Director Sam Raimi once described The Evil Dead as "a Three Stooges movie, with blood and guts standing in for custard pies" - having been reminded of this quote recently, I found myself pondering why when I see a woman drenched in blood in a film (Carrie, for instance), why don't find that the same as a woman being drenched with red slime, even though the substances may be the same colour and consistency. Is it because of the context? For me, the sight of a woman covered in blood on screen, wouldn't even register to me as wam, even though, behind the scenes, they're probably using the very same substances we would use in messy fun.

Are there any members here who actually find horror movie gore exciting? what if the film is comedic, like Evil Dead 2 or Peter Jackson's Brain Dead - or more recently, the substance, which ends with a outrageous bloodbath involving a tv studio audience?

Let's discuss it! I'm absolutely fascinated by the strange psychology that governs how we recognise WAM.

I feel like the answer is yes when you can look at it not in the context of the movie. The Wife and myself firmly believe that horror and WAM go hand in hand. Especially B movie horror comedies such as the likes of Troma movies. Which we recently posted a thread about in the Non-Wam forum.

Well - no, not by me - it doesn't turn me on and knowing it's fake doesn't make a difference. A boundary was set in the 90s of what is and isn't "considered WAM" by people wanting to safeguard their website or usenet group from the wrong audience - in recent years that boundary has become a bit more open, a bit more fluid. Real gore is a definite no, but people have always regularly talked about the pig's blood shot in Carrie, because it is basically a gunging with fake blood. Still, it's never turned me on.

I've seen a few things on YouTube labelled "[actress name] gunged in movie" and it's a gore scene and it's gross, and to me it doesn't represent what gunge is about at all.

This site allows fake shit so it will probably allow fake blood but I'll let someone with more authority answer that. It won't allow the real thing but it will allow things like dog food, thankfully the line hasn't been pushed further by people making scenes with uncooked offal for example.

I'm sure that there are people lurking here who are really into it, and they'll jump on this thread arguing to see more of it on UMD.

Since WAM stand for "wet and messy" in the sense of being soaked or covered in a messy substance, and blood is a messy liquid, gore should qualify. It doesn't matter which specific forms of it a person finds exciting and which not. The fact that something satisfies the technical description of WAM doesn't mean it's a good or fetish-grade.

The edge case with gore and alike might be a situation where someone gets covered in their own blood, or whether the wamed person has to be alive at the time of them getting messy. There are movies where people get covered in their own poop/puke, or where they get pied while sleeping. Despite, these probably won't be considered exciting, or even remotely good by most wamers.

I would say no because theres no full nudity as well.

I'm not a big fan myself. I'm generally not even keen on red gunge for that reason.

Might depend a bit on context though. I never find it sexy when they're in character and acting like it's real blood, but I've seen a couple of behind the scenes clips where they're larking about in it which I'm still not keen on, but not so turned off by either.

When was the last time you watched a movie? (Non-porno division)

[Mild spoiler: Quite a few topless women get sprayed in the face with "blood" in The Substance, which actually worked as WAM for me... except the editing was very fast and lighting was tricky so hard to see much...]

The Man and I have talked about this very subject, especially since we both enjoy horror movies. (Although The Wife and The Man definitely love over-the-top gore while I... do not.) Slapstick/physical comedy and horror are actually very close... In fact, both genres use the word "gag" to refer to a particular physical set-up... Be it a pie in the face, or a head exploding.

Personally, I don't think of gore as WAM due to context. BUT if you remove that context and make it non-horrific? Then it kinda works. A good example are the various "blood facefuls" in Ash Vs. The Evil Dead, the TV series that leaned fully into the comedic side and seemed to delight in hitting all the major cast members (including one attractive female) in the face with fake blood whenever possible.

Also weirdly specific, but the BTS footage from the French movie Inside (l'intérieur) shows the full setup of the attractive main actress being "prepped" with fake blood. The movie itself is quite upsetting... Shorn of all that context, you can actually enjoy it as WAM when a random crew member is just throwing cupfuls of red gunge in her face.

And just to bring it all the way around, Mel Brooks effectively closed the circle in Dracula: Dead & Loving It when he had his main actor (the guy from Wings) "stab" an unseen vampire... and get hit in the face with a full blood spray in slapsticky fashion. (Twice!) It's probably one of the better male WAM clips of the 90s, and bummed me out in the theater that it wasn't a female on the receiving end!

