|
|
|||
| forums: groups: | |||
|
"Mud at Burning Man 2023"
Love you, too
So, word on the street is that last weekend's Burning Man festival turned into a muddy mess. 
Please share your best voyeuristic muddy pics and videos that you've found from this event. These are my favorite type of pics to wank over! 
[Edit: quoting source https://journal.burningman.org/2014/08/black-rock-city/building-brc/black-rock-city-gets-hit-again/ ]
Please share your best voyeuristic muddy pics and videos that you've found from this event. These are my favorite type of pics to wank over! [Edit: quoting source https://journal.burningman.org/2014/08/black-rock-city/building-brc/black-rock-city-gets-hit-again/ ]
Don't let me die with that silly look in my eyes.
There's a discussion about this in the off-topic forum:
https://umd.net/forums/burning-man
As Silver_sea said, someone has died there, so it feels a bit inappropriate to be voyeuristic about it.
https://umd.net/forums/burning-man
As Silver_sea said, someone has died there, so it feels a bit inappropriate to be voyeuristic about it.
Wasn't that far hiking with a friend and ended up in a rain storm while in Nevada but with the amount of people and a death it takes the joy out of the storm.
Hope no one else got hurt and everyone was able to travel away
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=72oDquo0tuc
Was at a local burn once where somone May have died as well in Delaware
Hope no one else got hurt and everyone was able to travel away
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=72oDquo0tuc
Was at a local burn once where somone May have died as well in Delaware
Paint with play and surrender
flank said: There's a discussion about this in the off-topic forum:
https://umd.net/forums/burning-man
As Silver_sea said, someone has died there, so it feels a bit inappropriate to be voyeuristic about it.
https://umd.net/forums/burning-man
As Silver_sea said, someone has died there, so it feels a bit inappropriate to be voyeuristic about it.
70k people stuck in any temporary city under confinement... Yeah let us be thankful for only one death, but I very much doubt that was her intent. I think she was more referring to the proberbial clay wonderland that was manufactured and the detached fantasy. But if it bugs ya bunches, you could also just keep it to yourself or that off topic forum you cited. Harm or mockery is clearly not her intent
The other issue with Burning Man is that they have a media policy:
https://burningman.org/about/about-us/press-media/press-rights-responsibilities/
"If you wish to use any photo, video, or audio from the event for any non-personal use, you must apply as Professional Use Media for the Burning Man event. We require this registration process to protect the privacy and other rights of participants and to prevent commercial exploitation of Burning Man."
I'm not a lawyer, and I don't know whether they can actually enforce this. However, I think it's fairly clear that the organisers (and participants?) wouldn't want the photos posted here.
https://burningman.org/about/about-us/press-media/press-rights-responsibilities/
"If you wish to use any photo, video, or audio from the event for any non-personal use, you must apply as Professional Use Media for the Burning Man event. We require this registration process to protect the privacy and other rights of participants and to prevent commercial exploitation of Burning Man."
I'm not a lawyer, and I don't know whether they can actually enforce this. However, I think it's fairly clear that the organisers (and participants?) wouldn't want the photos posted here.
flank said: The other issue with Burning Man is that they have a media policy:
https://burningman.org/about/about-us/press-media/press-rights-responsibilities/
"If you wish to use any photo, video, or audio from the event for any non-personal use, you must apply as Professional Use Media for the Burning Man event. We require this registration process to protect the privacy and other rights of participants and to prevent commercial exploitation of Burning Man."
I'm not a lawyer, and I don't know whether they can actually enforce this. However, I think it's fairly clear that the organisers (and participants?) wouldn't want the photos posted here.
https://burningman.org/about/about-us/press-media/press-rights-responsibilities/
"If you wish to use any photo, video, or audio from the event for any non-personal use, you must apply as Professional Use Media for the Burning Man event. We require this registration process to protect the privacy and other rights of participants and to prevent commercial exploitation of Burning Man."
