Thank you!

Still Male WAM, but I'll be ok with it being posted here since every sane in his right mind guy on here wishes he could be the guy in the video....

FYI she's actually from Bulgaria.

in which category was published this post ?

It not correct ?

You posted it as "coed," and under the rules that Messmaster has given us for tagging, this is one of the two correct tags you could've given this post. Certain parties, such as Jinxguy above, feel that if no female gets messy in a particular video or photo set, it should automatically be tagged as "male" rather than "coed," even when there is a female dishing out the mess. These people are entitled to their opinion, of course, but whether they like it or not, the original poster of a thread (in this case, you) has the right to tag it as "coed" if there are males and females involved in it at all (i.e. they both don't have to get messy for "coed" to be an option) -- or you can tag it as "male," if you are so inclined.

I and a good number of other people here are glad that such posts are getting tagged as "coed." I urge people who are posting content NOT to get bullied into tagging female-messing-male posts as "male" instead of "coed" just because a few vocal people are unhappy with the rules Messmaster has laid down.

So, Josh Horowitz has a pretty good gig when it come to being "wammed" by Hollywood talent. Here he is getting the treatment from Jessica Alba (starts about 30 seconds in).

http://www.mtv.com/news/2438146/jessica-alba-slumber-party-2/

Can we just agree going forward that if a male gets messy and female doesn't get messy that would constitute coed? And thus eliminate any potential banter? To me, male would be devoid of any women. Having this categorized as being coed would just make things simpler. Lets not focus on who's right or wrong but just a solution going forward. Regardless of what the original intent was, circumstances and opinions change with time and it appears to make sense going this direction. And it will circumvent future conflict and uncertainty.

The problem with your solution (which is not really a problem for me, but is a big problem for people like Jinxguy and Polish-what's-his-name) is that if you select "Female" as your preference, the forum will display all posts tagged "female" and all posts tagged "coed." (Similarly if you choose "male" you get all "male" posts and all "coed" posts.) That is the way Messmaster deliberately arranged the tagging to work. I'm totally fine with that, but the "female"-only people who are complaining are not -- they'd presumably like to have anything without female mess in it filtered out of their viewing.

Another route would have been to have a female-only option, a female-plus-coed option, a male-only option, and a male-plus-coed option (this would be in addition to the "trans" and "N/A" options, of course). This structure would eliminate the problem I've outlined above, but Messmaster has said it would also add another level of complexity to the filtering, which in turn would have other negative effects. (I don't remember what he said those were.)

MM has already provided a solution to this issue - set your filters to "Female, Strict". They you will only see "tagged female" content, no guys.

When there's a guy and a girl participant, but only one gets the actual wam treatment, we seem to have different positions on whether it should be coed or not. So our current policy is that in such situations, the OP has the choice to tag it either just for that model's gender, or coed. Might be a good item for debate in the future.

Can I make a suggestion?

Why not catagorize the content by using simple lettering?
For example:
(Using the word aggressor for the person messing the other)

Male aggressor...use M/F
Female aggressor....use F/M
Female aggressor vs female...use F/F
Male aggressor vs male....use M/M
The first letter indicates the giver and the second indicates the receiver.
Multiple letters can be used to indicate the amount of person....ie: FFF/M or MM/M

It's very simple. It gives the reader a quick idea as to the content of the post.

It's a lot better than arguing

But how would you indicate a male and female messing one another up?

OH my....if she interogates me, I'll confess to everything!

Good point.....
Maybe F/M M/F?
OR F=M

This is how I see it. To me it depends on who is receiving the mess.

That is how it's always been here. But some people do get a kick out of e.g. a man receiving pies from a woman, even if she doesn't get any herself. It's still coed in their opinion because the woman is requisite to the action in the scene.

Not everybody thinks that way, but a lot do, so I've made it up to the original poster on which way to tag. I think I've gone about as far as I want to go with filters and such, and I don't want to require any manual tagging in the subject lines, so this may be one of those things we've got to "deal" with for now.

MM, I see you've been putting a lot of work in on this lately! A couple of weeks ago the coed posts were tagged as "general" something and the "strict" setting was not so strict. But now everything checks out as far as I can tell, and I see you've also added a "tagged as" label at the top of each post to make things clear. Man, with the gender preferences set in member's profiles along with all the possible cross settings in the Forums and elsewhere, it's got to be head spinning. Nice job sorting all that out and thank you!!