No.



Just kiddin' ya (thought I'd wait for a moment just to add some drama

It's not that I can relate to what you are saying, but that I can understand what you are saying...you clearly have a conflict between what you profess to find acceptable, and what you (deep down, maybe) enjoy. You are not the first to have this conflict.

WE are social creatures and we try to subscribed to a code of conduct or ethics that is applied to all...The Golden Rule, perhaps...we would not want to be humiliated so we object to another being humiliated...and yet, we are all here because we enjoy seeing someone experience an act (getting pied or slimed) that is -- no matter how much "fun" we dress it up as being -- fundamentally a humiliating experience.

...humiliation is not a BAD thing, in the right context. It is meant to keep us humble and punish us for our egotism, vanity and excessive pride; it has a social purpose, just like any code of ethics....

Getting back to your conflict:

There is something undeniably titillating about knowing that someone is going to get messy and they do NOT know it yet...or, that they will get messy even when they do not want to get messy (the price for being greedy, eh?)...we find it hard to look away even when we think/feel it is "wrong" (somehow)

Sure, the TUTV clips can be viewed as an 'ambush' style videos, but no one was forced to participate, or, deceived into participating, as far as I know

I believe that nearly everyone that appeared in a TUTV video gave their permission (except maybe the first few clips, which were removed from sale) and either knew what was in store for them or suspected it, but even if they didn't know the specifics, they signed a release form...and, this is no different from any number of game shows that appeared on MTV in which someone ends up getting unexpectedly messy (from a challenge, dare, etc) in order to win money.

Some view these stunts and shows as degrading...but people consent to be degraded (or degrade themselves) in the interest of personal greed or desire (two of our most ancient human flaws and foibles)...

...one could write a thesis on this (I'm sure someone already has, so I won't here)

Thanks, that does help some I think.

I'd like to thing just the texture of it is part of it as well; simply combining "normal" food play with comedy just tk be silly since i reminds us of it or just seems fun.

oh, yes, of course...as a subjective (and sensual) experience, for sure...i was onky referring to the objective or vicarious experience.

Many here wold much rather participate than watch, while others have not desire to participate, and only enjoy watching others "get it'.

Interesting post, but I have to disagree that all wam is humiliating. If someone enjoys being gunged, wants to be gunged, and gets gunged in a safe and consensual setting of their own free will, then that to me is not humiliation.

I think there are three levels:

1. Lowest is actual genuine humiliation, forced, against-someone's will. What happens when a bird shits on you in public, or an enemy pounces and throws rotting food or something else unpleasant at you. Visually this can also include movie scenes where someone is portrayed as having a horrible experience of being wet and messy (I'm remembering a "fleeing through a swamp" scene where the escaping people are being chased by dogs and men with guns, and are definitely not enjoying the experience). Genuine "ambush wam" where the wamee had no idea they were about to get gunged would fall into this category too. This is genuine humiliation. I for one could never watch a scene like that, real or acted, and find it arousing. If people, or fictional characters portrayed by actors, are genuinely suffering, I do not find it appealing.

2. Middle is the game-show level. The people taking part might, given free choice, prefer to remain clean and dry, but they voluntarily enter the game knowing that they're probably (or definitely) going to get drenched in goo as part of the entertainment. This would also cover pre-agreed "ambush wam", where the wamee has been approached in advance, informed of the proposed prank, and agreed to take part (and probably removed and put in safe keeping things like phones, etc). There may be an element of humiliation but because it's willing, accepted, perhaps even enjoyed, it's not real humiliation. I'm OK with scenes like that.

3. Top level is where people have freely and willingly chosen to be gunged. They actively want it, are looking forward to it, and regard the chance to do it as a good thing. Enthusiastic wam models who actively enjoy the experience fit in this category, as do actual wam fetishists who chose to self-wam (or wam with partners or friends). There's nothing humiliating about sliding down into nice sloppy mud in your favourite wam outfit. Granted there might be humiliation in being caught afterwards, but unless that's the bit you actually get off on, that's not related to the wam experience.

Note regarding Level 1: For me at least, while I couldn't enjoy a scene in a serious movie where say someone was shown trapped in rising water and in fear of their lives, I'd happily enjoy a "making of" short where the creation of that scene was shown. The difference being that in the actual movie, it's the character, who is genuinely suffering, who I am seeing. Whereas in the making-of scene, it's the actress playing her character who I'm seeing, and who obviously isn't at any risk and is doing the work they love (acting). So the making-of is Level 2 while the original movie is Level 1. Likewise, comedy movies are always either Level 2 or even Level 3 if you believe the stars in them enjoy being gunged and deliberately chose to appear in those kind of scenes.

DM 1:

Nice breakdown there...but to clarify: I was speaking about the objective act of being pied or slimed (not the subjective experience of it, which is highly variable)...and my comment was/is based upon the historical origins of these acts...note that i did not assert that "all wam" is humiliation, only the noted acts...which, depending upon the context, can be made to be playful or fun (as with a game show, or playful competition [playboy bunny "olympics"], etc....

As to you note about a TV show character "suffering"...well, since it is a "character" in a scripted scene, he/she is obviously not suffering, but acting...I realize that this is a finer point, but it likely has to do with one's "suspension of disbelief"...you may be one of those folks who easily suspend their disbelief when watching entertainment (film, TV shows, etc.)...this is not the same as having sympathy or empathy...most of us all have the ability to discern the real from the fake in most circumstances (otherwise, we would be sociopathic to some degree)....

And, while I do enjoy playful slapstick (in a game show context), my point was simply that -- regardless of how we prefer to see or define ourselves -- most will have a hard time looking away from a pieing or sliming that is intentionally humiliating...even while we consciously tell ourselves that this is on some level "wrong" or degrading to the person....

My over-arching point (and again, this is based upon the historical roots and purpose of messy humiliation) was: that slapstick is inherently about humiliation, and, that humiliation, per se, is not necessarily a bad thing (it serves a fundamental social purpose: punishing selfish or anti-social behavior)..this seems like one point that many have a hard time accepting -- perhaps it is our empathy capacity run amok, misplaced, or, the reflexive tendency to put ourselves in the situation [that we would not want to happen to us]...could be a form of denial, too.

Of course, we have all grown up seeing many hours of TV involving game shows that more or less remove most of the social control aspects of slapstick/messy humiliation...and somehow still find ourselves inexplicably "enjoying" seeing someone get messed up (the "fun" atmosphere of the show helps us with this).

...but in many cases, vestiges of the historical purpose of messy humiliation remain: consider the edition of WWYD where two girls are assigned to follow another girl around as she shops for groceries, then they all return to the studio, where upon Mark Summers "good -humoredly" chastises them for not helping the solo girl carry her bags back, whereupon the two girls get soundly cream pied in their faces (while holding the bags the other girl had to carry back) and are obviously humiliated by this act (as the audience cheers) ...this was on a "kid's show"...but every kid (and adult) watching this show instantly learned a lesson about helping one's neighbor....slapstick as moral instruction, as it were...and also enjoyable to watch happen (schadenfreude).

It would only be appropriate that I have the last word on this thread.

I am overwhelmed by the positive support I have received and all the messages, 3 and a half years since these were last commercially available. We had a lot of fun putting these together and they will be available again sometime in the future. As for doing more, I don't know if that will happen but as in my other favorite business where I like to keep kayfabe, never say never.

In the meantime, if anyone is interested in viewing my documentary on slow left hand lane drivers in the US, feel free to drop me a message. Not finished quite yet but getting there.