|
|
|||
| forums: groups: | |||
|
"Charity and WAM"
Love you, too
dalamar666 said:
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.
DungeonMasterOne said: 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.
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.
I think the main issue is separating a love of getting messy and the love of the kink. You can get messy without having to have a wank, male or female. As long as you're not cranking your hog while in the chair/booth it's not bad.
Does that mean no wammer can participate in a mud/foam/colour run?
DungeonMasterOne said:
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.
dalamar666 said: 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.
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.
The difference for me is on the river bank the person in the mud consents, yes people who may see it haven't but that is very different from having people actively involved ie paying £1 to charity to pour custard over someone because it's funny not because it's their kink.
The original title "charity" showed what the op was doing and what the intent was. The other person cut out because they did not consent was also covered so had been messed no doubt not know it was a kink for the person posting. I think if there is signs that non consenting people have been involved it should not be posted here. Consent can only be given if fully informed. If this pic had been in a kink club or event fine, but the high st really? Also looking at the poll and the comments it would seem a majority of the community feel the same. To be clear I don't mean just this pic I mean any that are blatant deception or kink farmed.
matty87 said:
I think the main issue is separating a love of getting messy and the love of the kink. You can get messy without having to have a wank, male or female. As long as you're not cranking your hog while in the chair/booth it's not bad.
Does that mean no wammer can participate in a mud/foam/colour run?
dalamar666 said:
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.
DungeonMasterOne said: 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.
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.
I think the main issue is separating a love of getting messy and the love of the kink. You can get messy without having to have a wank, male or female. As long as you're not cranking your hog while in the chair/booth it's not bad.
Does that mean no wammer can participate in a mud/foam/colour run?
Participation and organising are very different. Yes do a mud run etc if you want, (I would still say don't share pics of anyone else here or even anything that showed the organising body.). I would also say if your thought process is great a chance to get messy then don't. Things are always more fun if everyone knows and consents.
Also the love of getting messy seeing people messy is the kink so not sure how you separate it?
As for organising messy events where not everyone knows it's a kink is a solid no for me and creepy behaviour. Doubled down if it is a family, public event.
DungeonMasterOne said:
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.
dalamar666 said: 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.
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.
With public stuff I agree to a certain extent, that yes, even at a swamp etc u may be spotted HOWEVER that still misses the point of charity wam INTENTIONALLY being deceptive- that's the point that concerns me and the reason for the thread. Being spotted and intentionally involving people without informed consent are not comparable in my opinion.
Gimme that gunge!
It's a slippery slope, and very easy to abuse. I wouldn't do it just because i think those kinds of events aren't as monetizable outside of kink, and there's just better fundraising ideas.
Mindset is the most important part, i think. Does it happen for charity, or is charity just an added bonus? Personally i can draw that line pretty well, but not everyone can, it seems. For example, i'm into swimwear, i'm into feet, and yet i can visit a beach without getting aroused despite the abundance of bare feet and swimwear. It's just not the reason i'm there, so it's not even on my mind.
So i imagine it is possible to have one without the other. But the people organizing or volunteering for a WAM element in a charity event for the purpose of arousal are just... sexual predators. Actively engaging in an activity for the purpose of sexual gratification without knowledge and/or consent from the other participants.
Mindset is the most important part, i think. Does it happen for charity, or is charity just an added bonus? Personally i can draw that line pretty well, but not everyone can, it seems. For example, i'm into swimwear, i'm into feet, and yet i can visit a beach without getting aroused despite the abundance of bare feet and swimwear. It's just not the reason i'm there, so it's not even on my mind.
So i imagine it is possible to have one without the other. But the people organizing or volunteering for a WAM element in a charity event for the purpose of arousal are just... sexual predators. Actively engaging in an activity for the purpose of sexual gratification without knowledge and/or consent from the other participants.
Saturation Hall, Langstonedale
Lord of the Pies
Piemaster1980 said: The difference for me is on the river bank the person in the mud consents, yes people who may see it haven't but that is very different from having people actively involved ie paying £1 to charity to pour custard over someone because it's funny not because it's their kink.
The original title "charity" showed what the op was doing and what the intent was. The other person cut out because they did not consent was also covered so had been messed no doubt not know it was a kink for the person posting. I think if there is signs that non consenting people have been involved it should not be posted here. Consent can only be given if fully informed. If this pic had been in a kink club or event fine, but the high st really? Also looking at the poll and the comments it would seem a majority of the community feel the same. To be clear I don't mean just this pic I mean any that are blatant deception or kink farmed.
The original title "charity" showed what the op was doing and what the intent was. The other person cut out because they did not consent was also covered so had been messed no doubt not know it was a kink for the person posting. I think if there is signs that non consenting people have been involved it should not be posted here. Consent can only be given if fully informed. If this pic had been in a kink club or event fine, but the high st really? Also looking at the poll and the comments it would seem a majority of the community feel the same. To be clear I don't mean just this pic I mean any that are blatant deception or kink farmed.
Not trying to be obtuse but I think you're conflating two different things hare. Everyone who replied and the majority who voted (me included) said it's completely wrong to for someone with this fetish to deceptively organise an event with the objective of getting vanilla people to perform wam activities without knowing about the fetish interest. Tricking or decieving innocents in to doing wam for gratification is fundamentally wrong. No argument there.
But, regarding taking part, as opposed to organising, consider a few scenarios:
1. Someone non-wam completely innocently sets up a gunge tank fundraiser, and a non-wam person takes part and gets gunged. It's held in a non-food pub so no-one under-18 is permitted on the premises. Someone comes across news media photos of the person being gunged at the event and posts them here. That's the classic "found in the wild", and has always been allowed as long as no kids. Is that OK, or should such "finds" be banned?
2. Exact same scenario as 1 above except one the person who volunteers to get gunged is a wammer, but a private one, no UMD account, no interaction, though they might lurk. Again someone else finds news media photos of the event and posts them here. The only person who knows that particular gunge recipient is into the fetish is the person themselves and they've told no-one. Is that somehow different to 1 above?
3. Exact same scenario as 2 except the wammer who volunteers is "out" in the wam community. Again someone else finds the pics and posts them. The only difference to 2 is that the person is known, to other wammers, as being into wam. Is this different to 1 and 2?
4. Exact same scenario as 3 above except the person posts the pics themselves. Is this different?
5. Same scenario as 4 except the person is completely out to everyone that they are into the wam fetish so chances are everyone at the actual event who knows them knows thay they're into it. At that point we do have fully informed consent for at least some of the people at the event, not just the person being wammed. I guess that would be the ideal but it's also going to be fairly rare.
Piemaster1980 said: Also the love of getting messy seeing people messy is the kink so not sure how you separate it?
That part is easy, and what any professional producer does every time they shoot a scene, you just basically turn off your kink reaction. It's basic self-control, you don't allow yourself to be turned on by the situation. Watching the footage afterwards when the models are all safely on their trains home is different, but while shooting, strictly professional.
Piemaster1980 said: As for organising messy events where not everyone knows it's a kink is a solid no for me and creepy behaviour. Doubled down if it is a family, public event.
Agree completely here, but that's entirely different to just taking part / being a stooge.
MessyViolet said: With public stuff I agree to a certain extent, that yes, even at a swamp etc u may be spotted HOWEVER that still misses the point of charity wam INTENTIONALLY being deceptive- that's the point that concerns me and the reason for the thread. Being spotted and intentionally involving people without informed consent are not comparable in my opinion.
As above, I don't think anyone has said deceiving innocent people into doing wam is ever acceptable, but I see that as different from a wammer volunteering to be messed up in a non-kink setting, as long as they don't act sexually. After all, we have no idea if any of the people we see in public events getting wet or messy are into it or not, a few of them might well be but entirely in private, in which case we'd never know. But a rule where "known wammers can't take part in things but unknown ones can" would seem very arbitrary?
