon battles that are part of our annual church picnic and family reunions; again, it's all about context. It's all ages and G-rated and I don't take or share photos.

I wouldn't feel remotely right organizing a charity event that involved WAM, except if it was under very controlled circumstances. If it was some campy messy wrestling event at a dive bar (i.e. with a limited, adults-only audience), as long as all participants could be gathered ahead of time and informed, "hey, this is obviously already 'adult entertainment,' but we have no control where any photos might end up, including on fetish sites," that would be fair. I still wouldn't share any photos except selfies, though.

One of the creepiest posts I've seen here - I reported it and it was gone very quickly.

Like most other people I think doing a 'charity' thing for your own arousal is wrong, but if I'm honest with myself, when it comes to viewing thing like this, I'm a hypocrite. Going back to the mid 2000s and early 2010s, I bought and enjoyed several Gunjee videos, not to mention uni gungetank videos on YouTube (the guy must be one of us), and the once well known "Danny16" clips (did the girls know? They must have, right?)

Most stuff done for charity isn't at all arousing, but if something like Gunjee came around again (not involving Leon), would I buy it? I can't definitely say that I wouldn't. Would you buy it?

I did think I made it clear and to be honest was surprised to not get any responses.

My point with the picture in question is yes they have consented to wam, based on the fact that the stocks fit them perfectly and are not the standard hole cut in cardboard sector see at charity events. The fact they are getting gunged in drag (very different clothing to the person cropped out) which is suggested to be their kinks by their username. The sign that says the custard was £1 to pour over the staff or volunteer so anyone who did this because it was funny or maybe let their child do it (not like the person would.say sorry no kids this is a kink for me) was an unwilling (I use unwilling deliberately, if they are unaware it's a kink they cannot be willing) participant in the posters kink play.

Yes I agree normal.life and kinks can be separated, but look at the picture does this look like someone trying to separate or live out their kinks.

I won't link the picture profile but I have commented on it so it's easy to find. It has been edited again with the title "charity" (yes with quite marks, also pointing to the fact it was.not about the good cause and all about getting publicity covered in custard in drag by unsuspecting members of the public)

https://umd.net/forums/gonna-have-to-be-that-guy?start=60

I have read this. It didn't age well. The 2 women that commented where pretty much ignored, 1 completely. Penny said that a charity WAM organiser was warned she was talking about how wrong it is to mix the 2 so blocked her. Here we are 5 years on with many of the same issues, people finding loopholes etc.

I think this has been fully discussed in this thread. Clearly the consensus about organising charity events for fetish purposes is that it's morally wrong if the people involved don't consent to it.

However, the photo that has now triggered two separate forum posts has been allowed on the site due to not breaking the rules - MM's explanation is pretty easy to follow. I've not seen the photo but I can imagine what it looks like, and if everyone is an adult and it the photo was taken in public, then I can't see how you can insist it be removed without removing every other photo taken in public, every screengrab of a TV show, every YouTube clip of Noel's House Party, and so on.

I think this has been a good discussion. I am not demanding the pic be removed, the other thread was an extension of this and behaviour in general. I think this is a case of morality versus rules. Technically a 50 year old could date and have a relationship with a 16 year old most would call consider this beyond wrong but it's legal.

The difference for me in TV shows screen grabs etc is, (although personally I still think sharing any non kink pic or video on a kink site is wrong) is the fact that on the whole they are not trying to get people to get involved in their kink without consent. Look at the thread in MM's reply and mine below and the response from a woman. Do we really want to perpetuate that feeling for her and other women who may join the site. Is it time to look at morality as well as rules if we want a better community. This rather than the picture has prompted 2 threads. The comments left on pie in the face videos regardless of age / reason for posting has generated these threads. The picture is a part result of a larger issue it is not the issue.

I don't know which woman you are talking about; there are several replies in this thread and I don't know which one you mean.

Besides, I wouldn't want to speak on behalf of anyone else. No woman needs a man to speak for her.

We need rules for civility and rules to prevent harassment, of course, but the way you write suggests that you think there should be some sort of programme to encourage women to join this site and stick around. Speaking in general as a human, the first impression of this site is that it's really fucking weird. There is some supremely cringe stuff on here, a lot of it visible on the front page, and anyone signing up an account has already seen decent dose of what this site is about.

Maybe a disclaimer when signing up: "warning: there will be weirdos"

Abigail in this thread. Sadly her post was pretty much ignored.

https://umd.net/forums/gonna-have-to-be-that-guy?start=60

I wasn't trying to speak for women just pointing out what has been said by women and suggesting we listen.

Of course we need rules but rules are only part of it we need morality to, rules will generally have loop holes it is morality on the whole that stops those being exploited.


I don't think they should be encouraged like a recruitment drive but it would be great if they were not actively driven away by the behaviour of so many on this site (hopefully the minority but definitely too many) when they do find us.

It is frustrating that the main point seems to be getting lost here.

We know things from mainstream TV end up in all corners of the internet - but on the messy shows they haven't been tricked into participating in kink (one hopes) - its just a coincidence

The issue at hand is creating charity events as a wammer and thus getting ppl to participate in our kink without knowing/informed consent.

And referencing the 'there will be weirdos' sentiment ofc there will, doesn't mean we shouldn't hold each-other accountable or have discussions such as this thread.

As I posted previously - MM did eventually get back to me and explain the policy. I have replied and challenged it where charity is used deceptively- unsure if I've had a reply yet as I haven't checked messages. I do feel we should have a guideline around that though because yes. Ppl in the pics are consenting but what they have done to end up messy is immoral by using unknowing ppl and in public no less!