I'm not a lawyer, and I don't know whether they can actually enforce this. However, I think it's fairly clear that the organisers (and participants?) wouldn't want the photos posted here.
It means they (organizers) most likely purchased the rights to the photos they used from a freelance photographer or videographer with a press pass who went through all the proper channels to get permission to shoot at the event and get press access to sensitive parts of the venue. This is done to protect the property rights of all involved at the event from misuse: the venue, The Photographer and the people depicted in the images.
It also means the people photographed never signed a release but under fair use can be used for promotional purposes only by the organizers of the event (as usually stated on the back of any concert ticket you buy).
Being shared across a fetish forum is NOT covered under those terms.
Edit: This only applies to photos under the jurisdiction of the event organizers. Personal photos from an audience members iphone or camera is a different story and falls under a whole different set of rules
Making smut is easy. Making art takes more!
Brownie said: Ethics aside there's always something really hot about mud at music festivals. The thought of just stripping naked among a crowd of people and mud sliding/wrestling is big fantasy of mine. I wonder if any producers have ever tried replicating that scenario
I have similar fantasies. I imagine muddy naked dirty dancing and grinding in mud. I can imagine MessyGirl could replicate the experience with a backdrop and 3-4 models.
I also fantasize about a camping experience at the event where a tent is filled with mud or getting into a sleeping bag full of mud.
If you read about fair use law I think you'll find that a significant factor is whether the person using the copyrighted work is making commercial use of it. That's clearly not the purpose here.
The statue is here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107 Note that it has four factors. I'll discuss the fourth factor a little bit. The fourth factor measures the effect that the allegedly infringing use has had on the copyright owner's ability to exploit his original work. Does the defendant's specific use of the work significantly harm the copyright owner's market or potential market? The burden of proof is on the copyright owner, who must demonstrate the adverse impact of the infringement on commercial use of the work.
It is highly improbable that the posting of some pictures of the event (which may or may not be copyrighted - we don't know the origin) would have ANY effect on Burning Man's ability to sell whatever product it makes out of this. How many people even will see this posting? A few dozen? A hundred? In fact, showing some teaser pictures would likely promote interest in attending Burning Man in the future. Event promoters LIKE publicity.
Read a little bit before commenting on what you think fair use is. Goggle will easily guide you to some good articles. IMO Boychucker did nothing wrong here.
BTW, I have seen a couple of Burning Man mud pictures published in the media. They're making commercial use of it. But any reasonable person would see it has no negative effect on the marketability of the event, and likely enhances it. The media has lawyers and they think it's clearly okay.
The statue is here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107 Note that it has four factors. I'll discuss the fourth factor a little bit. The fourth factor measures the effect that the allegedly infringing use has had on the copyright owner's ability to exploit his original work. Does the defendant's specific use of the work significantly harm the copyright owner's market or potential market? The burden of proof is on the copyright owner, who must demonstrate the adverse impact of the infringement on commercial use of the work.
It is highly improbable that the posting of some pictures of the event (which may or may not be copyrighted - we don't know the origin) would have ANY effect on Burning Man's ability to sell whatever product it makes out of this. How many people even will see this posting? A few dozen? A hundred? In fact, showing some teaser pictures would likely promote interest in attending Burning Man in the future. Event promoters LIKE publicity.
Read a little bit before commenting on what you think fair use is. Goggle will easily guide you to some good articles. IMO Boychucker did nothing wrong here.
BTW, I have seen a couple of Burning Man mud pictures published in the media. They're making commercial use of it. But any reasonable person would see it has no negative effect on the marketability of the event, and likely enhances it. The media has lawyers and they think it's clearly okay.
mFeelzGood said:
Most of the images come from the burningman website from the 2014 event: https://journal.burningman.org/2014/08/black-rock-city/building-brc/black-rock-city-gets-hit-again/
I read https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/index.html because I have nothing better to do. I don't think it qualifies as fair use according to the 4 factors mentioned. 1) This is a commercial website. 2) The nature is not a creative expression. 3) A large amount of the images were taken. 4) It could negatively impact the market value of the photography if it is associated with an adult fetish website.