Saturation Hall - Forth! The Gungemaidens!
Ok
In my eyes
Definitely banned no one should have their pic put on a fetish kink site without their knowledge. Main stream TV maybe ok but you attend a charity event and end up on a kink site wrong.
Nope same response they didn't consent
Nope same response unless they contact the "out" person for permission.
If they where not the organiser and don't show the name or event other people crack on
Same as 4
In my eyes
1. Someone non-wam completely innocently sets up a gunge tank fundraiser, and a non-wam person takes part and gets gunged. It's held in a non-food pub so no-one under-18 is permitted on the premises. Someone comes across news media photos of the person being gunged at the event and posts them here. That's the classic "found in the wild", and has always been allowed as long as no kids. Is that OK, or should such "finds" be banned?
Definitely banned no one should have their pic put on a fetish kink site without their knowledge. Main stream TV maybe ok but you attend a charity event and end up on a kink site wrong.
2. Exact same scenario as 1 above except one the person who volunteers to get gunged is a wammer, but a private one, no UMD account, no interaction, though they might lurk. Again someone else finds news media photos of the event and posts them here. The only person who knows that particular gunge recipient is into the fetish is the person themselves and they've told no-one. Is that somehow different to 1 above?
Nope same response they didn't consent
3. Exact same scenario as 2 except the wammer who volunteers is "out" in the wam community. Again someone else finds the pics and posts them. The only difference to 2 is that the person is known, to other wammers, as being into wam. Is this different to 1 and 2?
Nope same response unless they contact the "out" person for permission.
4. Exact same scenario as 3 above except the person posts the pics themselves. Is this different?
If they where not the organiser and don't show the name or event other people crack on
5. Same scenario as 4 except the person is completely out to everyone that they are into the wam fetish so chances are everyone at the actual event who knows them knows thay they're into it. At that point we do have fully informed consent for at least some of the people at the event, not just the person being wammed. I guess that would be the ideal but it's also going to be fairly rare.
Same as 4
2/13/25, 2:32pm: [admin] added [quote] and [/quote] tags round the quoted text to make it clearer what is quoted and what is response text.
As above, I don't think anyone has said deceiving innocent people into doing wam is ever acceptable, but I see that as different from a wammer volunteering to be messed up in a non-kink setting, as long as they don't act sexually. After all, we have no idea if any of the people we see in public events getting wet or messy are into it or not, a few of them might well be but entirely in private, in which case we'd never know. But a rule where "known wammers can't take part in things but unknown ones can" would seem very arbitrary?
We are talking about people that organise events thought the attendance etc is grey I agree.
So do you think the person in the picture just so happened to volunteer for a charity event and just happened to be the perfect size for what looks like custom built kink stocks?
The question is simple should pictures of obvious kink farming in the guise of charity be allowed?
Also there is further issues with the picture in my eyes. You can clearly see the name of the company some of the staff involved come from and also the charity. Do you think it's possible some of our more special members may reach out and ask when the event is. Can they pour custard over them for a donation or can they volunteer next time etc. For those that think no go read the comments under any messy video on YouTube not posted by a wammer and ask yourself again.
Maybe someone should let them know their company name is on a fetish site on the internet?
Maybe someone should let them know their company name is on a fetish site on the internet?
I am so concerned about the consent of individuals, I didn't even think of Sainsburys - bet their comms or PR team would have a meltdown. I know my employer would freak out. We can't even have photos in uniform with local councillors even though we work so closely for the fear of looking like we lean one way or another politically
Gimme that gunge!
MessyViolet said: I am so concerned about the consent of individuals, I didn't even think of Sainsburys - bet their comms or PR team would have a meltdown. I know my employer would freak out. We can't even have photos in uniform with local councillors even though we work so closely for the fear of looking like we lean one way or another politically
* correction.its not sainsbo's like I thought but the same applies for any mainstream business
Gimme that gunge!
I wonder if foot fetish forums have threads like this about shoe shops and Tarantino films? 
I don't want to be a dick (even if I sometimes am), but a lot of this talk about what is and isn't morally acceptable seems in my view to be missing few things that to me are kind of obvious. I'm going to try as best I can to put this into words, please be tolerant of potential misunderstanding before replying to this. DungeonMasterOne's comment about different scenarios that look the same touches upon the same ideas without stating them explicitly.
First up, to say it again for the avoidance of doubt, consent between individuals for their direct interactions is absolutely inviolable. And we all seem to agree on that, which is good - signing someone up to 'get messy' with the primary aim of getting off to it, without telling them that's what it's for, is obviously wrong. However:
1. It is not necessary to give or seek consent for private thoughts. If someone turns up to watch a charity event, and gets some sort of gratification from it, but keeps it a private thought, well, it's a private thought. Sorry if you don't like it but there is literally fuck all you can do about it.
If someone gets messy and gets gratification from it, and keeps it private, it's a private thought. Other people didn't consent to those thoughts being had, because that's just how private thoughts work.
To go one more step into the realm of everyone's direct experience: you don't need someone's consent to fantasise about them. Because it's just a private thought.
2. It is commonly understood that consent to an action implies consent to the consequences of that action - that's why informed consent is crucial, so the person knows what they are agreeing to. By consenting to being filmed in a video that goes on YouTube, that person is consenting to not being able to control how people react to seeing that video. Some people might jerk off to it, because rule 34 is a real thing.
3. This is the same as 2, but I'm going to say it again. People who have consented to having a video or image shared in the public domain can't control what people think about it. How are you then supposed to police people's thoughts?
My point is, you can't set ethical guidelines around private thoughts (OK, the Catholic Church can try, but they can see me in Hell) - which is why DungeonMasterOne's rhetorical scenario question is impossible to answer, and why rules about what pictures are or aren't allowed have to be grounded in the reality of the photo and not speculation about the motives in creating it.
I don't want to be a dick (even if I sometimes am), but a lot of this talk about what is and isn't morally acceptable seems in my view to be missing few things that to me are kind of obvious. I'm going to try as best I can to put this into words, please be tolerant of potential misunderstanding before replying to this. DungeonMasterOne's comment about different scenarios that look the same touches upon the same ideas without stating them explicitly.
First up, to say it again for the avoidance of doubt, consent between individuals for their direct interactions is absolutely inviolable. And we all seem to agree on that, which is good - signing someone up to 'get messy' with the primary aim of getting off to it, without telling them that's what it's for, is obviously wrong. However:
1. It is not necessary to give or seek consent for private thoughts. If someone turns up to watch a charity event, and gets some sort of gratification from it, but keeps it a private thought, well, it's a private thought. Sorry if you don't like it but there is literally fuck all you can do about it.
If someone gets messy and gets gratification from it, and keeps it private, it's a private thought. Other people didn't consent to those thoughts being had, because that's just how private thoughts work.
To go one more step into the realm of everyone's direct experience: you don't need someone's consent to fantasise about them. Because it's just a private thought.
2. It is commonly understood that consent to an action implies consent to the consequences of that action - that's why informed consent is crucial, so the person knows what they are agreeing to. By consenting to being filmed in a video that goes on YouTube, that person is consenting to not being able to control how people react to seeing that video. Some people might jerk off to it, because rule 34 is a real thing.
3. This is the same as 2, but I'm going to say it again. People who have consented to having a video or image shared in the public domain can't control what people think about it. How are you then supposed to police people's thoughts?
My point is, you can't set ethical guidelines around private thoughts (OK, the Catholic Church can try, but they can see me in Hell) - which is why DungeonMasterOne's rhetorical scenario question is impossible to answer, and why rules about what pictures are or aren't allowed have to be grounded in the reality of the photo and not speculation about the motives in creating it.
matty87 said: Does that mean no wammer can participate in a mud/foam/colour run?
