MM's reply, which I respect completely, is exactly why we need another forum. It needs to be austere, separate, and completely devoid of any illicit or non-PG purpose. This is really not the place to be linking to outside sites.

I think the better way to do this whole thing is to have a private torrent-like forum where you can't even view the material unless you contribute to it, and all discussion is private. If someone wanted to start that kind of project, I'd support them with a truckload of material, ideas, financial support, equipment, etc. (like, hey, it's spring - you need a fancy video camera so you can pretend to be a journalist for the local paper when you film that Pie an ADPi event at the University of Nebraska....don't you guys have that on your calendar?).

So you want your new site to be devoid of illicit purpose, yet you want to encourage people to rig Facebook votes and pose as journalists at college fundraisers to provide free material for you to... enjoy. Sociopathic story checks out.

As to the far more important matter, Potatoman you crazy. Go watch Scott Pilgrim VS The World, for many reasons, among them to see peak Brie Larson. She fine.

I'm not gonna dispute your (questionable) standards of beauty, but if you've watched Room and you STILL want to make that comment about her acting talents..... I'm not sure I can take any opinion you have seriously again.

I enjoyed Brie Larson in freefire even though she does very little. Only things I've seen her in, that film is alright and a fun watch but it's by fuckin Ben Wheatley who did the best British horror of the last decade. Kill list is exceptional and similarly so is A field in England which is so fuckin eery. Great director.

Oh and this new forum idea seems fuckin suspect to say the least. I've rigged student union elections though so if ya pay me in ketamine and high percentage cheap cider I'll do ya odd thing with far more style.

ah, this thread is UMD at its most UMD. Come for the discussions about how a quote-unquote """PG""" forum for mainstream content is innately PG in a nudge nudge, wink wink, saynahmore saynahmore kind of way...

Stay for the in-depth discussion on the career of actress Brie Larson. Nobody derails a conversation quite like us. (For the record I'm Scott Pilgrim Brie all the way.)

Side note, if being all 'hey if ten people each create ten fake facebook accounts then we can rig a pie vote for our masturbatory enjoyment' doesn't make you question whether you're being a creep, then uh... yeah. Not sure what to say about that, in that case.

I mean my guideline for really this kink as a whole comes down to WWAD: What Would (y'all likely know who I'm talking about so I'm not gonna say his name, seeing as he's been banned from here-- not Chris, the other one) Do? In short: if he would, then don't. And I can't help but feel that most of the suggested uses-- online polls, upcoming college fundraisers-- are kinda in his wheelhouse.

Cameo isn't, though. Let's face it, we all know the guy doesn't have Brie Larson money.

Is it possible to find a great many of the things cicada is proposing in this thread sorta clandestinely icky, and also wish that we had a community where the cops didn't immediately pounce on them?

This is creepy on so many levels. Also, your proposal sounds a lot like the stolen "private" videos people post on Porn Hub.



I mean...she's not ugly. But she's no Gal Gadot, J Law, Scar Jo, etc. I guess that's just me? I'd rate her a 6/10 tops. She doesn't even come close to most of your models.

As for those movies, I don't think I've seen any movie she's been in aside from Captain Marvel which was a meh/10. I'll have to go look for screenshots from them. And I do stand by her having no ass. If she had less ass, she'd have negative ass. Sorry, I'm an ass man.

Discreetly cultivating civilian videos for repurposing as wank material is creepy, but detailed, comparative critical analysis of women's bodies, with math and butt shots as visual aids, isn't?

I mean, I'm not taking a firm position on the appropriateness of either on a fetish site, but they don't seem all that far apart.

No, but posting up a bunch of specifically "PG rated" stuff on a locked forum with torrents, when it's obviously for a wank is a bit more creepy than say, doing so with content specifically created with sexual purposes in mind.


As for rating people's attractiveness...that's just the genetics of sexual natural selection in humans at play. It's only creepy when people find the person doing it creepy or otherwise unsavory or unworthy. I certainly can't blame anyone for thinking that of me. But as a whole in society, it's perfectly natural. Take apps like Tinder, Bumble, etc for example.

Hmm. So you disparaged her acting based on ONE movie. Which is a giant comic book corporate machine where the acting (and the script) are probably NOT in their Top 10 list of priorities.

A bit like hearing that Kanye/Rihanna/Paul McCartney song from a few years back and going, "That Paul guy isn't much of a songwriter, is he? Also, no ass."

As a candid/mainstream WAM fan, I completely don't understand or follow the Brie Larson thing... and most of this thread is making no sense to me.

Although I want to throw a spanner into the ethics argument of filming public WAM events of over 18 participants... we've had people take videos of Songkran (basically wetlook festival), college girls mud volleyball tournaments before. So why the double standard?