Would the author or photographer of the burningman page like that their photography was uploaded to this website? This does not seem much different from a person uploading a wam producers photography on their blog. They can argue that it is acceptable because they don't make profit. I would guess a producer might be angry about it especially if they were not credited or if it was used in derogatory way. Even if it was just 1 image. I'm not saying that was done here. I'm just giving an example where the context matters.
The Media will often contact people to use their content, and people often give them permission to use it. The photo of the woman laying in the water is a picture used by most of the media and probably falls under fair use for news reporting using limited portions - https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html
I realize that boychucker's intention was to have fun. It is very unlikely that these images being posted here would result in any problems. Sorry I don't mean to be a downer. I have nothing better to do than to over analyze things are debate things. It is hard to be positive about this event because of the death of a person and the thousands of people that were trapped in undesirable conditions. I wish I could be more positive.
anymess said: If you read about fair use law I think you'll find that a significant factor is whether the person using the copyrighted work is making commercial use of it. That's clearly not the purpose here.
The statue is here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107 Note that it has four factors. I'll discuss the fourth factor a little bit. The fourth factor measures the effect that the allegedly infringing use has had on the copyright owner's ability to exploit his original work. Does the defendant's specific use of the work significantly harm the copyright owner's market or potential market? The burden of proof is on the copyright owner, who must demonstrate the adverse impact of the infringement on commercial use of the work.
It is highly improbable that the posting of some pictures of the event (which may or may not be copyrighted - we don't know the origin) would have ANY effect on Burning Man's ability to sell whatever product it makes out of this. How many people even will see this posting? A few dozen? A hundred? In fact, showing some teaser pictures would likely promote interest in attending Burning Man in the future. Event promoters LIKE publicity.
Read a little bit before commenting on what you think fair use is. Goggle will easily guide you to some good articles. IMO Boychucker did nothing wrong here.
The statue is here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107 Note that it has four factors. I'll discuss the fourth factor a little bit. The fourth factor measures the effect that the allegedly infringing use has had on the copyright owner's ability to exploit his original work. Does the defendant's specific use of the work significantly harm the copyright owner's market or potential market? The burden of proof is on the copyright owner, who must demonstrate the adverse impact of the infringement on commercial use of the work.
It is highly improbable that the posting of some pictures of the event (which may or may not be copyrighted - we don't know the origin) would have ANY effect on Burning Man's ability to sell whatever product it makes out of this. How many people even will see this posting? A few dozen? A hundred? In fact, showing some teaser pictures would likely promote interest in attending Burning Man in the future. Event promoters LIKE publicity.
Read a little bit before commenting on what you think fair use is. Goggle will easily guide you to some good articles. IMO Boychucker did nothing wrong here.
Most of the images come from the burningman website from the 2014 event: https://journal.burningman.org/2014/08/black-rock-city/building-brc/black-rock-city-gets-hit-again/
I read https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/index.html because I have nothing better to do. I don't think it qualifies as fair use according to the 4 factors mentioned. 1) This is a commercial website. 2) The nature is not a creative expression. 3) A large amount of the images were taken. 4) It could negatively impact the market value of the photography if it is associated with an adult fetish website.
Would the author or photographer of the burningman page like that their photography was uploaded to this website? This does not seem much different from a person uploading a wam producers photography on their blog. They can argue that it is acceptable because they don't make profit. I would guess a producer might be angry about it especially if they were not credited or if it was used in derogatory way. Even if it was just 1 image. I'm not saying that was done here. I'm just giving an example where the context matters.
anymess said: BTW, I have seen a couple of Burning Man mud pictures published in the media. They're making commercial use of it. But any reasonable person would see it has no negative effect on the marketability of the event, and likely enhances it. The media has lawyers and they think it's clearly okay.
