I used to lifeguard at a lake where it wasn't uncommon for people to swim with clothes on-not like street clothes, but I witnessed more than one mom in a cover-up dress fall off of a paddleboard.

I've bought a few scenes of people getting messy in maxis and I've noticed that I almost always scroll to the end to the picture of them getting hosed off. I've also begun to realize that I do have a thing for wet outerwear, just not in an intentional WAM setting.

Yes this is something that bothers me too, and some of my scenes have ended abruptly. This happened because we only had the one camera battery. We got a couple now so we can swap them out during recording.
But it's the worst thing when it dies during the last couple minutes.

Nail on head right there. unless it's for a deliberate hair/head/face fetish video, head-and-shoulders only videos just feel so pointless and silly.


Also nail on head.


100% agree with this one. honestly, i'm not a fan of them in general when they are bigger than a small (as in if buttoned, they'd still expose the lower abdomen/midriff) denim jacket. the only exception is when it's like a blazer or jacket worn as part of a full suit and is later unbuttoned and/or removed.


So much yes. Unless it's a really scripted thing (and sometimes even when it's loosely scripted) just let the model(s) go ham and have fun.
On a related note, a big PP for me is when the models have expressions like cold fish. i like liveliness from the models because the cold fish face just makes it feel like they're doing it solely for the money and cant wait to finish and get out of there.


biggest nail on head for me. swimwear is not wetlook (though i can give a pass to swimwear worn as underwear under outfits in amateur or semi-amateur stuff like Wetlooker and etc). Also totally agree about the 'starting nude' or 'rushing to get nude'. They, honestly, fall into the same trap that a lot of porn does, ie that nudity is the be-all-and-end-all goal. Especially for wam, a big part of it is being clothed in some fashion and getting wet or absolutely messy.

A related PP to that is when the models are barely gotten messy. to me it just smells like lack of effort and/or laziness.

one final PP: really short clips. especially when their pricing seems out of whack with their shortness.

The trailer thing was my biggest turnoff growing up, mostly because I didn't have the money to buy a full scene. One time I got off to a very blurry preview of a full body messy shot that I couldn't expand. I think that's why I got into like trash the dress and just random like blog posts(e.g. someone wearing a long dress for a lake photoshoot with their husband, the two pics I posted the other day of the lady walking out of the ocean in the long dress, etc.).

As for facial expressions, the first time I ever bought a scene there was a picture where they were getting hosed off, absolutely perfect picture with the remnants of the slime running down. Except their facial expression was like Jack Nicholson in the here's Johnny scene.

I agree with almost all of this so I won't quote the whole thing. Re masturbation in vids: I like normal porn and I like WAM fetish material, but I don't like the two to mix. I know that is weird.
I disagree about the trailer issue, though, which I totally understand from a producer's perspective. There was a producer a while back -- Pie Jinx-- who would provide great trailers where he showed the woman getting pied. Problem was, the trailers were so good it probably hurt his sales.

Concept: a trailer should feature at least a second or two of a full body messy shot. Sure, it might mean people are cheap and just wank to that, but it could also make people be like oh I want to pay for more of this.

I don't like barking at models either.
And off camera "hey make sure we can see them jeans slide in real good!" Is fine.
But chewing a model out? That should be edited out.
But I like so much different stuff. And am grateful for material but my one pet peeve when I see photos and it makes me not wanna buy?
Wet hair.
I've had gals that have been shooting all day and I'll save the one where they have been asked to wear their hair up? Till the end of the day. Typically they aren't getting messy.
But like? Just out of the shower? Doesn't look like they took a blow dryer to it at all? I don't like that.
Have I done it before. Yeah! If I shoot a scene then do another just for fun and I price it as such.
But I do not like scenes with the gals hair just dripping.
I also do not like to see a ton of mess from the shoot before. A few splatters doesn't bother me. I get it. Backdrops and all you can wash in a few hours time but that can be remedied with going to a goodwill or something and buying some back up sheets.
Hang them up beofre the next. Doesn't bother me to see a little on the floor..:: if the mess is rad enough, girl is hot enough. But seeing like a whole giant mess behind a clean gorgeous gal before her mess?
Kinda is errrrk. Will I still buy it? Possibly! Depends on the mess and model.
So it's nit picky BUT like I said. It won't steer me from buying it.
Plus I have zero room to talk. I'm amateur! I've had some whoopsies.
But the tarp falling down and stuff? Eeek.
We have tried lately to put down the tarps and then I spring for the white tarps over where we are sitting or standing.
Sometimes I don't have enough hands to clean out a kiddie pool and I've done tarp in the past but now? I wait for a good sale and the kiddie pool IS my tarp!
That is helpful too!