I'm not advocating one way or another... just letting people know it's been done before.

As I understand it there are different levels needed for different things.

1. If you want to sell a video in a store here, has to be full disclosure to the people in it that it's being filmed for fetish purposes. Which basically means actually produced scenes only.

2. Linking to public videos of public events like Songkran from the forums is fine, if it's a big public event then people would / should expect to be filmed and photographed. But unless you have model releases from everyone in the scene, no selling. And nothing with kids in even if they are just in the background.

3. Anything featuring, or produced primarily for, kids, strictly verboten across the entire site, including discussion, with the exception that it's permitted to discuss things we watched when we were kids that may have influenced our fetish development - but no linking to (including text descriptions of how to find) photos and videos.

4. No being creepy. If something involves fake accounts, rigging votes, pretending to be something someone isn't, claiming fake charity events to "trick" people into getting gunged[1], lying about reasons for being somewhere, etc, then it's definitely creepy.

[1] Not this thread but that one has come up in various places before.

I'm strongly considering challenging Potatoman to a fight. Nothing in the UMD rules against that!

Some guy who probably hasn't gotten laid since Clinton administration insulting Bree? I won't have it!

You've convinced me, Potatomaster: Spiderman wears it better. Dat ass!

I was wondering how long this thread could ignore the (Brie Larson-in-a-Viking-helmet-shaped) elephant in the room. There's a certain scene she shot for a premium-cable TV series she starred in when she wasn't nearly so famous. Don't worry: She was at least 20, if not 21, when this episode was filmed.

In this scene, she plays a moderately innocent girl in desperate need of cash who gets precipitously lured into the world of webcamming for fetishists. Immortal line: "Wait, before I do this, help a lady out (pointing to cool-whip covered cake she's about to sit on) ... Do I hate this, or do I like this?" She is told by her customer merely to act surprised, which she does with a comically exaggerated sexy surprised expression...

So what you're saying is... Potatoman was body-shaming a WAM model??? On THIS forum????

Wow, disparaged is a big word, although not entirely inaccurate. I mean, I "judged" her acting based off of my experiences. Don't we all do that? Maybe my opinion will change after I've seen her in other things. Yeah, it's a super hero movie, I'll give you that. It's also a movie with a budget larger than many nations' GDP. I think if Disney came to me and said they wanted me to be their flagship icon, I'd bring my A game.

I had no idea about that song before you said it. What can I say, old people do irrational things? Seriously, Paul McCartney looks like he was kidnapped and drugged in that video.

Kudos to a man that can play bass and guitar upside down though (Jimi had his stuff restringed to be left handed). Also, I never really looked at his ass before. But upon further introspection, I have to agree, he doesn't have much of an ass at age 76. And that's all assuming it's ACTUALLY Paul, and all the Paul is dead conspiracy people aren't right.


/shrug I guess not. What did you have in mind, swords or dueling pistols? Old fashioned fisticuffs, maybe pies, or squirting shaving foam into each other's eyes?

Oh, and February of 2013 to be exact.

Sorry for pointing out facts, A. she's got a boner butt that could cut glass. B. Her acting subjectively seems to be not good based on what I have seen.

If you want to crucify me, I'll give you the nails. Just ask Rev to hang me next to Axa.

- Back on topic -

This is a good question Chris, and a worthwhile conversation. I honestly don't have the answer. And even if I did, who is to say my answer is the correct one? Where's the line here?

However, I would say that I'm more concerned about the legal repercussions of posting candid, public content, that's NOT pornography on a website that has pornography.

Now, not everyone here is here for porn. There are people that like specifically the comedic side of WAM for instance. Those people may even post their own pics and videos here too. But they are posting their own stuff. They have agreed to the terms and conditions of the site, and they know what the length and breadth of the place are about. The same can't be said for the individuals taken in a photo or video of a public event. They haven't consented to having their images posted on a site that regularly shows and sells porn.

If this were old UMD (just a forum and links) this discussion probably would be different. But it's not, it's evolved into more than what it was.

Naw Rich, I'd be shaming her if I said/believed it was a bad thing she was the way she is. Rather I was indicating I don't understand the mass appeal as she doesn't do much for me based on anything I've seen.

HOWEVER, pieromaniac_too may be changing that opinion a bit.

Here's a gif version of the Larson scene I vidcapped above.

It is amazing how many women are considered "eh" by forum members.... until they get messy.

Or, conversely, how certain famous women are regarded as "Holy Grails" despite being no better than your average WAM model... just 10000% more recognizable.