Quit trying to loophole shit and get away from the main topic of the post. Which is wammers organizing events deceiving people into participating in something for charity when there is also an ulterior motive behind it. Unless you are trying to say that creating fetish content of people without their consent is ok.
Piemaster1980 said: Definitely banned no one should have their pic put on a fetish kink site without their knowledge. Main stream TV maybe ok but you attend a charity event and end up on a kink site wrong.
You know, the more I think about it, I don't think main stream TV should be ok. It is a similar situation as the charity. People on the TV show did not participate knowing that their participation would end up on a fetish site. I have appreciated the content in the past, but as I grow as a person and value consent more, I don't see how people can be so in favor of consenting to the activity when it is unsuspecting people. But then if it is on TV the unsuspecting people part doesn't matter.
Piemaster1980 said: Also there is further issues with the picture in my eyes. You can clearly see the name of the company some of the staff involved come from and also the charity. Do you think it's possible some of our more special members may reach out and ask when the event is. Can they pour custard over them for a donation or can they volunteer next time etc. For those that think no go read the comments under any messy video on YouTube not posted by a wammer and ask yourself again.
Maybe someone should let them know their company name is on a fetish site on the internet?
Maybe someone should let them know their company name is on a fetish site on the internet?
Unrelated, but why on earth are there seemingly so many of those... as you put it "special" members in wam? They're everywhere you look, it's crazy. Elsewhere in the thread someone said the premise was fine as if couldn't get it consensually they'd get it any way they could. What the fuck?
zimmerman23 said:
Unrelated, but why on earth are there seemingly so many of those... as you put it "special" members in wam? They're everywhere you look, it's crazy. Elsewhere in the thread someone said the premise was fine as if couldn't get it consensually they'd get it any way they could. What the fuck?
Piemaster1980 said: Also there is further issues with the picture in my eyes. You can clearly see the name of the company some of the staff involved come from and also the charity. Do you think it's possible some of our more special members may reach out and ask when the event is. Can they pour custard over them for a donation or can they volunteer next time etc. For those that think no go read the comments under any messy video on YouTube not posted by a wammer and ask yourself again.
Maybe someone should let them know their company name is on a fetish site on the internet?
Maybe someone should let them know their company name is on a fetish site on the internet?
Unrelated, but why on earth are there seemingly so many of those... as you put it "special" members in wam? They're everywhere you look, it's crazy. Elsewhere in the thread someone said the premise was fine as if couldn't get it consensually they'd get it any way they could. What the fuck?
My theory is the lack of the women on the forum it's become an echo chamber. A lot of the men have forgotten how to treat women and that they are people not objects.
Too many, well it's the internet and weirdo's will be weirdos. Not enough why do we have so many
We are more noticeable our fetish is on TV at charity events etc and not seen as sexual by many.
As you have seen on the thread too many people looking for loopholes and excuses why it's ok. Taking the thread away from the point or say yes it's wrong but.
I would also say too many chances given. There are people who have suggested parents involve their teenage children in there wam if they can't get time without them still here. Loads of members know who the wrong ones are some members are warned about other members when they join. Surely these members should just be gone
thereald said: I wonder if foot fetish forums have threads like this about shoe shops and Tarantino films?
I don't want to be a dick (even if I sometimes am), but a lot of this talk about what is and isn't morally acceptable seems in my view to be missing few things that to me are kind of obvious. I'm going to try as best I can to put this into words, please be tolerant of potential misunderstanding before replying to this. DungeonMasterOne's comment about different scenarios that look the same touches upon the same ideas without stating them explicitly.
First up, to say it again for the avoidance of doubt, consent between individuals for their direct interactions is absolutely inviolable. And we all seem to agree on that, which is good - signing someone up to 'get messy' with the primary aim of getting off to it, without telling them that's what it's for, is obviously wrong. However:
1. It is not necessary to give or seek consent for private thoughts. If someone turns up to watch a charity event, and gets some sort of gratification from it, but keeps it a private thought, well, it's a private thought. Sorry if you don't like it but there is literally fuck all you can do about it.
If someone gets messy and gets gratification from it, and keeps it private, it's a private thought. Other people didn't consent to those thoughts being had, because that's just how private thoughts work.
To go one more step into the realm of everyone's direct experience: you don't need someone's consent to fantasise about them. Because it's just a private thought.
2. It is commonly understood that consent to an action implies consent to the consequences of that action - that's why informed consent is crucial, so the person knows what they are agreeing to. By consenting to being filmed in a video that goes on YouTube, that person is consenting to not being able to control how people react to seeing that video. Some people might jerk off to it, because rule 34 is a real thing.
3. This is the same as 2, but I'm going to say it again. People who have consented to having a video or image shared in the public domain can't control what people think about it. How are you then supposed to police people's thoughts?
My point is, you can't set ethical guidelines around private thoughts (OK, the Catholic Church can try, but they can see me in Hell) - which is why DungeonMasterOne's rhetorical scenario question is impossible to answer, and why rules about what pictures are or aren't allowed have to be grounded in the reality of the photo and not speculation about the motives in creating it.
I don't want to be a dick (even if I sometimes am), but a lot of this talk about what is and isn't morally acceptable seems in my view to be missing few things that to me are kind of obvious. I'm going to try as best I can to put this into words, please be tolerant of potential misunderstanding before replying to this. DungeonMasterOne's comment about different scenarios that look the same touches upon the same ideas without stating them explicitly.
First up, to say it again for the avoidance of doubt, consent between individuals for their direct interactions is absolutely inviolable. And we all seem to agree on that, which is good - signing someone up to 'get messy' with the primary aim of getting off to it, without telling them that's what it's for, is obviously wrong. However:
1. It is not necessary to give or seek consent for private thoughts. If someone turns up to watch a charity event, and gets some sort of gratification from it, but keeps it a private thought, well, it's a private thought. Sorry if you don't like it but there is literally fuck all you can do about it.
If someone gets messy and gets gratification from it, and keeps it private, it's a private thought. Other people didn't consent to those thoughts being had, because that's just how private thoughts work.
To go one more step into the realm of everyone's direct experience: you don't need someone's consent to fantasise about them. Because it's just a private thought.
2. It is commonly understood that consent to an action implies consent to the consequences of that action - that's why informed consent is crucial, so the person knows what they are agreeing to. By consenting to being filmed in a video that goes on YouTube, that person is consenting to not being able to control how people react to seeing that video. Some people might jerk off to it, because rule 34 is a real thing.
3. This is the same as 2, but I'm going to say it again. People who have consented to having a video or image shared in the public domain can't control what people think about it. How are you then supposed to police people's thoughts?
My point is, you can't set ethical guidelines around private thoughts (OK, the Catholic Church can try, but they can see me in Hell) - which is why DungeonMasterOne's rhetorical scenario question is impossible to answer, and why rules about what pictures are or aren't allowed have to be grounded in the reality of the photo and not speculation about the motives in creating it.
Everyone is a dick sometimes it's ok
Your first up is the only point that matters. I am not talking about thoughts or participating in a random event (although motive dependent still a grey area). I am talking about someone like the person in the pic organising an event to get members of the public to get them messy and get messy without knowing it's a kink. It's wrong we agree surely that's it. If it's wrong any pic associated with behaviour the vast majority agree is wrong is wrong surely?
But yes I am also of the view that having your pic on the internet shared on a kink site without your consent is wrong. Thoughts I can do nothing about but so many don't stay as thoughts and become comments on YouTube etc that are just creepy.
Piemaster1980 said:
Everyone is a dick sometimes it's ok
Your first up is the only point that matters. I am not talking about thoughts or participating in a random event (although motive dependent still a grey area). I am talking about someone like the person in the pic organising an event to get members of the public to get them messy and get messy without knowing it's a kink. It's wrong we agree surely that's it. If it's wrong any pic associated with behaviour the vast majority agree is wrong is wrong surely?