The Media will often contact people to use their content, and people often give them permission to use it. The photo of the woman laying in the water is a picture used by most of the media and probably falls under fair use for news reporting using limited portions - https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html
I realize that boychucker's intention was to have fun. It is very unlikely that these images being posted here would result in any problems. Sorry I don't mean to be a downer. I have nothing better to do than to over analyze things are debate things. It is hard to be positive about this event because of the death of a person and the thousands of people that were trapped in undesirable conditions. I wish I could be more positive.
Then maybe you should be attacking mainstream media publications of the same content who actually do make money rather than a charming woman who just wanted to share something.
This is getting absurd. You wanna play copyright debate, go after all the people who post pics and vids of completely random people they find online. I have been a victim of this. I am sure lots of other members have. This feels like defense for defense sake, and risks hypocrisy. I should like to see your glass houses. How many people do you think have shared her content without permission?
Just saying. Kinda sounds unfair.
brokasclown said: Then maybe you should be attacking mainstream media publications of the same content who actually do make money rather than a charming woman who just wanted to share something.
This is getting absurd. You wanna play copyright debate, go after all the people who post pics and vids of completely random people they find online. I have been a victim of this. I am sure lots of other members have. This feels like defense for defense sake, and risks hypocrisy. I should like to see your glass houses. How many people do you think have shared her content without permission?
Just saying. Kinda sounds unfair.
This is getting absurd. You wanna play copyright debate, go after all the people who post pics and vids of completely random people they find online. I have been a victim of this. I am sure lots of other members have. This feels like defense for defense sake, and risks hypocrisy. I should like to see your glass houses. How many people do you think have shared her content without permission?
Just saying. Kinda sounds unfair.
I didn't mean to make it sound like I was attacking boychucker. I didn't mean to make you feel that this is absurd. I apologize to you, boychucker, and her fans if my reply sounds unfair.
RE: How many people do you think have shared her content without permission?
You are right. Millions of people must do this every day. It happens all of the time. People post images here from various sources all of the time without permission. Also people take content from wam producers here all of the time without their permission to other websites. I just discovered another case of this today from this post https://umd.net/forums/looking-for-a-video-14 . The youtube channel from that video has over 400 short clips from wam producers and tv shows. I don't mean to imply that it is acceptable because it happens, I'm just agreeing that it does happen a lot.
I didn't mean to hijack this thread to make it a debate about copyright and fair use. Please don't let my reply stop you from enjoying the images. Enjoy posting more.
Here let me turn this thread around. Here is something interesting for you folks:
https://www.tiktok.com/@roshothewise/video/7274266483545476382
I found this from an embbedded video on sfgate.com's article calling it Tranch Foot 2023. It shows some people standing in deep and satisfying lookin mud in a tent serving some delicious looking food. It just shows legs and feet of some adult looking people and no faces.
https://www.tiktok.com/@roshothewise/video/7274266483545476382
I found this from an embbedded video on sfgate.com's article calling it Tranch Foot 2023. It shows some people standing in deep and satisfying lookin mud in a tent serving some delicious looking food. It just shows legs and feet of some adult looking people and no faces.