Thought of another nit picky pet peeve of mine. I like to start with an outfit looking as near perfect as possible before getting trashed. Little things like a run in the tights or a strappy heel not having the strap tucked in the buckle bothers me.

I know I barely quoted you on all the good stuff you had to say, but I've often wondered why we would protect a plastic kiddie pool with a plastic tarp. It's plastic. I can be hosed off.

One fast-food place here is providing paper straws, but they come on a one-time-use plastic sleeve to ensure they are sterile and dry. Wouldn't it be easier to just go pack to plastic straws? But I digress . . .

There are several competing issues in creating trailers.

On the one hand, a trailer that gives away too much can definitely hurt sales, an awful lot of people will just loop the trailer and wank to that. The same can even apply to too many, or too high res, free photos. However on the other hand if you don't let people see what your content is like, that's also liable to hurt sales, because not many people want to buy a pig in a poke. There's also the factor that in general if someone likes and respects your work they'll buy it anyway to support what you do, in the same way fans of a band will buy their records even if they can download most of the music for free, to support them and help them grow. So it's a fine balance between not giving everything away but giving enough that people can appreciate what you do.

Though another factor can be deciding what any given trailer is actually for. Sometimes the only real purpose of the trailer is to make sure your equipment can play the file successfully. As long as the trailer is same codec and bitrate as the main files, if you can play it you can also play them. In that case it doesn't have to show any of the messy scene, just 30 seconds of the clean and dry start will do. If on the other hand the idea is to whet the potential customer's desire, then you do need to include more.

There's also the time factor, how long can you justify spending making a trailer? I used to do trailers where I'd have 15 or more carefully chosen three-second shots, fading into each other one second each side - so of the 3 seconds of each one, the first second is the fade from the previous clip and the last second is the fade into the next one. That gives a lovely smooth-but-fast-flowing sequence of clips which can really give the flavour of a scene. That's how the trailer for Maria Mypierogative's Initiation was put together, and I'm rather happy with the result - it probably does give away more than it should, but it really showcases how much fun Maria's shoots with us were, which I hope translates into sales for her other scenes, as well as this one. However, while the scene that's the trailer for was edited in a couple of hours, creating that trailer was two or three nights work. Spending that much time on a trailer is rarely justified, it's much easier just to clip out the first 30 second or minute of a scene and make that the trailer, as a teaser with the model's all clean, but you can see and hear them, helping to imagine what they'll be like messy.
Maria's trailer: https://saturationhall.umd.net/download_info/mypierogatives-initiation (scroll down a bit to find the trailer)


Our people usually have wet, or at least damp, hair when we're doing multiple outdoor wetlook or mud, because short of buying a generator there isn't any way to power a hair-dryer in the wilds, though we do bring plenty of towels. Inside though, agree, there's a good quality hair dryer in the model's changing rooms at the Hall.

The other bit I don't get is models apperantly putting dry clothes on over wet underwear. On the one hand seeing a girl in dry jeans, but then noticing she's got damp patches between her legs, kind of works from the "I'm going to get wet and I don't care" vibe. But on the other hand, if someone is shooting wetlook, can't they bring changes of underwear as well as a changes of top clothes? Mind you, that brings up another peeve of mine:

Producers who expect models to wear their own clothes. Arrghhhh, kill it, kill it with fire!

