Hi All,

Please be careful when posting youtube links, that there are no underage people in the videos. I know there may be mess involved but just seems to be a few being posted at the moment.

It may be an innocent mistake but please watch a video before you post.

Thanks

Booth

Isn't this off-topic?

As this is the place where clips with minors in them would appear, I don't think it's off-topic at all.

Wait just a second....

I feel like you're hiding something in plain sight....

But these muddy miners are fine, right?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DReDmfrpus

why would this be off topic?

What up about these two messy pussies?

I presume this pic of a minor is okay to post

Only if you get it muddy.

How about these miners?

What if the minors are not involved in the mess and just so happen to be randomly passing by or something? Then they would therefore not be involved in any of the sexual content. Wouldn't that then be okay? Since they wouldn't be a part of the sexual content of the video? Or would them even being in the video regardless of whether they are involved or not still count?

None whatsoever. We don't want to provide ANY excuses some outsiders could use for a witch hunt. It's something we've all decided on in the past.

Well, no, it's something Messmaster decided on. I don't recall there ever being a vote.

I was wondering if the lady miners would show up this time. Always nice to see them.

Speaking of which, that's an underutilized theme for mud scenes: Hot female laborers in work clothes who end up getting all dirty doing a job.

I don't know; these two don't look over 18 ......

I'm all in favor of messy pussies, though; You should see Kacie James smack a pie into hers!

Norman

I didn't say how I'd vote, just that I don't recall getting a vote.

I dunno....now that Jaykain has stated his point of view, I may need to change mine.

Think of it this way, imagine attempting to explain such a video to a potential future partner or lover. Most people won't think "oh they are only in the background, it doesn't matter", they'll be "a wank video with kids in it?" At best the poster will have an awful lot of explaining (and deleting) to do, at worst the potential partner will think the poster is a monster.

Now imagine the poster ever got investigated for anything (even something completely unrelated like tax or business stuff), and attempting to explain the same video to a police officer.

I agree with jaykain, no minors under any circumstances. If there is an awesome scene in a film or TV show or something, commission one of the custom producers to recreate it with adults only.

Well, that's absurd. As many of us have lamented ad nauseam, it's nearly impossible for producers to recreate even the most modestly scaled mainstream scene.

Look, if Messmaster thinks it's necessary to keep some prudish CSI: Cyber jagoff from probing his asshole, then fine, it makes sense to have a draconian policy on minors. So be it. (RIP, CSI: Cyber! I never watched you, but you were a great punchline.)

But any other argument for policing background minors is silly. If the kids are involved in the fetish activity, it's pervy; if they aren't, it's fine. Simple common sense. If there are kids on the fringes of a mainstream scene, I usually don't even notice unless somebody here points it out. Again, no criticism of Messmaster for his stance on this, but I'm glad there are other outposts of the wam community that treat this as a non-issue.

And as I've said before, if I had kids (which, happily, I do not), the finger-waggers and the white knights who emerge in conversations like this are the ones I'd want to stay the farthest away from them.

I always felt that when it was brought up the overall attitude of the whole UMD was in agreement with messmasters decision. No arguments or debates really. Ultimately yes it's his decision but I felt like there was a consensus. That was a long time ago I could be wrong.

Im happy this was brought up. I've never seen it much on Umd at all, but do have a person on my Twitter that posts teenage girls having school fundraisers and things like that having pie fights. It is creepy and shines a bad light on everyone in the community. I've def sent people messages asking where they found the photos and do the people in them know they are being used and spread on Twitter as jack off material. If I was a parent I'd be wanting to beat the crap out of the person sexualizing my kids fundraiser. I also agree this isn't a topic that should warrant a vote. It's obvious that isn't cool. (In my humble opinion)

It's really important to me to keep the kids off of here. It really has nothing to do with being idealistic or draconian though. It's more about being decisive in the eyes of thousands of people who tend to make up their own interpretations of what they see. A kid in the background might be fine, but what is the "background" can and often does end up for debate (mud run--is that kid in the background muddy?). The line is even blurrier for us because most of us actually started the fetish when we were kids.

