I keep seeing AI images of women pied in the face, or sitting under a typical gunge tank. I don't see any advantage to generating these kinds of images when we have real versions with real humans at our disposal.

Where I find AI to be of use in wam, is in creating scenarios that would be too expensive or unlikely to ever be created using real humans.

Wam is a fantasy to me, something where scenes always played out in my mind until we came online and many of these scenes came to life. But some of the scenes in my mind are too much to replicate in real life.

For example, let's suppose I'm a wealthy businessman and am coming home from the office. I notify my house staff to have a bath ready for me when I come home. And this is what I am presented with . . . the female house staff have filled the huge tub with slime and are waiting in it for me to join them.

I think you might just be looking at the *type* of wam a lot of us are posting, but not the full picture. A lot of the stuff that is being posted is stuff that is rarely - if ever - actually created in real life. Videos, photos, or sets fitting the base descriptions are readily available, but the specifics are rarely met.

In my case, yes, evening gowns getting wet or messy is occasionally done here by shops and enthusiasts, but rarely the type of eveningwear that actually interests me. And, more often than not, the models don't actually look like they're dressed up. Yes, they're wearing a dress and sometimes heels, but a lot of those dresses are ones that the model wouldn't actually wear if they were really going out to a formal event. They're often either super cheap dresses from Amazon/Temu/whatever, extremely short and revealing, or years (or decades!) out of fashion. If they wear jewelry, its often either simple jewelry or cheap, costume jewelry. If they do their hair at all, it's usually a simple style they wouldn't wear to a formal event. More often than not, they're barefoot or wearing footwear that holds no interest for me. All of this is because everything I've mentioned adds expense or time to the shoot, and are generally considered not worth the cost/time/effort, especially for sellers looking to make a profit.

But the ones that REALLY interest me are the really fancy ballgowns which generally cost thousands of dollars in real life, and most of us will only ever wear one of them in our entire lifetime, if we even like the style in the first place. I can probably count on one hand the number of sets involving ballgowns sold/posted here that A) are styles I actually like, B) the model looks like she's actually dressed to go out, rather than just wearing the dress, C) gets the outfit wet/messy in a way I like, and D) doesn't remove the entire outfit within the first couple minutes.

Even in real-world Trash the Dress shoots, the women often remove half the outfit (shoes, jewelry, veil, let their hair down, makeup is wiped away, etc) before they get anywhere near the water/mud/whatever. And the WAM aspect is often just a quick few seconds at the end of the video. Formal wet/messy events (Black Tie Beach, Australia's Beach Balls, etc) almost entirely consist of thrift store cast-offs and intentionally comical/ugly attire, with no other attempt made at "looking fancy."

My point is, the draw for most of us with AI WAM is the same as it is for you: we can make the type of images or videos that fit our specific kinks because the aspects or fantasies we most want to see aren't actually available. WAM is such a huge umbrella of kinks, and for the most part, real-life producers create things that either fit their own specific kinks or are the type of stuff that is most likely to appeal to the largest group of buyers. A lot of us who make AI WAM are doing that because the specific things we like aren't available to us in real life.

The thing about fetishes is that they're often super-specific, and if the elements that the person is most interested in aren't present, the payoff is greatly lessened. It would be like, to use your example, you step into the tub and find the slime is just colored water and the women are like Barbie dolls with no nipples or genitals. *Technically,* your fantasy is being fulfilled, but it still leaves you unsatisfied because the important aspects are missing.

You nailed it both in that quote and the rest of what you wrote.

One thing that really pisses me off is models in evening wear ... and sneakers. Backless/strapless evening gowns...with bra straps across the back.

I also don't like piercings and excessive tattoos. Too many WAM models have that.

So yeah to see what I want, AI is often the answer.

I like what both of you said.

Basically if we want to see a specific set of criteria that isn't being shot by producers, due to cost, styles, or any other factor, we can use AI to create it.

My little rant was mostly about the AI photos of wet jeans, muddy clothes, pies being thrown, all which can be found with real human women by a score of producers. It's taking something authentic and making a fake replica of it. But using AI to do something different and specific is it's real power, because we can make things visual that we'd possibly never see from a producer. (because budgets are real and AI has no such limits)

Even with those, I expect if you asked the people who created them they'd have their reasons. They might be trying to replicate a specific scene from a decades-ago TV show, or to generate something that reminds them of a particular WAM incident or near-miss in their life. Of course that doesn't mean it would affect anyone else the same way. I do think that one possible end-point for AI is that everyone ends up generating imagery that's so specific to their own WAM history that there's no point in sharing it.

To be honest, I think we've already reached that point. Aside from the more "mainstream" AI posts, most of the posts are getting a half-dozen or less reactions. We have a lot of single-post threads in the AI WAM group, and even a few current or former regular posters in the group are sharing their frustrations with what they see as spam.