This is clearly why some producers are still shooting girls wearing hideous low-rise stuff from a decade ago, because they're expecting the girls to wear their own gear and so the girls bring their oldest and most horrible outfits that they don't care about. In our case, right from the start, we have always provided everything our girls wear, underwear and top clothes, so that we have complete control and always have our people dressed exactly as we want them. We have more swimsuits than most swimwear shops, and a truly vast wardrobe. Part of the long term plan is that when we finally retire from shooting in ten or twenty years time, we'll sell off the wardrobe, all of which will by then be "vintage", esp as a fair bit of it came from charity shops and hence was already vintage when we bought it.


Absolutely, this!

And things like zip pockets in sports trousers, or zip leg bottoms, or popper studs, should be done up properly, not left gaping open to spoil the line.


There could be a practical reason for that, hosing a large inflatable paddling pool off indoors can be tricky, especially between scenes. So a well secured inner liner can be a good way to keep it clean for mutiple shoots. However, if doing that the sheet needs to be *much* larger than the pool, and very well secured, preferably to the floor around, not the pool itself, to reduce the risk of puncturing it. And it won't work for sticky stuff because the sheet will just stick to the people and block the views, and probably end up ripped (and thus the pool also messy) anyway.

The providing clothes makes sense. When I first got into all this stuff I was on an evening gown binge and every time the model brought her "own" dress it was ugly. There was one that looked like a renaissance fair dress with the sleeves cut off.

Feet - or, more to the point, the lack of them in many videos and photosets.

I know not everyone is into feet but for those of us that are, it's very frustrating and often puts me off bothering to buy something when the model's feet are just out of the shot for the entire thing. It's even worse when there's plenty of 'space' above the model too. Sometimes just a small tilt of the camera, or zooming out ever so slightly, is all it needs so we can see the model's feet - clean or messy - in the shot.

So THAT's what I've been doing wrong! LOL (throws out box of thumb tacks)

Ball gags - hate them, horrible things. The thing is I'm into stuff like handcuffs, duct tape, hands tied behind the back etc. and ball gags often seem to find their way into that sort of material. For me, the mouth, lips and tongue are an important part of WAM for me, as is dialogue from the model, and those things in the mouth just kill that whole aspect of it.

Glasses - I'm certainly not turned off by glasses themselves and they can be sexy, but when a model is being repeatedly pied or gunge and is striving to keep a pair of glasses on, it starts to get on my nerves. Get them off and take a good face full!

But I'm sure some people love both these things. Even my favourite producers will have little quirks and habits that annoy or do nothing for me, and I'm sure if I were a producer I would drive viewers mad as well. It's a byproduct of how we all have niches within niches.

Agree with this, and it also applies to clothed pieing - if going for the bum, impact should be on the recipient's bottom, not lower back or upper legs.

And that reminds me of another of mine I've been toying with starting a threead about - Fear Of The Crotch!

A while back I bought a video where a model puts on white jeans and a t-shirt and then another model coveres her in black gloop. On the plus side, though the recipient doesn't tuck her t-shirt in, she holds it up so we can see the trunk of the jeans getting slathered. BUT - the girl doing the slathering, even though she does front and back of trunk, never goes between the recipient's legs at the front, resulting in her having a noticable clean patch, right where you really want to see that she's totally messy, all the way through the scene.

Now the model in question isn't shy, she starts out stark naked before she pulls the clothes on and later in the scene she strips naked again to have the gloop applied to her bare skin, and the other model is wearing a pretty skimpy outfit, just a top and panties - so why didn't she finish the job properly? Note I'm not asking for full on groping or masturbatory type motions, but just as part of covering the recipient's jeans, a quick handful of gloop slid down and between underneath to make sure no clean fabric remains. Kind of like how if you're painting a room, you use a brush to go into the corners that the roller can't reach.