But yes I am also of the view that having your pic on the internet shared on a kink site without your consent is wrong. Thoughts I can do nothing about but so many don't stay as thoughts and become comments on YouTube etc that are just creepy.
Everyone is a dick sometimes it's ok
Your first up is the only point that matters. I am not talking about thoughts or participating in a random event (although motive dependent still a grey area). I am talking about someone like the person in the pic organising an event to get members of the public to get them messy and get messy without knowing it's a kink. It's wrong we agree surely that's it. If it's wrong any pic associated with behaviour the vast majority agree is wrong is wrong surely?
But yes I am also of the view that having your pic on the internet shared on a kink site without your consent is wrong. Thoughts I can do nothing about but so many don't stay as thoughts and become comments on YouTube etc that are just creepy.
Who are you to tell me what matters about my own comment?
It's a valid post and it's on topic, and this isn't a debate, it's a discussion. The motivations and internal thoughts of the person who posted the picture are unknown. Maybe he duped people into getting him messy without telling them it's a turn on. Maybe he did tell them. Maybe he just enjoyed this in a non sexual way. Maybe his pillory was made to order, maybe it just happened to fit him perfectly. Maybe he was doing this to get off to later, maybe he wasn't.
It is completely understandable to find his motivations suspect, and to find the photo distasteful. I find it distasteful, and I find many things on this site distasteful.
However, you can't have rules about what photos are allowed on the site based on your suspicions about why the photo was taken. The rules have to be based on the photo itself, because the motivations can't be proven. The rules have to be practical.
Once a photo is on the internet, it's on the internet. Once you publish, you can't take it back - that's just how it works. It's in the public domain. What is the moral difference between hosting the photo on the site, embedding the image on this site while it is hosted elsewhere, hyperlinking to the image, and posting instructions on how to find the image using search engines? You have the personal choice whether to look at it or not, like everybody else does. Who are you to say other people shouldn't? From where are you claiming the authority to stop them? Please, this doesn't need a response, these are just rhetorical questions for you to think about. I don't think this is as black and white as you seem to think it is.
DungeonMasterOne said:
Not trying to be obtuse but I think you're conflating two different things hare. Everyone who replied and the majority who voted (me included) said it's completely wrong to for someone with this fetish to deceptively organise an event with the objective of getting vanilla people to perform wam activities without knowing about the fetish interest. Tricking or decieving innocents in to doing wam for gratification is fundamentally wrong. No argument there.
Piemaster1980 said: The difference for me is on the river bank the person in the mud consents, yes people who may see it haven't but that is very different from having people actively involved ie paying £1 to charity to pour custard over someone because it's funny not because it's their kink.
The original title "charity" showed what the op was doing and what the intent was. The other person cut out because they did not consent was also covered so had been messed no doubt not know it was a kink for the person posting. I think if there is signs that non consenting people have been involved it should not be posted here. Consent can only be given if fully informed. If this pic had been in a kink club or event fine, but the high st really? Also looking at the poll and the comments it would seem a majority of the community feel the same. To be clear I don't mean just this pic I mean any that are blatant deception or kink farmed.
The original title "charity" showed what the op was doing and what the intent was. The other person cut out because they did not consent was also covered so had been messed no doubt not know it was a kink for the person posting. I think if there is signs that non consenting people have been involved it should not be posted here. Consent can only be given if fully informed. If this pic had been in a kink club or event fine, but the high st really? Also looking at the poll and the comments it would seem a majority of the community feel the same. To be clear I don't mean just this pic I mean any that are blatant deception or kink farmed.
Not trying to be obtuse but I think you're conflating two different things hare. Everyone who replied and the majority who voted (me included) said it's completely wrong to for someone with this fetish to deceptively organise an event with the objective of getting vanilla people to perform wam activities without knowing about the fetish interest. Tricking or decieving innocents in to doing wam for gratification is fundamentally wrong. No argument there.
Minus the 40 or so who voted "No" (who are also remarkably silent). Not to sound like a Debbie Downer here but it isn't the flex we hope it would be LOL
I mean, basically 1 in 4 who voted more or less stated that they are quite ok with organizing a messy charity event with no consent from the participants in one fashion or the next.
A large part of me hopes that it's because they didn't understand the question but not gonna lie, I don't get warm and fuzzy with that number floating around
Making smut is easy. Making art takes more!
thereald said:
Who are you to tell me what matters about my own comment? It's a valid post and it's on topic, and this isn't a debate, it's a discussion.
The motivations and internal thoughts of the person who posted the picture are unknown. Maybe he duped people into getting him messy without telling them it's a turn on. Maybe he did tell them. Maybe he just enjoyed this in a non sexual way. Maybe his pillory was made to order, maybe it just happened to fit him perfectly. Maybe he was doing this to get off to later, maybe he wasn't. He wasn't making wam porn of other people without their consent.
It is completely understandable to find his motivations suspect, and to find the photo distasteful. I find it distasteful, and I find many things on this site distasteful.
However, you can't have rules about what photos are allowed on the site based on your suspicions about why the photo was taken. The rules have to be based on the photo itself, because the motivations can't be proven. The rules have to be practical.
Once a photo is on the internet, it's on the internet. Once you publish, you can't take it back - that's just how it works. It's in the public domain. What is the moral difference between hosting the photo on the site, embedding the image on this site while it is hosted elsewhere, hyperlinking to the image, and posting instructions on how to find the image using search engines? You have the personal choice whether to look at it or not, like everybody else does. Who are you to say other people shouldn't? From where are you claiming the authority to stop them? Please, this doesn't need a response, these are just rhetorical questions for you to think about. I don't think this is as black and white as you seem to think it is.
Piemaster1980 said:
Everyone is a dick sometimes it's ok
Your first up is the only point that matters. I am not talking about thoughts or participating in a random event (although motive dependent still a grey area). I am talking about someone like the person in the pic organising an event to get members of the public to get them messy and get messy without knowing it's a kink. It's wrong we agree surely that's it. If it's wrong any pic associated with behaviour the vast majority agree is wrong is wrong surely?
But yes I am also of the view that having your pic on the internet shared on a kink site without your consent is wrong. Thoughts I can do nothing about but so many don't stay as thoughts and become comments on YouTube etc that are just creepy.
Everyone is a dick sometimes it's ok
Your first up is the only point that matters. I am not talking about thoughts or participating in a random event (although motive dependent still a grey area). I am talking about someone like the person in the pic organising an event to get members of the public to get them messy and get messy without knowing it's a kink. It's wrong we agree surely that's it. If it's wrong any pic associated with behaviour the vast majority agree is wrong is wrong surely?
But yes I am also of the view that having your pic on the internet shared on a kink site without your consent is wrong. Thoughts I can do nothing about but so many don't stay as thoughts and become comments on YouTube etc that are just creepy.
Who are you to tell me what matters about my own comment?
It's a valid post and it's on topic, and this isn't a debate, it's a discussion. The motivations and internal thoughts of the person who posted the picture are unknown. Maybe he duped people into getting him messy without telling them it's a turn on. Maybe he did tell them. Maybe he just enjoyed this in a non sexual way. Maybe his pillory was made to order, maybe it just happened to fit him perfectly. Maybe he was doing this to get off to later, maybe he wasn't. He wasn't making wam porn of other people without their consent.
It is completely understandable to find his motivations suspect, and to find the photo distasteful. I find it distasteful, and I find many things on this site distasteful.
However, you can't have rules about what photos are allowed on the site based on your suspicions about why the photo was taken. The rules have to be based on the photo itself, because the motivations can't be proven. The rules have to be practical.