And because this post isn't long enough... Sam Raimi actually honed his directing chops as a teenager by staging and filming full-blown Three Stooges pie fights using expired pies he got for free from a local bakery. One of them was even on YT for a spell! (All dudes, of course, including super young Bruce Campbell.) There's probably an alternate timeline where Raimi finds success as a director of comedy, not horror, and we get a few epic mainstream pie scenes as a result.
(The closest we got was the insanely long, mostly male-centric pie fight in The Nutty Nut... from a script written by Sam and Bruce, among others... But the movie was so bad they used pseudonyms in the final credits...)

I generally can't divorce the context from the scene when watching a movie, so if the characters are suffering / fearful / running for their lives, I'd not really see it from a WAM POV regardless of how good the actual WAM elements were. Different with a "making of" or BTS clip showing you how it was done, as that effectively divorces the visuals from the story, esp when filmed with entirely different cameras.

A more comedic film or scene, or a scene where it's clear the character getting WAMmed is actually enjoying the experience, is different, and those I can enjoy as WAM, but they would tend to be non-gory scenes, more likely to feature mud, water, or food fights.

Absolutely 100% NOT.

The Sploshing and WAM are both defined by that is NOT BODILY FLUIDS.

Every time I type the words "taking the piss," or "pissed off" the forum here has an automated message to check that I'm not in anyway even remotely referring to such content.

Now other people may also have other kinks involving bodily fluid, for instance I am partial to cum play - and though I'm not into the yellow stuff myself I've done it for a partner that wanted it in the wider BDSM community.

BUT in no way would I be happy with the definition of WAM being expanded to include bodily fluids as I would not have to explain to all future partners that I don't mean blood, guts and gore in my definition. Honestly I get fed up enough having to explain whilst I might have a sadistic side (in that I like inflicting orgasm denial/torture, tickle torture, mindfuckery, humiliation and just general torment https://www.reddit.com/r/BratLife/comments/1hbdh09/top_10_ice_cream_serving_suggestions_for_brats/ ) I have no desire to choke the life out of them because for some reason tonnes of young men now to think it is standard sexual practice.

Now I should also clarify that whilst I do have that sadistic side, it is playful - I wouldn't want to do it on someone that doesn't enjoy being on the receiving end of it. Even if in the most humiliating WAM scene I like to see some sign the recipient is enjoying it. I'll be honest I get uncomfortable with an emerging trend in the quicksand sphere of people actually pretending to die drowning in it but hey I don't have to watch it if it is someone else's kink.

None of the characters on the receiving end of things are consenting or enjoying what is happening to them. (And I say characters because we're talking about the fictional context). And I would seriously worry about the mental health of someone that was. For contrast, whilst I have enjoyed participating in CNC scenes with partners - both giving and receiving with strap-on, I continue to be disgusted or reviled if I see a (to use YouTube safe language) grape depicted on TV or film despite it being fictionalised with actors.

But if you want to know if there is any connection for me to horror movies. Absolutely none. Growing up I had a few experiences when someone came at me with homicidal intent (they had serious mental health issues) holding a knife on two occasions (throwing them on the third) but when they did they triggered something in me that the only descriptions I can relate to is either Berserkers in Vikings or the 'protector' alter within someone with dissociative identity disorder and just went full 'Hulk smash' attack on them with the only thing going through my mind being "if you're going to kill me, I'll take you with me."

Now I should be clear I have never started a fight in my life and try to avoid them but when I've been in them, either to defend myself or on the couple times I've had to stop someone beating up someone else that berserker side has bubbled up.

I don't watch horror because instead of scaring me, they trigger my berserker side. So if you want to know how I feel seeing a woman covered in blood in a horror film or TV show? I want to either rip the head of the person doing it or somehow destroy the supernatural entity doing it.

I am OK with sci-fi and fantasy that does enough to be able to suspend disbelief but the more realism and the more likely that berserker part is triggered in me.

But anyway, if that is someone else's kink, good for them enjoy it on their own terms under the specific communities for those kinks (and if they don't exist then you can create them - there are new kinks emerging all the time - for instance just 2 months ago a new subreddit for lesbians with a kink for being 'forced bi' by men just popped up, and yes it is one created by lesbians rather than men that think they can 'convert' I'm not posting the name as lesbians will probably know the right lingo to find it without having to post a signpost to the sort of guys that'll ruin their community).