I know you mean well with this, but I don't think you can police morality on this site in the way you mean.

You write as though "rules" and "morality" are two separate and orthogonal ideas, but in reality the rules are there to govern a baseline of morally acceptable behaviour. The rules of this site are its morality.

If you think there needs to be adjustments to specific rules then these can be discussed. We ought to be tolerant of varying moral codes, and realise that this is a fetish website for adults all around the world to enjoy and have fun. I'm not saying it's OK to be a dickhead or to harass women, but you should be able to cope with seeing something you personally find distasteful without responding "oh no! what will the women think!"

I'm curious about something: how do you know Abigail's comment got ignored? You read it, I've just read it, and I'm sure other people have read it too. It was a good post. None of this is straightforward. I can empathise with Abigail, but I also still watch clips from game shows - am I going to stop doing that because it makes someone else I've never met feel uncomfortable? Is Abigail going to leave the site because I watch clips from TV? I am going to leave the site because someone in clown makeup posts pictures of themselves covered in Branston Pickle? I mean, it makes me uncomfortable, but there are more things to consider than my own occasional discomfort.

MM does a good job of what is a very difficult thing to balance, and not everyone is going to agree with everything he does. Penny Banks left the site because of MM's approach to the Leon scandal - do you think he should be publicly called out because he "made" a woman leave the site, or do you think it's more complicated than that?

I'm certainly not saying we shouldn't discuss these things, and I'm not suggesting that users shouldn't hold each other to account, that always has happened and will always continue to happen.

And for the avoidance of any doubt, I think it is wrong to organise a charity event where people get messy under false pretences, solely for the sexual gratification of the organiser, without the people involved having given full, informed consent. Thanks for starting this thread.

Not trying to police it personally I am seeing what the community though about specific senecios in this thread and generally in the other.


Far from orthogonal the 2 are related directly. I don't believe you should ever aim for the baseline or the minimum we should aim higher. If the rules are the morality then it means the morality is at its lowest acceptable point. As I said 'legal' and morally right can be very far apart (especially if you look globally)

That's what we are doing now discussing rules. What the community thinks and whether there should be any adjustments.

I'm don't look at things and think what will women think. I look and think is that right or is that wrong. This is where the other thread came in, should I call this out rather than think creep etc and moving on, should we all. There is a huge huge huge difference between harassment and being a dickhead. I can cope with things I find uncomfortable and accept that it will be here so long as it's consenting adults and no one is getting hurt or harassed crack on.

Abigail's post was not quoted or referred to in the whole thread. She did also say she knows people will watch game shows etc and accepts this even though it makes her personally uncomfortable, sometimes we need to read things more than once to properly digest it. Consenting adults can cover them selves or each other in whatever they want.

MM does have a difficult job I appreciate this. Harder than most because many sites self regulate and are not the island from lord of the flys we seem to have. We should help police ourselves and make his life easier. The Leon situation is an extreme example and not one we should re open but short answer no it's his site and his decision. But should women get driven from the site by relentless pm's creepy messages where the first thing is want to see me do x y z with x y z. Or where they have been hunted down on other social media sites. Also no, there have been good discussions on both threads who knows maybe some ideas will help? If not it certainly won't make things worse

Starting the thread would have meant nothing without all the interaction on both threads.

Coincidentally enough, LChris was involved in the commentary and took the opposing stance. The same degenerate who basically reduced the entire conversation on Leon to new lows with blatant misogyny. So yeah. Aged like milk, that did

I remembered someone calling out a charity in the UK that was doing this shit and how they were trying to get the person running the events doing the behavior to step down. I just could not remember who it was. I tried searching for charity and none of the titles stood out. Thank you for finding this!

I think as far as this site is concerned, this section of the T&C should close the book on charity stuff.

Forbidden Content
All subjects must be consenting and not surprised ambush-style.

That is all that should need to be said. The people in the charity style shit we are talking about are not consenting.

That was the point of the original question that started the thread, yes, and everyone who replied (though not everyone who answered the poll) pretty much expressed the same view, hard "No" in all circumstances.

However the subject then drifted a bit - the picture that multiple people are talking about shows someone who as far as we can tell *is* a wammer, so full informed consent, getting messed up in exchange for donations at a charity stall in a high street. MM has allowed the pic on the basis the person in it is willing and fully aware of the fetish interest, and no-one else is visible in the pic. Which is compliant with UMD rules about consenting subjects, no kids, no unwitting participants.

The debate regarding the pic is about whether it is OK for someone who is a fully consenting wammer to put themselves into a position where they are being messed up while visible to the general public, or possibly even with the mess being poured on by members of the public.

My personal view is that as long as they aren't sticking their hands down their pants and wanking, or othertwise being blatantly sexual, and the actual pouuring is being done by an assistant (who is also aware of the fetish angle) and not the random person (who could potentially be under-18) making the donation, it's probably harmless, though it's not something I'd do.

From the POV of wanting to have clear, and practically enforceable, rules, bear in mind just about every outdoor mud or wetlook scene every recorded was shot "in public", and while a remote riverbank or secluded swamp in a forest isn't quite the same as a busy city-centre high street on a saturday afternoon, they are all "in public" to a greater or lesser degree, which is the point MM makes in his response.

To me a wammer doing something for charity is no different than if a producer decided to donate that months sales to the charity of their choice. However, when you start involving the public you need to let them know that while it is for charity, you also get off on this kind of activity. It is all coming from a standpoint of educated consent. Which to me was the main thing people said was important.