That line is not blurry for banks, billers, and compliance officers. They do visit UMD, and they do contact me when they see content that they or their own providers do not like. It does not matter that we are not selling the content; Guilt by association (and misinterpretation) is a vulnerability that is preventable, so I see little value in putting it on our table. Especially when I'm responsible for paying other people though those banks.

Probably the most important point is the data-intensiveness and interconnectedness of our new world. There is a LOT of technology out there parsing all of this data and trying to put things together and make sense of it. Every time we show children juxtaposed with adult content on the same web site in any context, not only does it make me personally queasy, but our new data-collecting overlords may start [interpreting it] differently. This is a major reason why I don't allow piss and scat here--search engines will start tagging UMD as having that media content, we'll show up on those search results, and then we'll start getting the wrong types of visitors. Misinterpretation is not just a human trait--we are actually talking to millions of computer brains now with every keystroke.

When you have a largely unmoderated forum (we don't approve posts before they go up), rules are best demonstrated by precedent, so I try to be cautious of the history we create. If anyone really needs to see this type of content, UMD respectfully bows out and recommends to find it another way.

By the way, thanks for posting this, B.
Messmaster

Two things:

1) This is an adult site and I fully back MM's rules to have no minors appear anywhere in any clip. At worst, it's horrendously inappropriate.

2) Let's be real. Outside of this board, your potential exposure to law enforcement because you added videos of girls getting pied who are under 18 to your youtube favorites is zero. It's less than zero.

If your computer got seized for some unrelated reason; say tax fraud, and you had a folder of 50 Nick slime/pie videos nothing...NOTHING would ever happen to you.

Plus, you have to enjoy the effort that goes into supposedly not getting turned on by something. Someone posts a pic for some Disney actress taking a pie. Then what? Then everyone makes a mad rush to Google her age. So if she was 18 you can jack off and if she was 17 years and 10 months old you're a pedophile? Laughable.

Because you jack off to it doesn't make it porn, adult, etc...

Of course no one is seizing anyone's computers for it. This isn't about an individual's private video collection. It's a community. Our community. My example of the twitter guy btw was creepy because all he posts is hard core porn and then the teenage girls.... Obviously teenage girls (14-15) while writing about wanting to pie them. That guy makes everyone look creepy to someone who doesn't know about wam if that's what they see of it. I actually had someone ask me about child molesters once. I had to give a whole talk to a group of 5 people about how just because this starts for many during childhood no ones getting off to kids!!! So that type of material hurts all of us when used in a fetish community setting. Say someone wonders what wam is and searches hashtag #wam. I know I don't want a bunch of unsuspecting teenage girls to pop up. This example is obviously outside of Umd, but just saying.... It's a broader picture than your computer. As we all know it only takes a few to screw up the image of an entire group. Im happy MM and moderators are taking the subject seriously. I don't want to be judged by that, nor would I want to have to explain to partners how my fetish and I are in fact NOT creepy. Haha!

(And thanks! I will touch on this for a second in the Wamumentary I think. Lol)

More importantly:

How do I get the job of Porn Website Compliance Inspector for a bank?!

Yes to this!

That said, I think you'll find that people worry about those kinds of creeps lurking at the fringes of *every* kind of fetish. (Except maybe an octogenarian fetish. Something something Bea Arthur.) So that's a reason for everyone to be vigilant.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendrophilia_(paraphilia)

Kind of strange that we get upset if a minor crosses the scene in the background. But when I complained that a scene that showed obviously underage kids getting covered in honey....all i heard was "crickets."

https://umd.net/forums/men-and-women-covered-in-hon

Did you flag it to admin? Click the "flag" link top right of the post and report it as having minors in it, admin will pull it ASAP. Your post probably stopped anyone who read down that far from watching the video, but admin can't read every post made, we all have to help by flagging any iffy content we spot.

Obviously no one was willing to click on that honey video because of the hipster beardo dude, and rightly so!