If people want to expand the definition of WAM to include it then I'm voting HELL NO, and leaving a community for good that did include blood and guts in its definition. Definitions matter - without them people with similar interests wouldn't be able to find others like them. If WAM was extended to bodily fluids them this website would be inundated with cum play content as there is a bigger audience for it than sploshing. That would start to erase those for whom the definition of sploshing meant something to them because everyone outside the community would make automatic assumptions about it from its most prevalent content.

Inclusivity means that every group has the right to exist, it doesn't mean that every group must alter its definition to suit everyone (because when you try to please everyone, you please no-one) that just leads to the erasure of those that found a home in that group. (And before anyone jumps down my throat assuming I'm making some allegory to the trans debate I've been doing messy scenes as a crossdresser for nearly 2 decades).

I think it absolutely depends. On the whole, no, but there are times when thr fake gore hits just right.. like Melissa Barrera in Abigail, though it helps that she also interviewed about feeling sexy on that set and I think it sort of shows in her performance.

Dear God no! We have a yearly TV program here in the UK where a number of Z list celebs are stranded in the Australian jungle and have to take part in various escapades to prevent the public from voting them off the program. A lots of the games involve gunge for both male and female contestant. However, most of the gunge is made from rotting offal, worms and other creepy crawlies, fish guts and the like. These gungings to me are about as sexy as a motorcycle service manual even if the participants are some rather lovely young ladies from time to time.

Extrapolate this to human blood, guts and gore and the like (even if it is stage props) and that is a clear NO from the panel here in the UK.

T x

Co-sign

I'm pretty sure none of the movie/TV scenes used real human blood or other real human body fluid. All those horror media use some syrup-based liquid for blood, and blended food for poop/vomit, which puts them on the same technical level as the scenes sold here. (Even those liters of "semen" that appear in some porn videos are typically fake.) Really, the worst case realistic scenario is the use of animal blood or manure. (Btw. there was a scene made by Bill Shipton that used horse manure. And Bill Shipton was one of the early pioneers of WAM fetishism and the one behind the term "sploshing".) Another animal fluid, milk, is used to make big portion of all the firmly established messy substances. Disregarding bodily fluids in general is thus tricky and inconsistent.

The sole role of definitions is to unify and clarify meaning of words and terms. Not to make people comfortable, turn them on, or help them find friends. If you see someone head to toe covered in blood or other similar fluid, that person is definitely messy, regardless of whether it turns you on or not. This is not something that fetish communities, like this site or any other, can change. The "only" thing they can do is allow or ban certain types of content, narrowing down the scope to whatever direction they choose. Just because, one day, some community somewhere decides they no longer want to see certain substance being used doesn't mean that that substance is from then on not part of WAM.

There already exist a number of sites under the genre of horror porn according to here and it most certainly isn't a complete list as the same site only lists 11 WAM sites: https://thebestfetishsites.com/


It is possible for people to have more than one kink - they don't need to make everyone else change the definition of one kink because they are too lazy to list other ones. Blood play and scat are amongst the most frequently listed Hard Limits such that expanding the definition of WAM to include them wouldn't just mean having to explain you weren't into them but that there wouldn't even be a conversation as people tend to jump to the worst assumptions and would immediately jump to conclusions such that WAM would then also be listed in everyone's hard limits.

And as I say I have been part of kink communities that have effectively been erased by people expanding the definition of it to include stuff that then overran those communities such that now you could hardly find anything remotely related to to what it originally meant when you search for it with that term.

So as not to drag particular kink communities into it that people are probably unfamiliar with I'll use examples from popular culture fandom communities:

Star Trek has always been one of, if not the most "progressive" TV series. It featured the first on-screen interracial kiss on TOS, TNG's post money economy could arguably be considered as advocating space communism (despite how it always fails in practice) and Gene Roddenberry's philosophy of technological advancement led to human progress ran throughout the whole series. Then a whole bunch of arseholes came along with first genre breaking ideas a interplanetary teleportation (Into Darkness - rendering space travel on board a spaceship as obsolete as using a horse and cart on a freeway/motorway), total stupidity of a spaceship travelling essentially on a network of intergalactic magic mushrooms (Discovery), all the while pissing all over the canon of every Star Trek show that came before it. All in the name of "fixing" a franchise that they all but revealed to have never actually watched when the Discovery producers proudly proclaimed to be introducing the first non-binary character to the Star Trek universe (despite TNG having Soren in a one off episode from a completely non-binary planet and DS9's regular character (Jadzia/Ezri/Curzon and the rest) Dax regularly making clear they had had previous male and female "host bodies." Fans loved Sisko and DS9 (personally I think the debate for best is Sisko v TNG Picard rather than TOS Kirk v TNG Picard), whilst not as beloved as other series generally positive on Voyager and Janeway (and showed they didn't mind smart emotionless female characters in Seven of Nine though granted other "assets" appealed to certain fans) but they also completely hated Wesley Crusher that regularly made the crew of supposedly Star Fleet's best on it's flagship (including a super advanced android) look like gibbering idiots. But then turned round to claim anyone that didn't like Discovery was because they were bigoted rather than they tried shoving another Wesley Crusher down our throat now as the Main Character and willfully ignored all canon that was the whole reason message boards and conventions existed for fans to get together to debate canon.