Once a photo is on the internet, it's on the internet. Once you publish, you can't take it back - that's just how it works. It's in the public domain. What is the moral difference between hosting the photo on the site, embedding the image on this site while it is hosted elsewhere, hyperlinking to the image, and posting instructions on how to find the image using search engines? You have the personal choice whether to look at it or not, like everybody else does. Who are you to say other people shouldn't? From where are you claiming the authority to stop them? Please, this doesn't need a response, these are just rhetorical questions for you to think about. I don't think this is as black and white as you seem to think it is.
The right is mine because it's a discussion. You are basically telling me mine don't so all's fair.
The motivations and internal thoughts the person who posted the picture are unknown.
Maybe he duped people into getting him messy without telling them it's a turn on. Maybe he did tell them. This would be an action not an internal thought
Maybe he just enjoyed this in a non sexual way. Maybe but the pic being shared here and the original title would suggest not, but maybe.
Maybe his pillory was made to order, maybe it just happened to fit him perfectly. Maybe they made it who knows but thought did not put him in it in public
Maybe he was doing this to get off to later, maybe he wasn't. Maybe
He wasn't making wam porn of other people without their consent. Well he definitely has at least one pic of WAM with at least one person who didn't consent (this is why the pic had to be edited) I am fairly sure there will be a video or 2 if there is pics. What do you think based on probability?
I am giving my opinion and asking for others. As I have said many times this is about more than the one pic it's about the practice in general the pic is just the example I am using. I am not claiming an authority I am asking the community.
these are just rhetorical questions maybe they are maybe they are not
dalamar666 said:
You know, the more I think about it, I don't think main stream TV should be ok. It is a similar situation as the charity. People on the TV show did not participate knowing that their participation would end up on a fetish site. I have appreciated the content in the past, but as I grow as a person and value consent more, I don't see how people can be so in favor of consenting to the activity when it is unsuspecting people. But then if it is on TV the unsuspecting people part doesn't matter.
Piemaster1980 said: Definitely banned no one should have their pic put on a fetish kink site without their knowledge. Main stream TV maybe ok but you attend a charity event and end up on a kink site wrong.
You know, the more I think about it, I don't think main stream TV should be ok. It is a similar situation as the charity. People on the TV show did not participate knowing that their participation would end up on a fetish site. I have appreciated the content in the past, but as I grow as a person and value consent more, I don't see how people can be so in favor of consenting to the activity when it is unsuspecting people. But then if it is on TV the unsuspecting people part doesn't matter.
Valid point, one I need to think on. Not that I share anything apart from my own pics on here.
Nostalgic Erotica Prod said:
Minus the 40 or so who voted "No" (who are also remarkably silent). Not to sound like a Debbie Downer here but it isn't the flex we hope it would be LOL
I mean, basically 1 in 4 who voted more or less stated that they are quite ok with organizing a messy charity event with no consent from the participants in one fashion or the next.
A large part of me hopes that it's because they didn't understand the question but not gonna lie, I don't get warm and fuzzy with that number floating around
DungeonMasterOne said:
Not trying to be obtuse but I think you're conflating two different things hare. Everyone who replied and the majority who voted (me included) said it's completely wrong to for someone with this fetish to deceptively organise an event with the objective of getting vanilla people to perform wam activities without knowing about the fetish interest. Tricking or decieving innocents in to doing wam for gratification is fundamentally wrong. No argument there.
Piemaster1980 said: The difference for me is on the river bank the person in the mud consents, yes people who may see it haven't but that is very different from having people actively involved ie paying £1 to charity to pour custard over someone because it's funny not because it's their kink.
The original title "charity" showed what the op was doing and what the intent was. The other person cut out because they did not consent was also covered so had been messed no doubt not know it was a kink for the person posting. I think if there is signs that non consenting people have been involved it should not be posted here. Consent can only be given if fully informed. If this pic had been in a kink club or event fine, but the high st really? Also looking at the poll and the comments it would seem a majority of the community feel the same. To be clear I don't mean just this pic I mean any that are blatant deception or kink farmed.
The original title "charity" showed what the op was doing and what the intent was. The other person cut out because they did not consent was also covered so had been messed no doubt not know it was a kink for the person posting. I think if there is signs that non consenting people have been involved it should not be posted here. Consent can only be given if fully informed. If this pic had been in a kink club or event fine, but the high st really? Also looking at the poll and the comments it would seem a majority of the community feel the same. To be clear I don't mean just this pic I mean any that are blatant deception or kink farmed.
Not trying to be obtuse but I think you're conflating two different things hare. Everyone who replied and the majority who voted (me included) said it's completely wrong to for someone with this fetish to deceptively organise an event with the objective of getting vanilla people to perform wam activities without knowing about the fetish interest. Tricking or decieving innocents in to doing wam for gratification is fundamentally wrong. No argument there.
Minus the 40 or so who voted "No" (who are also remarkably silent). Not to sound like a Debbie Downer here but it isn't the flex we hope it would be LOL
I mean, basically 1 in 4 who voted more or less stated that they are quite ok with organizing a messy charity event with no consent from the participants in one fashion or the next.
A large part of me hopes that it's because they didn't understand the question but not gonna lie, I don't get warm and fuzzy with that number floating around
I'm also hoping people who voted no didn't understand the question. If you were to ask me the poll question, without the context of the text above the quote, I would've said no, or other and clarify that it depends on why they're setting up the event. With context of the entire post, the answer to the question is an obvious yes it's wrong, but I've been on the internet long enough to believe that someone could see the poll question, on the poll section of the site, not click on the forum post link, and answer no because they're not getting the surrounding context that the question is specifically about wammers setting up charity events for the express purpose of getting off on it. I know that I saw the poll question on the poll page and didn't understand the context before I clicked on the link to the full post post. So I don't think we can say if the 40 people answering no is indicative of them thinking that wammer's setting up messy charity events for the purpose of getting off in it isn't wrong. That being said it also wouldn't be surprised if people did read the entire post, understand the context and still answer no.
thereald said:
It is completely understandable to find his motivations suspect, and to find the photo distasteful. I find it distasteful, and I find many things on this site distasteful.
However, you can't have rules about what photos are allowed on the site based on your suspicions about why the photo was taken. The rules have to be based on the photo itself, because the motivations can't be proven. The rules have to be practical.
Once a photo is on the internet, it's on the internet. Once you publish, you can't take it back - that's just how it works. It's in the public domain.
It is completely understandable to find his motivations suspect, and to find the photo distasteful. I find it distasteful, and I find many things on this site distasteful.
However, you can't have rules about what photos are allowed on the site based on your suspicions about why the photo was taken. The rules have to be based on the photo itself, because the motivations can't be proven. The rules have to be practical.
Once a photo is on the internet, it's on the internet. Once you publish, you can't take it back - that's just how it works. It's in the public domain.
So this is a valid point made because once anything is posted to the internet, there are no take backs. I go through great lengths to explain to my models that once I post something, that's it. There is no turning back. Even if I take something down per their request, it's already out there and there will always be a chance of it turning back up. That's beyond anyones control.
It's also really hard to police intent. Maybe it was a genuine gesture at fundraising. Maybe they just so happen to be there. Maybe it wasn't even their idea. Nobody knows. There had to be some practicality to how things are weighed.
For instance, if I just so happen to be at a motorcycle club that is hosting a wet t shirt contest at a local bar for a charity run, it is already established
1) The participants are aware
2) They are of age (21 plus for most bars and clubs here)
3) They are aware they are being filmed because you know EVERYONE is gonna have their phones out
If that footage is shared by one of the other patrons that night on a Youtube and finds it's way here or another adult site, how do you police that? Do you police that?
I think a lot of this is picking at straws and the above scenario isn't the same as someone like myself or DM hosting that same event with the intention of sale, distribution or gratification which is a gross violation of trust and non consensual.
Making smut is easy. Making art takes more!
Piemaster1980 said: I am giving my opinion and asking for others. As I have said many times this is about more than the one pic it's about the practice in general the pic is just the example I am using. I am not claiming an authority I am asking the community.