I've also seen similar in the promos of a two-girl paint scene where they cover each other completely but leave shining clean crotches on both outfits, which is doubly weird as I've got another of the same producer's two-girl paint scenes in my purchase queue where judging by the previews both do get properly covered *everywhere* including having their laps filled while sitting down, so not even any hand-sliding needed to achieve between-the-legs coverage.

Models being told to "look up" or similar during the scene, reactions are much better if they're natural. If you need someone to react in a certain way then I understand, but sort that out before you start filming, many a scene has been ruined for me by an off-camera voice demanding a reaction.

Personally I don't get the "look up" thing at all, I assume it's American.

I'm British and I love the "look up" thing. Yes it's unnatural but surely the totally natural thing to do when being slimed/gunged would be to get out of the way, which would be no fun at all, so we all enjoy a little bit of accepting or milking the situation I would've thought. I see looking up as accepting that it's your turn and embracing the mess to its fullest!

Just gonna go out on a limb and guess that you've never directed models before??

22-year-old women hired for a messy fetish shoot are NOT WAMmers, no matter what producer hype would have you believe (except in very rare occasions). They have literally no idea how to pie someone, and most of them are too gentle, especially the first time out. You can "coach" them beforehand, but the results are still gonna be mixed. Because, again, they've NEVER done this before. And unlike you or I, they have spent ZERO minutes of their life obsessing over this.
So. What should the director DO if a model pies her friend too gently? Scream at her like a 1930s egomaniac director? Go back in time until she does it correctly?? I mean, this stuff is one-take only.
If a model does a weak-ass hit, I'll tell her to use more force. I'll assure her that she won't "break her nose" or whatever. And then, if she does the same thing again, I'll finish the scene/shoot by doing those pies myself. (And I would say I wouldn't book her again, but difficult models who don't have an affinity for WAM seem to be exactly who customers LOVE to buy, so who knows.) This is also the reason why I rarely do 2-girl shoots and rarely let them do the pie hits themselves.... unless I've worked with them before and trust them.
It's not the "fault of the director." Females who aren't into WAM aren't experts at pie smashing out of the gate. Sorry!

As for Pie Wedgies, all those models had done numerous WAM shoots already.... as well as many other fetish shoots. They were all adult performers. Much easier to convince them to be forceful. Also, they were paid accordingly.... Try to recreate that shoot today, and you're probably talking $3500 minimum. (Which, based on current sales, means you're losing 2 grand.) Enjoy it for what it is.... A moment that can't feasibly be recreated anymore.

As for the slime thing.... Hell, I've shot models a dozen times and sometimes they forget and don't look up. So I remind them.... because most slime fans don't want all the slime land on part of the hair and the shoulders and nowhere else.
And then, when editing, I cut out my own voice and replace it with audio from later in the slime. Which I've been doing for over a decade. Simple. Easy. Customers never hear my voice, and they get the "unnatural" sliming they want anyway. Everyone wins!

I guess I'll add another pet peeve. Description says, 'Model in sexy lingerie', or 'fit Model in bikini', or similar description. Even 'Model in daisy dukes and cropped shirt with no bra'.

They may have a few sample pics of stuff being poured over the girl's head or in her face, so I assume the outfit and full body messing will be in the clip.

But the clip is all 'shoulders-up' which means she could have been wearing duct tape, because you NEVER see the outfit described. (or you may see it briefly in the 'clean' shot before the head close-up.)

If I see a 'Model in bikini slimed' description, I think it's safe to assume there will be shots of her body being slimed. Some of us want to see that, yet there are a few producers only showing the model from the shoulders up. Other producers offer both close-ups and long-shots to keep all of their viewers happy. Most will show the body if clothing is described, but that few who insist on the 'shoulders up' and nothing else, is another pet peeve of mine.

I actually found this image by accident. It was part of a bunch of pics I had saved from the UMD many years ago.

But sure enough, there's mom watching Wheel of Fortune with a coffee, while her daughter shoots a messy series of photos on the kitchen counter.