brokasclown said:
70k people stuck in any temporary city under confinement... Yeah let us be thankful for only one death, but I very much doubt that was her intent. I think she was more referring to the proberbial clay wonderland that was manufactured and the detached fantasy. But if it bugs ya bunches, you could also just keep it to yourself or that off topic forum you cited. Harm or mockery is clearly not her intent
70k people stuck in any temporary city under confinement... Yeah let us be thankful for only one death, but I very much doubt that was her intent. I think she was more referring to the proberbial clay wonderland that was manufactured and the detached fantasy. But if it bugs ya bunches, you could also just keep it to yourself or that off topic forum you cited. Harm or mockery is clearly not her intent
Yeah, totally! You get me and you know exactly where I'm coming from, especially with the detached fantasy thing and everything! Someone mentioned the dead people, someone else mentioned children possibly being there... Well, clearly I'm here commenting on a WAM site; not a forum for death fetishes or child molesters! OBVIOUSLY I don't get off on those things! Do I think I'm being disrespectful? Well, I know 3 people died at Woodstock 94, but I still can't help but go back and look at some of those images sometimes! I know I'm not alone here, as I see people on their personal umd profiles sharing their admiration for images that are, for sure copyrighted as well - happens all the time. You can't stop everybody everywhere from sharing whatever they want to! I should know! People share my copyrighted wam videos that I make without my permission all the time. I don't love it, but I know it's ridiculously easy to copy and paste images that aren't yours. I thought this site was a safe place where I could come and open up about some of the things that turn me on, free of judgement, but perhaps I'm wrong? If I can't tell y'all, then who CAN I tell? I guess in this age of cancel culture I'm old and irrelevant and (possibly) canceled, according to some! The only message I'm getting from these whiny complainers is that I should not share too much about my fantasies on here and that I should just stick to being quiet and not say anything on this site, lest I be super careful about which wam fantasies I have, in case they're offensive or there's something for someone to nitpick about.
Don't let me die with that silly look in my eyes.
10/15/23, 3:52pm: This post won't bump the thread to the top.
TBH I think (speaking personally) there was a slight over-reaction to this one. The death that happened was nothing to do with the mud, so not really a reason not to enjoy those images if they do come out, as long as no kids in them - but I'd expect an event like that to be pretty much adults only?
Having said that, there is a huge difference between getting covered in mud when you can reasonably easily get clean again, and getting muddy, esp unwillingly / accidentally, when you have no possibility of washing it off again. To an extent being able to enjoy getting messy depends on also being able to easily get clean afterwards. So it seems unlikely anyone volunterily threw themselves into the mud, given they were being told to conserve food and water with no idea when they might be able to leave the site.
I actually know someone who went to Burning Man. They posted some pics on social media, but focusing on the actual regular festival features, no muddy wam stuff. Looks like when not aflicted by rain, it's a truly mind-blowing event.
Having said that, there is a huge difference between getting covered in mud when you can reasonably easily get clean again, and getting muddy, esp unwillingly / accidentally, when you have no possibility of washing it off again. To an extent being able to enjoy getting messy depends on also being able to easily get clean afterwards. So it seems unlikely anyone volunterily threw themselves into the mud, given they were being told to conserve food and water with no idea when they might be able to leave the site.
I actually know someone who went to Burning Man. They posted some pics on social media, but focusing on the actual regular festival features, no muddy wam stuff. Looks like when not aflicted by rain, it's a truly mind-blowing event.
Saturation Hall - Forth! The Gungemaidens!
I think the death happened on the 3rd, this post on the 5th, and drug intoxication cause was reported on the 6th. The death was reported in the same headline as the rain storm:
"Burning Man flooding strands tens of thousands at Nevada site; authorities are investigating 1 death" - apnews Sept. 3rd
I think flank's first reply and the language he used was not over reacting. If it was derogatory or name calling, it would have been over reacting. It become off topic when it became a discussion about copyright. I regret participating in this thread. I had deleted my post discussing copyright.
From what I've learned from this post, it seems like a person on this forum cannot state their disagreement with the majority. If you disagree, you will be called "whiny complainers", "easily offended & unhappy", or a "troll" (troll comment referring to this post https://umd.net/forums/mud-at-burning-man-2023 )
Personally I think I will keep my disagreements to myself from now on. I will only talk about wam. I'm not even sure why I'm writing this reply. I guess I was easily offended by some of the language used directed towards other forum members, and I want to make a defense. There was another forum post recently where a user used very disrespectful language when talking about another human being (who was a wam model). I was going to reply, but decided to ignore it because people will probably disagree with me. I just muted the user. So maybe that is the lesson people should take from this thread. If someone bothers you, mute them. Or just ignore them. Don't let people who state their opinions ruin your fun.
