[One pic removed because of kid in the background -MM]

Please delete that first pic before your 2 hours is up to edit as it breaks site rules. Thanks.

Here's a non-potato image

I don't mean this personally, because you see people say this kind of shit semi-often, way too often imo but these kinds of comments are just incredibly stupid. The comments, not necessarily the people who make them, so again don't take it personally.

This idea, though, that any and all women who participate in any kind of WAM have a "secretive wam fetish" is just infuriatingly idiotic on so many levels.

Breaking it down:

- JLS was a star on a teen comedy, with ample opportunity to explore this "secret fetish", having enough clout to be able to persuade the writers to indulge her (or, more likely used her clout to avoid it entirely, as she is almost certainly *LIKE ALMOST ALL GIRLS/WOMEN* not a wammer, aware of her appearance and not drawn to slapstic comedy, being sexual turned on by it or any other silly shit that appeals to a niche fetish of 99.99% men having maybe 15,000-30,000 members worldwide on a planet with a population of something like 7-fucking-Billion.

- Jessica notoriously avoided the mess and clear-as-day did not enjoy being on the receiving end of it.

- JLS almost certainly had no control over the game, she just agreed to appear to keep herself somewhat relevant and probably because she's got a kid (or one old enough) that urged her to do it for fun. Not because she's masturbating over the thought of it, decided that even though it makes her uncontrollably horny and wet that she would still appear to do it in public and with her underage child. So, sorry.

Her getting messy was a likely outcome but as she's older and in Mom-mode, she almost undoubtedly agreed to take part just to have fun. Nothing more. She's not a fucking wammer. Sorry, your opinion here is absent all thought and reason and is 100% you projecting your own desires/wishes on reality, but since you ain't Thanos, you're pretty much fucked on this one.

Cliffs:
- She's not a wammer, for fuck's sake

Dude how long did that take to write?

About three minutes. I wrote it, quickly, re-read it once, then edited it once to fix a mistake.

How long did it take you to write your message? Probably a lot less than three minutes. However, the quality-to-time ratio of my post still remains much, much higher - in that I have a point and make it, whereas, your post?

No real quality.

I'll assign a quality rating of 60 to my post, although it could be any positive number and it woudln't matter. Still, using my judgement: 60 divided by the time taken to write it, 180, gives a ratio of .333.

Meaning, for every second I spent making my post, there was .333 points of quality.

Meanwhile, assuming it took you 10 seconds to make your post and assigning it (possibly generously) with 0 quality rating, well that means for every second you spend writing your post there were no points of quality to be had. Nothing!

So, the moral of this story is: Go ahead and spend a whopping two or even three minutes of your day when you're making a post. The quality is reflected in the effort. Also, it's best to ignore people who consider four paragraphs as "an essay" or long.

Not every idea can be communicated with grunts and single syllable words. Sometimes it takes just a bit more.

Big fan of Enigmahood!

This thread won't have reached its full potential until somebody constructs a post quality ranking system based on Nietzsche and game theory.

This post is so full of win !

As the originator of the crap-stirring game theory post, let me just say that I give three thumbs up to Enigmahood's post. (though, beware that fredsout will surely try to make his next post in under one second, allowing him to artificially inflate his quality points by forcing you to divide by a decimal - yes, only to be foisted by the fact that his numerator remains zero).

But, for serious guyz, stop it with this "she has a secret wam fetish" nonsense - there's like a million of you who say this! How can you read a situation so incorrectly? I guess this is like all the guys convinced that the stripper at the Dirty Beaver Gentleman's Club really loves them? Like, you just want it to be true so you post it?

It breaks my heart because I love mainstream clips - in fact, I'm not interested in anything but mainstream clips - but the whole thing is that you have to read the situation correctly. That's the whole point of the clips to me - figure out why it's happening, what the people are really thinking, what they are likely to do, etc.

