Quick note that going forward we won't be allowed to offer the advertising of paid personal sessions. Like the ones where you set up a place to meet together and do a paid session. It comes under the umbrella of escort services or potential prostitution for some financial institutions.

Edit: We'll also have to stop requests for such service as well.
Edit: If you offer sessions from your site, links to the site won't be banned, but you just can't advertise the actual service here... same thing as with Paypal. Sex can't be offered with the sessions though.

It's the time-old debate so might as well ask it: what if the seller offers to put the session on video?

Can you just clarify is that meaning with others like me meeting people at the clay pits that I have done for years or is it also covered by the same rules on a paid custom ware money is exchanged for a personal custom made scene

What does this mean. That we won't be able to buy a video from anyone on this site, anymore. That sucks.

Video doesn't make a difference, and just meeting up for fun is OK. It's really the paid personal sessions that are causing the red flags.


This only pertains to paid personal meet-ups. You can still do the customs thing, as that doesn't require you to physically meet up and interact with the model. If you were hired to get together for an actual gig then that's different because you're getting paid, not paying the model for what could be construed as an escort service.

So does that mean that messages requesting such sessions (as opposed to offering them) should be removed from here?

Okay so we cannot personally discuss or private message anyone regarding paid services when meeting up

Good point. I didn't think of that, but I guess so. If somebody asks then inevitably someone will reply with an offer that we'd have to remove anyway. Updating the TOS.


Sorry I had to remove the second sentence as it was pretty much an ad for that in itself.

I totally understand where you're coming from as a commercial website but there remains a need and demand for that kind of exchange, and I think there may be at some point some kind of alternate online WAM space where that might be okay.

Some of the most amazing wam experiences of my life have been by reaching out to models offering in person sessions, and it felt safer arranging that here in this dedicated community space. It would be a shame if others don't have that opportunity. I suppose it would have to be found on the kind of site that offers all kind of service exchanges, and you'd have to wade through that to find something.

One other remark, I am seeing more of a community growing on Instagram between Wammers and models, but I assume you can't message about that on there either.

One thing I've noticed is there are people who don't think they're paying for/being paid for a session. For example, a guy books a model, they meet, and rub mess over each other, but because they have another person filming or photographing it, they seem to think it's a shoot rather than a session.

But my understanding of a shoot is it's where everyone in front of the camera gets paid, otherwise it's a session?

I'm sorry to hear that; I've had 2 really good sessions which I arranged via this site, and it's a pity for other people to miss out on the same opportunity. I realise that the payment providers are the ones who make the rules, but I think it might be worth clarifying a few points.

I assume the core of this is that the payment provider doesn't want their service used for "dodgy stuff", which is fair enough. So, if I messaged someone via this site to arrange a session and then sent them money via service X, the provider is entitled to complain (and potentially revoke access for the whole of the UMD).

However, suppose that a model links to their Twitter account in their UMD bio, then they use Twitter to say "Hi everyone, I'm going to be in [City Name] this weekend, hit me up if you want a session!" Is that ok?

If that's iffy, how about a second degree of separation? E.g. if their UMD bio links to their Twitter account, then their Twitter account links to OnlyFans, and they advertise sessions on OnlyFans?

More generally, is this only for 1:1 meetups? I'm thinking of something like the London Splosh Games, which were discussed/promoted on here: people bought tickets (paying to get messy) but that was a group activity. Would that be allowed or banned under the new rules?

Edit: As an extra thought, the new terms mention "in person" sessions. I've seen some models offering online sessions (via webcam); are those still allowed?

It's great that there are other resources for stuff like this. We do have to limit some stuff that people would like to do, so we can't think of this site as the *only* wam resource. Hopefully people will still be able to find each other to do their sessions and stuff... they just can't advertise it from here.


We can't really control what people do on their own time, but as long as paid sessions aren't being plugged here we should be good.

If I'm advertising a free service out of the love of doing it but the studio I'm using is going to cost £200 to hire surely that's a transaction should be allowed to be mentioned regardless of what anyone thinks it's actually about
After all studios aren't free the equipment isn't free and the time it takes to edit up the scenes and the cost of whatever you're using surely counts as part of a normal transaction rather than paying for a service from a physical person

Nah they wouldn't be billing for the sessions anyway. They just don't want to do business with a site that has that on it or could potentially start doing it in the future. Applying for merchant accounts, they absolutely DO come and comb through the site and look through all the forums and other content to determine if the business passes their due diligence scrutiny. I've been told that some changes need to be made, so that's why I'm posting this now.


If they offer the service on their web site or social networking then we can't stop them, but they just can't plug the service here.


The number of participants should be irrelevant.


I think buying a ticket to an event open to everybody isn't really a personal private session and won't be construed as a session by The Man.


That's virtual so that should be OK. Really the goal is to prevent any support of escort services or potential prostitution. I really appreciate your insightful questions.