"Burning Man flooding strands tens of thousands at Nevada site; authorities are investigating 1 death" - apnews Sept. 3rd
I think flank's first reply and the language he used was not over reacting. If it was derogatory or name calling, it would have been over reacting. It become off topic when it became a discussion about copyright. I regret participating in this thread. I had deleted my post discussing copyright.
From what I've learned from this post, it seems like a person on this forum cannot state their disagreement with the majority. If you disagree, you will be called "whiny complainers", "easily offended & unhappy", or a "troll" (troll comment referring to this post https://umd.net/forums/mud-at-burning-man-2023 )
Personally I think I will keep my disagreements to myself from now on. I will only talk about wam. I'm not even sure why I'm writing this reply. I guess I was easily offended by some of the language used directed towards other forum members, and I want to make a defense. There was another forum post recently where a user used very disrespectful language when talking about another human being (who was a wam model). I was going to reply, but decided to ignore it because people will probably disagree with me. I just muted the user. So maybe that is the lesson people should take from this thread. If someone bothers you, mute them. Or just ignore them. Don't let people who state their opinions ruin your fun.
I wish this thread can end on a positive note not my previous post. I wish there was more photos. There is someone on reddit who posted "Real Pictures from Burning Man 2023" which are artificial AI generated ones 
There is one interesting photo:
https://www.reddit.com/r/BurningMan/comments/16cqsa8/burning_man_2023_from_the_inside_just_another/
"A naked, laughing, tattooed woman wearing boots, standing in mud, bent over, with a rainbow coming out of her butt"
Now there is something creative which AI cannot generate. Oh wait, surprisingly, maybe I can hehe.
There is also a comment in that reddit post with an image:
https://www.reddit.com/r/BurningMan/comments/16cqsa8/burning_man_2023_from_the_inside_just_another/jzqtws2/
"A man and a woman, standing in dried mud next to a sign which reads 'I have mud in curious places'"
There is one interesting photo:
https://www.reddit.com/r/BurningMan/comments/16cqsa8/burning_man_2023_from_the_inside_just_another/
"A naked, laughing, tattooed woman wearing boots, standing in mud, bent over, with a rainbow coming out of her butt"
Now there is something creative which AI cannot generate. Oh wait, surprisingly, maybe I can hehe.
There is also a comment in that reddit post with an image:
https://www.reddit.com/r/BurningMan/comments/16cqsa8/burning_man_2023_from_the_inside_just_another/jzqtws2/
"A man and a woman, standing in dried mud next to a sign which reads 'I have mud in curious places'"
The death at Burning Man this year had nothing to do with the weather really, it was just another typical drug overdose at a festival. There is no reason not to enjoy mud photos/videos taken at the festival. Keep in mind that there was a death at Woodstock too from a person who slept under a tractor and didn't wake up and was run over, so using the logic presented here, enjoying the Woodstock mud video footage would be wrong too...
People die at Glastonbury too, that is just something that happens at festivals, and for that matter, at many other sporting events. The only valid reason for not enjoying photos/videos from a mud related event would be if the death was somehow a consequence of doing mud in an obviously unsafe or daredevil way. A video of an incident in Georgia with an idiot who had himself put in a coffin and tons of cement poured on top of him and died comes to mind...
People die at Glastonbury too, that is just something that happens at festivals, and for that matter, at many other sporting events. The only valid reason for not enjoying photos/videos from a mud related event would be if the death was somehow a consequence of doing mud in an obviously unsafe or daredevil way. A video of an incident in Georgia with an idiot who had himself put in a coffin and tons of cement poured on top of him and died comes to mind...
I'm guessing that the reason why people are not sharing photos is because there are no photos or videos of people enjoying the mud. Everyone avoided the mud. Prove me wrong 
quarryman said: Keep in mind that there was a death at Woodstock too from a person who slept under a tractor and didn't wake up and was run over, so using the logic presented here, enjoying the Woodstock mud video footage would be wrong too...