Even someone like Sarah Shahi who has outright said she has a pie fetish doesn't necessarily mean it in the same way that you guys might. Her comments lead me to believe she likes the "take control" aspect and "public humiliation" aspect and she finds a kernel of sexual tension in that - but that's a way different thing than wanting to watch produced wam scenes.

Then, of all the people that you could have wished to be on the show, you want Jessica Holmes!? What! FIrst off, you've already seen her get messed up several times, so it's hardly a coup. Second off, she hated it every time to the point where she would risk getting visibly upset on camera with people! Third off, she's not even a celebrity anyone other than us would know! I just can't even...is that the expression?

Done. Uploaded to Github.

Why does it matter if they have a WAM fetish or not? Obviously if they do and want it made public there are several ways to do so. Anytime you think someone has a WAM fetish, keep in mind the first splosh scene from diary of a call girl.

Lots of girls enjoy getting dirty from time to time if it's something fun. Doesn't mean it's a fetish. All those bikini mud wrestling nights and all that don't really have a shortage of girls wanting to try them. Few of them are walking out aroused.

Golly geeze guys...my first (and main) impression of Mess4U's post was that he was purposely being a "she's a secret wammer" troll, to be funny (kind of like how Regis is the purposeful sex pervert/stalker troll here, to be funny -- right Regis?)...Mess4U's profile says he's been here for 6 years...so, he is veteran enough of the umd to know this is a contentious type of post and generally frowned upon.

Enigmahood: I appreciate your opinions, but you tend to pass them off as fact, when, in fact, you have little if any data to back them up. Case in point:

You wrote: "*LIKE ALMOST ALL GIRLS/WOMEN* not a wammer, aware of her appearance and not drawn to slapstic comedy, being sexual turned on by it or any other silly shit that appeals to a niche fetish of 99.99% men having maybe 15,000-30,000 members worldwide on a planet with a population of something like 7-fucking-Billion. "

Ok, there was recently an entire thread on this topic (Popularity of wam, world wide, don't recall the title of the thread) in which many folks weighed in on this question, including myself. I don't want to rehash it all here...in that thread, I think it was established that women express their sexuality differently than men and that they generally don't engage on public fetish forums (for the obvious reasons) as frequently as men do (who are more driven to find similar folks or fetish content that appeals to them). Also, while women certainly can and do have fetishes, they are probably rare relative to male fetishism (this may be psychological, social, emotional, or other). But this forum is global and high-profile...so a few dozen females with a wam fetish will come here (many more will remain 'lurkers'), and that number will grow over time.

Suffice to say, that, there is cinematic/aesthetic wam (see Ariana Grande's recent attempt, many others), wam fun, wam fetishism, and salirophilia or mania (related to the more universal 'shadenfreude' social urge)....no one has done a poll to determine the relative commonality of these behaviors (individually or collectively)...but it sure as hell is WAY more than 30.000 people worldwide (this claim can be justified simply by applying the Law of Large Numbers, plus, review the earlier thread on this topic, where one poster presented 'number of views' of various video clips [some with wam content] of a celebrity as a proxy for how 'common' or 'popular' (not the same things) wam is/was (the wam count was lower than the other clips, but the number of views was still way higher than one poster's estimate of "maybe 5000" world wide).

The popularity of slapstick worldwide ebbs and flows but seems to maintain a 'baseline' popularity, such that game shows and other social events frequently use some form of wam for amusement/entertainment (as a 'penalty' for losing, etc.) and/or public humiliation...and well as for initiations (military, sky diving, sororities, etc.) and too many Internet viral videos (how well do you know your friend?) to count. Yes, it's not all "wam" ...but we can't truly read peoples' minds, and count the number of people whose sexual arousal brain circuits light up whenever they see a sliming or pieing or mud puddle face plant.

What we can say, is that humans' are generally 'wired for sex' , and given seven billion of us (and growing) + access to the InterWebs...many millions will wake up one day and realize that they are not alone in their "niche fetish".

What now? Oh, um, yep. That's right. Funny. Ha ha ha!