By being "inclusive" of those that revealed they hated the franchise with comments that it needed "fixing" and showed no knowledge of previous show canon the fandom has now been left as a complete smoking wreckage that most people have checked out of. Now when people debate Star Wars V Star Trek it is which one has been destroyed the most with Doctor Who hot on the heels of that debate.

(For the record I noped the fuck out of the later not because of Jodie or Ncuti but because of the line in Tenant's return: "It's a shame you aren't a woman anymore as she would have understood. No one male-presenting could understand," when it came to the idea of "letting go of power" despite the character having done it hundreds of times in the past, hundreds of democratically elected men have overseen the peaceful transition of power at the end of their terms AND the episode itself going into production mere months after Liz Truss made such an undignified display of holding on to power after crashing that country's economy that a cabbage had to be got involved. As a crossdresser I don't politically swing from liberal when I put my heels on to "present" as female to power hungry fascist when I wash the makeup off to present as male. Hell when I spoke at the Lib Dem conference nearly a decade ago I did so as a male. All that particular line did in the show was to show was a writer revealing they are a "bigot in liberal clothing" in the same way Neil Gaiman professed to be a feminist.

But putting aside non-kink analogies and return to the point.

Tolerance is about letting any and all groups exist regardless of whether you like them or not - WAM and the various bodily fluid kink communities all have a right to exist.

Tolerance is also about letting people be a member of any and all groups and communities that they are happy to subscribe to the definitions and rules of those groups. (People can be part of both WAM and other kink communities involving bodily fluids free from any judgement - just as one could have been fans of both Trek and Wars).

Tolerance also means that people can, if they wish to subscribe to their own definitions or rules that they are welcome to create them (I call my style of dynamic in BDSM as Games Master/Contestant as there was no pre-existing labels or groups for such things).

But what tolerance isn't is rolling out the red carpet and permitting those that have no respect for such groups from morphing them into something completely unrecognisable and erasing what it originally stood for. (Now I am not saying that this is the intention of the OP of this thread, I am simply pointing out what the end consequences are of adopting a laissez faire approach to group definitions.

Whilst I didn't use to be a fan of "gate keeping" it is absolutely necessary. If liberals had gate-kept the meaning of liberalism such that those that did not believe in free speech despite it being the defining principle of liberalism then we might not have had as much polarisation in politics with people feeling the need to flee to the extremes of politics to be able to have a voice.

By all means enjoy your horror porn or your bodily fluid kinks but keep it in their relevant communities of people that consent to such things rather than subject the rest of us to a future in which we would have to explain to other kinksters or prospective partners that when we say WAM we don't mean covering them in blood and guts.

Right I'll shut up and leave this thread as I think I've made my point enough at length.

We should remove body painting from this site! Even though it's by definition WAM.. it personally makes me very uncomfortable!

You seem to have completely misunderstood my point.

I repeat, WAM is an abbreviation for being "wet and messy" in the sense being soaked with water or covered in some messy substance. In a horror movie, when someone gets covered in blood, then:
1) They are being covered in a messy liquid, so they are very literally "wet and messy".
2) That blood is going to be fake, and can very well be the exact same substance (composition-wise) as some of the gunge/slime used here. Low budget horror shorts often use whatever imitation of blood they can get.
3) As a substance, blood is a messy liquid like any other. If someone gets splashed by it, they might as well got splashed by red paint (and in movies they probably were). The distinction is only in what story revolves around, not in the act of getting covered.

The definition is not based of some subjective likings of various people, but on core, naturalistic concepts that exist across languages. Any community can freely decide what part of that they allow in their space. They, however, can't change the fact that liquids like blood are messy and stick to surfaces.

These observations do not depend of whether you like a gore scene, or whether it turns you on. This has nothing to do with tolerance, inclusivity, liberalism, feminism, or politics of any kind.