Really REALLY ashamed of my initial reaction upon reading this. Just because I wasn't expecting it.
mFeelzGood said: I'm guessing that the reason why people are not sharing photos is because there are no photos or videos of people enjoying the mud. Everyone avoided the mud. Prove me wrong
I'm a mud fetishist, and there have been multiple times I've been at muddy festivals and chosen not to wallow in the mud. Sometimes it's just a situation where it doesn't feel worth the hassle!
MuddyOtter said:
I'm a mud fetishist, and there have been multiple times I've been at muddy festivals and chosen not to wallow in the mud. Sometimes it's just a situation where it doesn't feel worth the hassle!
I'm a mud fetishist, and there have been multiple times I've been at muddy festivals and chosen not to wallow in the mud. Sometimes it's just a situation where it doesn't feel worth the hassle!
Me too. Sometimes there's been mud, but I don't partake because of the surroundings (in this case, a festival filled with distractions) or presence of strangers (which would be nearly everybody there).
It's more fun by myself or with a TRUSTED mud pal.
Mud pictures are good, though, as long as whoever's in them doesn't mind.
Nessie
mFeelzGood said: I'm guessing that the reason why people are not sharing photos is because there are no photos or videos of people enjoying the mud. Everyone avoided the mud. Prove me wrong
I was wrong. There are a few photos of a few naked people enjoyed a slip and slide on a black tarp with muddy water and a crowd of people watching.
It is posted on a blog with thousands of photos. Some of the photos include children. One of the photos of the slip and slide with a naked man has a child in the background. The photographer blurred the face of the child. The link cannot be posted here.
UMD used to have links to burning man finds. I used the archive to look back at the old finds.
1996 featured naked men and woman standing and laying in mud:
https://web.archive.org/web/20051018080147/http://prometheus.frii.com/~bree/bman/mud1.jpg
https://web.archive.org/web/20051031002232/http://prometheus.frii.com/~bree/bman/mud2.jpg
https://web.archive.org/web/20051213233034/http://prometheus.frii.com/~bree/bman/mud3.jpg
https://mixmag.net/assets/uploads/images/_full/JefPoskanzer-1996.jpg
https://web.archive.org/web/20051213233548/http://prometheus.frii.com/~bree/bman/pmud1.jpg
https://web.archive.org/web/20051213233618/http://prometheus.frii.com/~bree/bman/pmud2.jpg
https://web.archive.org/web/20051031003535/http://prometheus.frii.com/~bree/bman/pmud3.jpg
https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5ab926f8a9e0287fbf928015/1572312590308-KIM6V2WJ3E4LNGHR6V4F/bm18_upscaled_image_x8.jpg
https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5ab926f8a9e0287fbf928015/1572312573199-PEG4EMF4PCRFKOYFZ7PX/bm17_upscaled_image_x8.jpg
1997 featured naked men and women enjoying a mud bath:
https://web.archive.org/web/20051207035139/http://prometheus.frii.com/~jenine/tb/bman/1997/mud-1.jpg
https://web.archive.org/web/20051031005007/http://prometheus.frii.com/~jenine/tb/bman/1997/mud-2.jpg
https://web.archive.org/web/20051031125721/http://prometheus.frii.com/~jenine/tb/bman/1997/mud-3.jpg
1995 a black and white photo of a group of naked people in wet mud:
https://leler.com/burning_man/mbm95-mud.jpg
I think Burning Man used to allow showers.
https://www.burn.life/uploads/4/0/9/7/40971711/3163375_orig.jpg
https://www.burn.life/uploads/4/0/9/7/40971711/2450387_orig.jpg
https://leler.com/burning_man/woman.JPG
Burning Man no longer allows showers because it produces gray water and they consider that a pollutant:
https://help.burningman.org/hc/en-us/articles/360024792571-How-do-I-take-a-shower-
So I am guessing no one wanted to get dirty if they cannot rinse it off. Also based on their rule and attitude towards showers, they probably do not want people playing in the mud because it leaves "dead skin cells, sunscreen and body oils on the ground" and they consider that a pollutant.
10/15/23, 3:52pm: This post won't bump the thread to the top.