And the community is answering.
As a member of the community, the core thrust of what I'm trying to say is that ethical decisions are not as straightforward as you would seem to have them.
I'm really not interested in having an argument with you. I'm trying to make my points as clearly as I can and stay respectful, but everything I post that you don't 100% agree with is getting an instant negative reaction right now, and it isn't constructive. I feel I understand your viewpoint and I have given mine.
Nostalgic Erotica Prod said:
So this is a valid point made because once anything is posted to the internet, there are no take backs. I go through great lengths to explain to my models that once I post something, that's it. There is no turning back. Even if I take something down per their request, it's already out there and there will always be a chance of it turning back up. That's beyond anyones control.
It's also really hard to police intent. Maybe it was a genuine gesture at fundraising. Maybe they just so happen to be there. Maybe it wasn't even their idea. Nobody knows. There had to be some practicality to how things are weighed.
For instance, if I just so happen to be at a motorcycle club that is hosting a wet t shirt contest at a local bar for a charity run, it is already established
1) The participants are aware
2) They are of age (21 plus for most bars and clubs here)
3) They are aware they are being filmed because you know EVERYONE is gonna have their phones out
If that footage is shared by one of the other patrons that night on a Youtube and finds it's way here or another adult site, how do you police that? Do you police that?
I think a lot of this is picking at straws and the above scenario isn't the same as someone like myself or DM hosting that same event with the intention of sale, distribution or gratification which is a gross violation of trust and non consensual.
thereald said:
It is completely understandable to find his motivations suspect, and to find the photo distasteful. I find it distasteful, and I find many things on this site distasteful.
However, you can't have rules about what photos are allowed on the site based on your suspicions about why the photo was taken. The rules have to be based on the photo itself, because the motivations can't be proven. The rules have to be practical.
Once a photo is on the internet, it's on the internet. Once you publish, you can't take it back - that's just how it works. It's in the public domain.
It is completely understandable to find his motivations suspect, and to find the photo distasteful. I find it distasteful, and I find many things on this site distasteful.
However, you can't have rules about what photos are allowed on the site based on your suspicions about why the photo was taken. The rules have to be based on the photo itself, because the motivations can't be proven. The rules have to be practical.
Once a photo is on the internet, it's on the internet. Once you publish, you can't take it back - that's just how it works. It's in the public domain.
So this is a valid point made because once anything is posted to the internet, there are no take backs. I go through great lengths to explain to my models that once I post something, that's it. There is no turning back. Even if I take something down per their request, it's already out there and there will always be a chance of it turning back up. That's beyond anyones control.
It's also really hard to police intent. Maybe it was a genuine gesture at fundraising. Maybe they just so happen to be there. Maybe it wasn't even their idea. Nobody knows. There had to be some practicality to how things are weighed.
For instance, if I just so happen to be at a motorcycle club that is hosting a wet t shirt contest at a local bar for a charity run, it is already established
1) The participants are aware
2) They are of age (21 plus for most bars and clubs here)
3) They are aware they are being filmed because you know EVERYONE is gonna have their phones out
If that footage is shared by one of the other patrons that night on a Youtube and finds it's way here or another adult site, how do you police that? Do you police that?
I think a lot of this is picking at straws and the above scenario isn't the same as someone like myself or DM hosting that same event with the intention of sale, distribution or gratification which is a gross violation of trust and non consensual.
I agree it is a valid point
Nostalgic Erotica Prod said:
So this is a valid point made because once anything is posted to the internet, there are no take backs. I go through great lengths to explain to my models that once I post something, that's it. There is no turning back. Even if I take something down per their request, it's already out there and there will always be a chance of it turning back up. That's beyond anyones control.
It's also really hard to police intent. Maybe it was a genuine gesture at fundraising. Maybe they just so happen to be there. Maybe it wasn't even their idea. Nobody knows. There had to be some practicality to how things are weighed.
For instance, if I just so happen to be at a motorcycle club that is hosting a wet t shirt contest at a local bar for a charity run, it is already established
1) The participants are aware
2) They are of age (21 plus for most bars and clubs here)
3) They are aware they are being filmed because you know EVERYONE is gonna have their phones out
If that footage is shared by one of the other patrons that night on a Youtube and finds it's way here or another adult site, how do you police that? Do you police that?
You would hope You Tube would take it down and the site would ask as this one does have the people concerned consented to the pic being on the site. If it's found they didn't and the person lied they are removed. Although I appreciate this is blue sky thinking and not realistic. But if we aim for that and end up some where in the middle it's better than where we are now right?
thereald said:
It is completely understandable to find his motivations suspect, and to find the photo distasteful. I find it distasteful, and I find many things on this site distasteful.
However, you can't have rules about what photos are allowed on the site based on your suspicions about why the photo was taken. The rules have to be based on the photo itself, because the motivations can't be proven. The rules have to be practical.
Once a photo is on the internet, it's on the internet. Once you publish, you can't take it back - that's just how it works. It's in the public domain.
It is completely understandable to find his motivations suspect, and to find the photo distasteful. I find it distasteful, and I find many things on this site distasteful.
However, you can't have rules about what photos are allowed on the site based on your suspicions about why the photo was taken. The rules have to be based on the photo itself, because the motivations can't be proven. The rules have to be practical.
Once a photo is on the internet, it's on the internet. Once you publish, you can't take it back - that's just how it works. It's in the public domain.
So this is a valid point made because once anything is posted to the internet, there are no take backs. I go through great lengths to explain to my models that once I post something, that's it. There is no turning back. Even if I take something down per their request, it's already out there and there will always be a chance of it turning back up. That's beyond anyones control.
It's also really hard to police intent. Maybe it was a genuine gesture at fundraising. Maybe they just so happen to be there. Maybe it wasn't even their idea. Nobody knows. There had to be some practicality to how things are weighed.
For instance, if I just so happen to be at a motorcycle club that is hosting a wet t shirt contest at a local bar for a charity run, it is already established
1) The participants are aware
2) They are of age (21 plus for most bars and clubs here)
3) They are aware they are being filmed because you know EVERYONE is gonna have their phones out
If that footage is shared by one of the other patrons that night on a Youtube and finds it's way here or another adult site, how do you police that? Do you police that?
You would hope You Tube would take it down and the site would ask as this one does have the people concerned consented to the pic being on the site. If it's found they didn't and the person lied they are removed. Although I appreciate this is blue sky thinking and not realistic. But if we aim for that and end up some where in the middle it's better than where we are now right?
dbl999 said:
I'm also hoping people who voted no didn't understand the question. If you were to ask me the poll question, without the context of the text above the quote, I would've said no, or other and clarify that it depends on why they're setting up the event. With context of the entire post, the answer to the question is an obvious yes it's wrong, but I've been on the internet long enough to believe that someone could see the poll question, on the poll section of the site, not click on the forum post link, and answer no because they're not getting the surrounding context that the question is specifically about wammers setting up charity events for the express purpose of getting off on it. I know that I saw the poll question on the poll page and didn't understand the context before I clicked on the link to the full post post. So I don't think we can say if the 40 people answering no is indicative of them thinking that wammer's setting up messy charity events for the purpose of getting off in it isn't wrong. That being said it also wouldn't be surprised if people did read the entire post, understand the context and still answer no.
Nostalgic Erotica Prod said:
Minus the 40 or so who voted "No" (who are also remarkably silent). Not to sound like a Debbie Downer here but it isn't the flex we hope it would be LOL
I mean, basically 1 in 4 who voted more or less stated that they are quite ok with organizing a messy charity event with no consent from the participants in one fashion or the next.