I don't like gore as a fetish, nor do I need to like it to make the arguments above. I'm also not proposing to change the local rules to include gore.

No disrespect, but are you saying you need to change the meaning of "messy" to exclude substances you dislike so that people unfamiliar with WAM won't think you are into those? They would then find a description of WAM which states "wet and messy" doesn't actually mean what it says, but excludes certain nasty substances, fake or real, depending on context?
You know you can instead just say you like pie/cake, gunge/slime, and mud mess, right?

I'm kind of looking forward to TheStickyTricker's thousand-word reply to this

The point is that there is a community defined idea of what "wet and messy fetish" means. This happened about 30 years ago, and that meaning is separate to the meanings of the words "wet" and "messy".

Gore, blood, excreta, fecal matter, semen, urine were excluded from that definition, mainly to avoid confusion with what were at the time considered more common kinks. To stop people posting unwanted pictures in a wet and messy forum, and so on.

I get your point
That's, however, just a classic content moderation. And the community looks to be split on this topic. The issue I'm trying to point out is that we cannot make a clear distinction which would be consistent and universal. Everyone understands what being wet or being messy means, so any substance that has these effects can always be seen as legit by default. It doesn't make sense to artificially exclude things like the Carrie scene, even though no actual blood was used, or mud made to look like dung.

The different kinks, like scat etc. that focus on blood, feces, semen, urine are driven by the notion that the real stuff was used. For instance, mud wouldn't pass since it's not fecal matter. The origin and authenticity play essential role in these kinks. In contrast, WAM (as I understand it) isn't about what actual wet/messy substance was used (real, fake, mix, whatever), but about the fact that someone was covered by it - the idea of being wet or messy.

Yes, that's exactly what's under discussion here, what to include and what to exclude. And it's a discussion that has mostly already taken place.


Is it though? The scene in Toxic Avenger that was being discussed essentially features green slime. A lot of the 'gore' in Evil Dead 2 is just coloured paint. The Carrie scene has the structure and power dynamics of a non-consensual gunging, and the blood looking like blood has never been the point -the fact that it's a gunging is why it gets brought up.

People being turned on by 'movie gore' is a gore fetish, and not the wet and messy fetish as the community has defined it.

Well, the original question was how is it that essentially the same messy outcome can have different impact depending on whether it comes from a gore movie vs no gore. For me, it could work fine if the scene is shown in such a way that one can mentally extract the messy part from its context. (An example of this might be the Jamie Elle Mann's scene from Death Row.)


For gore fetish, gore would be the essential part, so the context matters a lot. For WAM in general, getting wet or messy is the essential part, not whether it comes from a gore movie. Thus, if there's a bloodbath scene in a movie, both gore and WAM overlap in that instance. This doesn't make gore fetish part of WAM. If some people get turned on by a gory scene because the characters get splashed with mess, that to me sound more like WAM that happened to come out of a horror movie. For gore fetish, I would expect the mess would have to be blood and guts (or the idea of blood and guts) specifically to make the scene exciting.

I understand your point: based on a literal interpretation of "wet and messy", blood would qualify.

However, suppose that someone is covered in shaving foam. I'd describe them as messy, but I wouldn't describe them as wet. So, logically it follows that this isn't WAM, i.e. the person isn't "wet AND messy". Likewise, wetlook wouldn't qualify as WAM, because the person is wet but not messy.

In your definition above, you replaced "and" with "or", and I agree with that. We don't need to rename "WAM" to "WOM", because everyone understands that.

Similarly, you can say that WAM does/doesn't include substance X, regardless of whether this matches the dictionary definition.

That's just how logical conjunction operator is referred to in common language. It's scope is in propositional logic, where it combines statements that have a truth value, like "is wet" & "is messy". This doesn't apply to sets. In English, "and" is commonly (and confusingly) used to describe both union and intersection, and "or" is used to describe both union and disjunctive union. The vagueness of the language allows for both "WAM" and "WOM" to mean both or either of the 2 concepts. Unlike mathematical logic and set theory, natural languages weren't designed by mathematicians.

Anyway, I'm not arguing here out of some love for preciseness and exact, dictionary meanings. To me at least, WAM and the associated fetish is about people being wet or covered with something messy. I certainly don't like many substances, like blood, gore, fermented food, body paint, mud of certain consistency, semen-looking slime, watery gunge, water, and so on, but I wouldn't claim these don't belong to WAM just because I find some of them gross.