Perhaps the OP was just trying to level the playing field. Why shouldn't average ordinary women be tricked into providing free WAM content the same way RunninRebel and others attempt to trick celebrities??

/shrug Isn't this precisely why women have used makeup for thousands of years, to make themselves look more 'appealing'? Does Breana for instance look better right out of bed rather than in make up with one of your slingshots for instance?

Is this a kink for you? Does seeing a woman pied or slimed ENHANCE the look or situation for you? Isn't that why most of us are here?

Like I said before, my judgment was on what I had experienced until that time. Now pieromaniac_too posts something I've never seen before. She's younger, made up, wearing something to create or enhance sexual appeal, and performing actions that I find appealing.

Another thing to consider is relationship. Some people may find one of these "holy grails" that you find "no better than your average WAM model" more appealing because they of interaction. For instance, models who have accounts here, and interact with their customers vs. those who don't. A little bit of interaction goes a LONG way in the fantasy or attraction for many.

So, there's definitely a double standard that is running rampant here. There's a critical mass of people who seem to believe that they're not "creepy" because they frequent porn sites or deal with "professional models", which makes their motives clear and obvious to any onlooker.

On the other hand, someone who donates money to a charity to see somebody get pied is creepy because we suspect that they may not be transparent about their motives.

So, full disclosure is the key - you're not necessarily creepy if you're into toothless elderly anal porn, as long as you proudly maintain a public profile on GrannyLickers.org.


I'll say this: I used to think that my interest was fairly sociopathic. But, the truth is that I often watch a candid pie scene and have a thought like "you know, that girl seems super cool, I support this person." Its all a psychological study to me - I need to know all the details about the people involved, their personalities, their intelligence level, their mental makeup - and I need them to have no idea that I'm interested in knowing these things, because they'd act differently if they knew I was observing. I am simply obsessed with observing reactions of people, both male and female, under a range of conditions.

But, I'm not always coming away with negative or hateful opinions....I'm often quite supportive, or even understanding, of the persons being observed. I'm often choosing to observe those particular people precisely because I am sympathetic to them.

She looks pretty damn good without makeup, actually.
I haven't compared her ass to Spiderman's yet.


I don't really consider RunninRebel sending 30 "get slimed for cancer" tweets to a celeb to be INTERACTION, per se, but he might see it differently...?

Still confused why you think the average person would ever feel like they're "interacting" with a celebrity though.

(Just to be clear, the "holy grail" in my argument was the mystical female celebrity who *might* get slimed for a charity meme, or a certain specific awards show. Good looking women on the UMD, getting messy, without the need for trickery or rigged votes, are literally the exact opposite of that.)

WHAT? Captain Marvel has appeared in a WAM scene before? I remember seeing that scene before... I just didn't draw the connection until now. That's so.... hot. The next Avengers movie is going to be so....

Corrected it for you, because clearly.... Any thread that manages to pivot from a creepy "let's rig Facebook votes via a PG WAM forum" setup, to one of the UMD mods talking shit about Brie Larson's ass (at least compared to Spiderman).... in just ONE page.... is already borderline Hall Of Fame.

AND we got Regis back. All we need is a sex doll pretending to be a real person and this might be Thread Of The Decade.

Let's face it, is there any thread that couldn't use a little of the ol' Regis magic?

(Not that I know what a "Regis" is.)

(Even though my avatar is Regis Philbin.)

Hmm?


Voyeurism isn't itself psychopathic, but a principled indifference to a reasonable standard of consent in certain sorts of cases does look like an intentional failure to put yourself into the other person's shoes. That's very spectrumy.

And it doesn't need to be that way. To some extent, everyone has failures of empathy, especially in situations of high stress or excitement when you can't use your whole brain. That's why in the light of day we normies carve out special, (quasi-)pornographic contexts for the excitement --because if you got (enthusiastic!) consent from participants, that means you have some reasons to think that in the light of day you won't have to feel remorse. Think of it as a "safe space" for your cock.


Yeah but it sounds like you're having trouble with the idea of other people having empathy for you, as if emotional knowledge made you vulnerable. (If so--Me too!) And that's a bummer, though understandable. But that in itself shouldn't prevent you from understanding and appreciating the need to draw boundaries.

Lots of people here talk in detail about "interacting" with their favorite WAM model, which seems more pathetic to me in many cases.

It's the same complex that makes guys think the stripper really likes them - she just takes money from the other guys, but it's different with him.

That's my bad.


I'm not talking shit about anyone's ass. I'm just saying that Brie Larson's posterior and the state of Ohio have some things in common. But that doesn't mean there aren't people that like either or both. I mean this is the state that gave us the Wright Brothers, some of the best running backs in history, and...um...corn.

I think we need to archive this thread for future generations!