A large part of me hopes that it's because they didn't understand the question but not gonna lie, I don't get warm and fuzzy with that number floating around
DungeonMasterOne said:
Not trying to be obtuse but I think you're conflating two different things hare. Everyone who replied and the majority who voted (me included) said it's completely wrong to for someone with this fetish to deceptively organise an event with the objective of getting vanilla people to perform wam activities without knowing about the fetish interest. Tricking or decieving innocents in to doing wam for gratification is fundamentally wrong. No argument there.
Piemaster1980 said: The difference for me is on the river bank the person in the mud consents, yes people who may see it haven't but that is very different from having people actively involved ie paying £1 to charity to pour custard over someone because it's funny not because it's their kink.
The original title "charity" showed what the op was doing and what the intent was. The other person cut out because they did not consent was also covered so had been messed no doubt not know it was a kink for the person posting. I think if there is signs that non consenting people have been involved it should not be posted here. Consent can only be given if fully informed. If this pic had been in a kink club or event fine, but the high st really? Also looking at the poll and the comments it would seem a majority of the community feel the same. To be clear I don't mean just this pic I mean any that are blatant deception or kink farmed.
The original title "charity" showed what the op was doing and what the intent was. The other person cut out because they did not consent was also covered so had been messed no doubt not know it was a kink for the person posting. I think if there is signs that non consenting people have been involved it should not be posted here. Consent can only be given if fully informed. If this pic had been in a kink club or event fine, but the high st really? Also looking at the poll and the comments it would seem a majority of the community feel the same. To be clear I don't mean just this pic I mean any that are blatant deception or kink farmed.
Not trying to be obtuse but I think you're conflating two different things hare. Everyone who replied and the majority who voted (me included) said it's completely wrong to for someone with this fetish to deceptively organise an event with the objective of getting vanilla people to perform wam activities without knowing about the fetish interest. Tricking or decieving innocents in to doing wam for gratification is fundamentally wrong. No argument there.
Minus the 40 or so who voted "No" (who are also remarkably silent). Not to sound like a Debbie Downer here but it isn't the flex we hope it would be LOL
I mean, basically 1 in 4 who voted more or less stated that they are quite ok with organizing a messy charity event with no consent from the participants in one fashion or the next.
A large part of me hopes that it's because they didn't understand the question but not gonna lie, I don't get warm and fuzzy with that number floating around
I'm also hoping people who voted no didn't understand the question. If you were to ask me the poll question, without the context of the text above the quote, I would've said no, or other and clarify that it depends on why they're setting up the event. With context of the entire post, the answer to the question is an obvious yes it's wrong, but I've been on the internet long enough to believe that someone could see the poll question, on the poll section of the site, not click on the forum post link, and answer no because they're not getting the surrounding context that the question is specifically about wammers setting up charity events for the express purpose of getting off on it. I know that I saw the poll question on the poll page and didn't understand the context before I clicked on the link to the full post post. So I don't think we can say if the 40 people answering no is indicative of them thinking that wammer's setting up messy charity events for the purpose of getting off in it isn't wrong. That being said it also wouldn't be surprised if people did read the entire post, understand the context and still answer no.
Truth be told, I had to reread the question and look over the forum remarks before voting to make sure I understood the context it was asked. The OP did an ok job writing it out but my ADHD driven ass needed to make double sure LMAO!
Making smut is easy. Making art takes more!
thereald said:
And the community is answering.
As a member of the community, the core thrust of what I'm trying to say is that ethical decisions are not as straightforward as you would seem to have them.
I'm really not interested in having an argument with you. I'm trying to make my points as clearly as I can and stay respectful, but everything I post that you don't 100% agree with is getting an instant negative reaction right now, and it isn't constructive. I feel I understand your viewpoint and I have given mine.
Piemaster1980 said: I am giving my opinion and asking for others. As I have said many times this is about more than the one pic it's about the practice in general the pic is just the example I am using. I am not claiming an authority I am asking the community.
And the community is answering.
As a member of the community, the core thrust of what I'm trying to say is that ethical decisions are not as straightforward as you would seem to have them.
I'm really not interested in having an argument with you. I'm trying to make my points as clearly as I can and stay respectful, but everything I post that you don't 100% agree with is getting an instant negative reaction right now, and it isn't constructive. I feel I understand your viewpoint and I have given mine.
We agree on more than you think. I just think we should aim higher. Realistically I don't think we will get there but if we end up slightly better, it's still better right?
Nostalgic Erotica Prod said:
Truth be told, I had to reread the question and look over the forum remarks before voting to make sure I understood the context it was asked. The OP did an ok job writing it out but my ADHD driven ass needed to make double sure LMAO!
dbl999 said:
I'm also hoping people who voted no didn't understand the question. If you were to ask me the poll question, without the context of the text above the quote, I would've said no, or other and clarify that it depends on why they're setting up the event. With context of the entire post, the answer to the question is an obvious yes it's wrong, but I've been on the internet long enough to believe that someone could see the poll question, on the poll section of the site, not click on the forum post link, and answer no because they're not getting the surrounding context that the question is specifically about wammers setting up charity events for the express purpose of getting off on it. I know that I saw the poll question on the poll page and didn't understand the context before I clicked on the link to the full post post. So I don't think we can say if the 40 people answering no is indicative of them thinking that wammer's setting up messy charity events for the purpose of getting off in it isn't wrong. That being said it also wouldn't be surprised if people did read the entire post, understand the context and still answer no.
Nostalgic Erotica Prod said:
Minus the 40 or so who voted "No" (who are also remarkably silent). Not to sound like a Debbie Downer here but it isn't the flex we hope it would be LOL
I mean, basically 1 in 4 who voted more or less stated that they are quite ok with organizing a messy charity event with no consent from the participants in one fashion or the next.
A large part of me hopes that it's because they didn't understand the question but not gonna lie, I don't get warm and fuzzy with that number floating around
DungeonMasterOne said:
Not trying to be obtuse but I think you're conflating two different things hare. Everyone who replied and the majority who voted (me included) said it's completely wrong to for someone with this fetish to deceptively organise an event with the objective of getting vanilla people to perform wam activities without knowing about the fetish interest. Tricking or decieving innocents in to doing wam for gratification is fundamentally wrong. No argument there.
Piemaster1980 said: The difference for me is on the river bank the person in the mud consents, yes people who may see it haven't but that is very different from having people actively involved ie paying £1 to charity to pour custard over someone because it's funny not because it's their kink.
The original title "charity" showed what the op was doing and what the intent was. The other person cut out because they did not consent was also covered so had been messed no doubt not know it was a kink for the person posting. I think if there is signs that non consenting people have been involved it should not be posted here. Consent can only be given if fully informed. If this pic had been in a kink club or event fine, but the high st really? Also looking at the poll and the comments it would seem a majority of the community feel the same. To be clear I don't mean just this pic I mean any that are blatant deception or kink farmed.
The original title "charity" showed what the op was doing and what the intent was. The other person cut out because they did not consent was also covered so had been messed no doubt not know it was a kink for the person posting. I think if there is signs that non consenting people have been involved it should not be posted here. Consent can only be given if fully informed. If this pic had been in a kink club or event fine, but the high st really? Also looking at the poll and the comments it would seem a majority of the community feel the same. To be clear I don't mean just this pic I mean any that are blatant deception or kink farmed.
Not trying to be obtuse but I think you're conflating two different things hare. Everyone who replied and the majority who voted (me included) said it's completely wrong to for someone with this fetish to deceptively organise an event with the objective of getting vanilla people to perform wam activities without knowing about the fetish interest. Tricking or decieving innocents in to doing wam for gratification is fundamentally wrong. No argument there.
Minus the 40 or so who voted "No" (who are also remarkably silent). Not to sound like a Debbie Downer here but it isn't the flex we hope it would be LOL
I mean, basically 1 in 4 who voted more or less stated that they are quite ok with organizing a messy charity event with no consent from the participants in one fashion or the next.