I fully understand that fetish communities want to moderate what content is published and they have the right to do so in the space they control, but I don't like the idea of restricting the general concept of WAM only to substances that some people at any point in time find acceptable. Also, how can a community "define" something that already has its own, well understood, meaning?

Sorry if I'm misinterpreting you, but your argument seems to be - just because WAM is "wet" and "messy" doesn't mean that all messy substances should be part of it - and my argument is - because it is supposed to be "wet" and "messy", all messy substances should generally qualify.

If we started banning things on here based on if it turns you on personally or not, we wouldn't be left with much variety. Guess it's a good thing we can search keywords for things we like.

If UMD wants to keep the major human body fluids -real piss, real shit, real vomit, and real blood, (semen is allowed if it happens in conjuction with on-topic content)-then I think fake gore or animal products like aforementioned fermented fish, cold cuts, and I'd argue offal too should be allowed in the same vein.

One person's yuck is another person's yum after all.

If all banned content was decided on what turned off one person specifically, it might as well be a subscription site with repeats of all the same video rather than a fetish community site where you also happen to be able to sell your own content if you want to.

If it doesn't piss off the credit card overlords, I'm for variety and different expressions of the very broad wet and messy fetish.

Especially in the current climate where it feels like more and more forms of self-expression are being censored online.

To be honest, I wouldn't even be mad if UMD expanded to allow cross-fetish stuff that's currently not allowed as long as a main part of the content also includes something wet (water) or messy. IMO, that would still be on topic.

I imagine it wouldn't be hard to allow users to opt in or out of seeing it too just like you can already opt in or out of explicit content and AI content.

I think there's definitely a link in WAM and Horror practical effects! Personally I would love to book horror gigs with gore (because that's when I'll get to experience WAM levels of effects) big correlation for me personally.

Its technically a yes, in the same way Bukakke is a yes. Its "wet" and "messy" by definition.
A part of our kink? Not really, when considering what the red gunge represents its quite a firm no from myself and a fair few others.

Is it someone's thing? Absolutly- I can remember a distinct Gothic/dark erotic performance where a lady had an artificial torso full of viscera over a steel plate layer (for protection).
The full effect looked like a normal body (with very nice "boobs" too) and blended seamlessly with her actual body.
In her erotic performance she evercerated herself with an angle grinder; blood, guts, and sparks flying everywhere!!

You all have obviously not seen Ready Or Not where a very sexy Samara Weaving gets totally drenched in exploding bodies. May change your mind.

I guess it's weird for some people, but I think it can be considered WAM.

Is the context a little iffy? Someone getting drenched in blood while they fights off hordes of creatures with a chainsaw...someone standing in the path of an exploding monster and getting relentlessly splattered and covered in blood and guts?

It's a bit of a different script than what people are used to, but is it really that much different than someone being blasted with a gunge gun or having a bucket of gunge thrown at them?

The way I'm looking at it is in both cases an actor/actress/model is showing up at set knowing what is going to happen. Special effects people/producers showed up and created a bunch of mess with the intent of throwing it over someone.

So am I into it like I'm into "normal" WAM? I mean, not really, but I love horror movies and if there's a scene where a girl gets covered in mess, it's like an added bonus to me

Although we all know 'WAM' means 'wet and messy' the community here has further defined 'no bodily fluids' as a part of the terminology as far as this forum is concerned, as has already been mentioned.

To me, if a movie scene portrays pigs blood but we know that it's fake, it is still feeding that image of bodily fluids being dumped on someone. Fake scat, made from chocolate, would be the same. I don't want to see anything remotely connected to bodily fluids, whether fake or not, and I come here knowing I won't have to. For example, a model could be carrying a portable toilet and some yellow-colored water and smears of chocolate get all over her. That would be a turn-off for me, as it would bring up bodily fluids in my imagination, as the scene was deliberately creating that impression. A bowl of yellow fruit punch with another of chocolate being poured on someone is very different, as there is no intended body fluid impression being attempted, just food mess, and the actual substances could be identical.

Lastly, I am a tactile wammer, meaning I enjoy how things feel, the sliminess of slime, the stickiness of honey, etc. When a scene ends with sprinkles being poured all over the subject, it basically ruins it for me, as the sticky slippery person is now a little like sandpaper. Glitter or sparkles are neither wet or messy, yet we accept them. But that's just a technicality and my own pet peeve, and not very important, but technically not wam.

Yes, I've seen it. And no, it didn't change my mind.