I know right. But I don't think compliance officers would be willing to make that distinction. If you're accepting money for a private meet-up, they won't take the time to ask for your books to prove that it all went to expenses and not profit.

So if my books are straight and detailed with every expense surely they can't question it

They won't know that

Perhaps I am naive but I always thought Sessions included sex. I know a great many models who offer sessions, the only difference they are is some are what they call 'Full Service' that means fucking is ok and expected. But its common for just regular sessions to include a foot job for example, nakedness and touching, very personal, intimate stuff. If I were to book a WAM session with a girl I would expect some intimacy. You can often tell from the price the girl asks, if its over $1,000 its full service, but its very much dependent on the girl and your definition of sex. Is a foot job sex?


Phil

Absolutely NOT true. There are a plethora of women who simply offer fetish sessions with NO sex involved. Lia Lebow, Megan Jones and a great many others do wrestling/fetish sessions that contain no nudity or sex. I step into say this because these very same women are complaining that men are hiring them for services expecting sex as the outcome and that is not always the case and is clearly stated in their limits.

This type of confusion and ambiguity is why financial institutions don't want to touch this.

For me, it's neither fish nor foul. I don't offer sessions nor do I seek sessions so I have no skin in the game. I have been asked in private about whether our models offer sessions and for those inquiries I typically point them to sessiongirls. I guess I've never really assumed here to be an appropriate place to arrange paid sessions just because of the liability involved

I don't know any of the models I've ever worked with or myself would ever indicate sex is part of a transaction
It's about the fun with mess but without the intimacy
This is made very clear from the start of every conversation any deviation from that will result in the shoot stopping immediately
Only once have I had a case where a guy overstepped the mark and despite my partner warning him on a couple of occasions he still tried it on even showing photos of another model he had apparently been with who gave in and let him have sex in the end unfortunately my partner then had enough of it pushed him in the clay and told him to deal with it yourself and we walked away as we have been clear with him more than half a dozen times through emails and face-to-face that I was not there for that reason

I find it absolutely pathetic that you would think that sex is part of the deal you are very naive and it's people like you because these issues in the first place trying to take advantage of situations which have been clearly spilled out to you and others are like
Look at the problems on this site just a few weeks ago from somebody who clearly thought they could take advantage of the situations

I have a TOS doc that includes a section on conduct.

I've tried to say there will be no illegal activity without using those specific words.

I'm guessing the way to read this is:

"If its a situation where sexual activity could reasonably occur, then it's banned."

So something like the London Splosh Games would be fine, public event anyone could attend. Splunches fine, free, multiple attendees. Custom scenes fine, the customer isn't present or involved at the filming. Virtual (on-line, webcam) sessions, again no physical togetherness, so fine.

But any arrangement to meet in private, for pay - no go. Doesn't matter if the contract says "no sex" or whether it's discussed or not, paying to meet someone in private for sploshing related activities is verboten.

I can see where the financial people are coming from. I don't agree with it, I've long been in favour of the full legalisation of all forms of sex work between consenting adults, but that requires far more progressive governments than any of us have at the moment.

That, and figuring out the sheer nightmare of dealing with all the complaints and chargebacks that come from people arguing over details of a session or whatever. Seeing the constant issues with customs, sessions must be worse. I do get it.

And this is why I stepped in and corrected him. What he stated is not only 100% inaccurate but it sets the completely wrong tone of expectations for a fetish session.

Rule number 1: I don't give a damn what you paid. You are NOT owed sex for a fetish session especially when a model clearly states this.

If you want an escort, go to an agency or escort referral site.

MM, just a question on this - could you not get around a blanket ban on members offering sessions with some kind of disclaimer? Other sites where their pure purpose is to facilitate such sessions simply include a caveat along the lines of "Any money paid to members listed on this website is for their time and companionship only. Whatever else that may occur if and when contact is made is the choice of consenting adults."
Appreciate there are other complications such as disputes on what was "agreed" vs what happened and payment providers' restrictions etc may influence this as well, but I feel a blanket ban on all users is a step back and not in the spirit of what the community stands for. Appreciate the predicament you're in but wouldn't it be better to allow "approved" users to offer their time for pay and whatever else goes down between consenting adults at the time of the meet is up to those consenting adults?

Can the backpage verbiage be used as a wink wink nudge nudge, where the session is free, tips are appreciated and the recommended amount is X roses.

Way worse. Megan Jones just got ghosted for a session in CO just yesterday because at the last moment the client gave her the run around about payment. It's a mess I am glad I don't have to contend with (Production has it's own series of complications). It's probably for the best to be honest. I'm not a fan of the decision but as they say, it is what it is.

But what is it that is going down between consenting adults? Who is to say for sure? That's the problem. We're not hosted in a country where prostitution or what can be perceived as prostitution is legal. The financial institutions that process payments are not going to take the time to interview each occurrence to make sure extras are not being part of the deal (Assuming they are even being offered, of course) so I don't think having a vetting or approval process on this site in this case matters to the powers that be.