A large part of me hopes that it's because they didn't understand the question but not gonna lie, I don't get warm and fuzzy with that number floating around
I'm also hoping people who voted no didn't understand the question. If you were to ask me the poll question, without the context of the text above the quote, I would've said no, or other and clarify that it depends on why they're setting up the event. With context of the entire post, the answer to the question is an obvious yes it's wrong, but I've been on the internet long enough to believe that someone could see the poll question, on the poll section of the site, not click on the forum post link, and answer no because they're not getting the surrounding context that the question is specifically about wammers setting up charity events for the express purpose of getting off on it. I know that I saw the poll question on the poll page and didn't understand the context before I clicked on the link to the full post post. So I don't think we can say if the 40 people answering no is indicative of them thinking that wammer's setting up messy charity events for the purpose of getting off in it isn't wrong. That being said it also wouldn't be surprised if people did read the entire post, understand the context and still answer no.
Truth be told, I had to reread the question and look over the forum remarks before voting to make sure I understood the context it was asked. The OP did an ok job writing it out but my ADHD driven ass needed to make double sure LMAO!
Yeah
, I didn't vote. The question was: "Is it wrong for a wammer to set up WAM charity events especially in public unless everyone is aware it's a fetish"
There are two parts:
A) "Is it wrong for a wammer to set up WAM charity events especially in public"
B) "unless everyone is aware it's a fetish"
My reaction to the question was: "No, it is wrong for wammer to organize a wam charity event regardless if participants are aware that it is a fetish.".
Using the word "unless" in a Yes or No question can negate or inverse the meaning. Such as: "Do you like apples unless they are green?". I think most people would answer based on the 2nd part. Such as: "No I like all apples including green apples.", or "Yes I only like red apples.".
Trying to separate the issues here:
Conspiring to get your rocks off by getting others messy without their informed consent, and trying to pass it off/get others involved by masking it as charity? Not ok.
Specifically, it's the "conspiring to get your rocks off without informed consent" part that's not ok. NOT the being involved in charity part. Having a fetish is not a crime, and we're not weirdos. Tricking others for sexual gratification is the weirdo part.
Sex, sexual attraction, etc, that's nothing to be ashamed of. A producer donating money from their proceeds isn't bad, if everyone involved consents, things are clearly communicated, etc. It's not incumbent upon a producer here to leave a note on their donation to [Charity of Your Choice Here] that they produce fetish content and so their dollars are soiled.
The problem of the charity wam example is the deception for sexual gain, not the wam part. It's exploitative. That's what setting off the alarm bells for me, not the fact that we have a fetish that might also occur innocently in day to day life.
There has been mention throughout this thread of what it means to participate in, but not organize, charity WAM as a wammer. That's a grayer area for me, and I'm open to correction on my opinion on this, but my feeling is that this is more case by case and it depends on what is happening, how you're reacting to it, and what other participants are doing. My fetish is not a metal detector for pies in the face, you know? It doesn't go off every time I see a woman near a pie. So there are times when something might have the trappings of my fetish but doesn't set me off, if that makes sense.
I used the earlier metaphor of the dunk tank. I like women in dunk tanks well enough...it's not my main thing, but it's close enough to my thing that sometimes, *sometimes,* it checks my boxes. But out in public, generally, it's not going to be the same as a fetish for me. Context is everything, and it just doesn't have the same effect, so I'm comfortable donating a dollar if I happen to stumble across something because, even though I like dunk tanks, it's not a sexual moment for me at that time. I'm also just as comfortable NOT donating or participating. Just feels neutral, you know.
I think it's a bit like an actor having a romantic scene for a person they'd normally be attracted to. The context is everything, and even though the exterior appearances suggest one thing, that actor still has enough distance from the moment to not actually have a romantic connection with their dramatic partner. But you have to know yourself and your limits.
By contrast, I once talked to a girl I was good friends with about the potential of her getting pied, and she was immediately so onboard but so neutral that I bailed because I realized there was no way to have an honest conversation about what I was looking for that wouldn't go completely south. There was no natural way to come around to, "Wait, you don't understand, what I'm talking about is THIS" without taking a box of rocks to the glass castle, so to speak, so it all fell by the wayside very quickly, because I knew it wouldn't be ok to take that any further without being exploitative of the fact that she wasn't actually onboard for what I'd tried (and probably failed) to express.
Conspiring to get your rocks off by getting others messy without their informed consent, and trying to pass it off/get others involved by masking it as charity? Not ok.
Specifically, it's the "conspiring to get your rocks off without informed consent" part that's not ok. NOT the being involved in charity part. Having a fetish is not a crime, and we're not weirdos. Tricking others for sexual gratification is the weirdo part.
Sex, sexual attraction, etc, that's nothing to be ashamed of. A producer donating money from their proceeds isn't bad, if everyone involved consents, things are clearly communicated, etc. It's not incumbent upon a producer here to leave a note on their donation to [Charity of Your Choice Here] that they produce fetish content and so their dollars are soiled.
The problem of the charity wam example is the deception for sexual gain, not the wam part. It's exploitative. That's what setting off the alarm bells for me, not the fact that we have a fetish that might also occur innocently in day to day life.
There has been mention throughout this thread of what it means to participate in, but not organize, charity WAM as a wammer. That's a grayer area for me, and I'm open to correction on my opinion on this, but my feeling is that this is more case by case and it depends on what is happening, how you're reacting to it, and what other participants are doing. My fetish is not a metal detector for pies in the face, you know? It doesn't go off every time I see a woman near a pie. So there are times when something might have the trappings of my fetish but doesn't set me off, if that makes sense.
I used the earlier metaphor of the dunk tank. I like women in dunk tanks well enough...it's not my main thing, but it's close enough to my thing that sometimes, *sometimes,* it checks my boxes. But out in public, generally, it's not going to be the same as a fetish for me. Context is everything, and it just doesn't have the same effect, so I'm comfortable donating a dollar if I happen to stumble across something because, even though I like dunk tanks, it's not a sexual moment for me at that time. I'm also just as comfortable NOT donating or participating. Just feels neutral, you know.
I think it's a bit like an actor having a romantic scene for a person they'd normally be attracted to. The context is everything, and even though the exterior appearances suggest one thing, that actor still has enough distance from the moment to not actually have a romantic connection with their dramatic partner. But you have to know yourself and your limits.
By contrast, I once talked to a girl I was good friends with about the potential of her getting pied, and she was immediately so onboard but so neutral that I bailed because I realized there was no way to have an honest conversation about what I was looking for that wouldn't go completely south. There was no natural way to come around to, "Wait, you don't understand, what I'm talking about is THIS" without taking a box of rocks to the glass castle, so to speak, so it all fell by the wayside very quickly, because I knew it wouldn't be ok to take that any further without being exploitative of the fact that she wasn't actually onboard for what I'd tried (and probably failed) to express.
dalamar666 said:
Quit trying to loophole shit and get away from the main topic of the post. Which is wammers organizing events deceiving people into participating in something for charity when there is also an ulterior motive behind it. Unless you are trying to say that creating fetish content of people without their consent is ok.
matty87 said: Does that mean no wammer can participate in a mud/foam/colour run?
Quit trying to loophole shit and get away from the main topic of the post. Which is wammers organizing events deceiving people into participating in something for charity when there is also an ulterior motive behind it. Unless you are trying to say that creating fetish content of people without their consent is ok.
I wasn't trying to loophole anything my friend and creating fetish content without anyone consent is immoral and might be against the law. I'm sorry if It came accross as me trying to derail the conversation, but as some one who does a foam run every year, it is an interesting (to me) point. Am I doing some thing immoral to some, even if I separate my kink side while doing it.
Sponsors
Design & Code ©1998-2025 Loverbuns, LLC 18 U.S.C. 2257 Record-Keeping Requirements Compliance Statement
Epoch Billing Support Log In