|
|
|||
| forums: groups: | |||
|
"Why does so much WAM involve things poured over people's heads?"
39 posts 4264 views
Love you, too
I can't say I care much for a slimed body and a clean face. So much of WAM is about the face and head for me--including reactions. I have nearly zero interest in clothes filling, and totally zero interest in gungened arms, shoullers, feet, legs, etc. If I see some WAM without getting the face messy, I think, "oh, this is like mainstrream sites/old magazines where they had light whipped cream play," and it doesn't register as WAM to me at all. Honestly, I prefer pies to slime because I'd like the scene to seem like some kind of food fight that "could" happen in public.
Although I don't dislike nudity in WAM, I prefer when things begin clothed, so I can imagine such a scenario.
I think, DungeonMasterOne, where we differ is you seem to be intereted in the physical sensations the character (a model can be playing a character during a shoot, let's say) feels. ("that experience is going to be so intense that they won't really notice what else you do to them") And on the other hand, some of us are less concerned about the feeling of cold, viscuous messiness than the emotional content and reactions--the expression on the face of a bully who had the tables turned on her, for example. This explains why I don't enjoy "full coverage," because that expression of the character (I'm not saying the model is a bully!) is lost. On this point I don't really agree with the idea of the objectification of the person through obliteration (mentioend in an earlier post) as something I'm OK with. It's about emotion, but potentially the emotion of a fictional character. I think this difference (sensation vs emotion, and perhaps, as mentioned by manandwife, where you first got interested in the subject--a TV rerun of the Great Race was one of my first memories of it--they didn't completely covere Natalie Wood, she still looked like herself, jsut with a bunch of pie/cake on her) explains a lot of other preferences as well.
Although I don't dislike nudity in WAM, I prefer when things begin clothed, so I can imagine such a scenario.
I think, DungeonMasterOne, where we differ is you seem to be intereted in the physical sensations the character (a model can be playing a character during a shoot, let's say) feels. ("that experience is going to be so intense that they won't really notice what else you do to them") And on the other hand, some of us are less concerned about the feeling of cold, viscuous messiness than the emotional content and reactions--the expression on the face of a bully who had the tables turned on her, for example. This explains why I don't enjoy "full coverage," because that expression of the character (I'm not saying the model is a bully!) is lost. On this point I don't really agree with the idea of the objectification of the person through obliteration (mentioend in an earlier post) as something I'm OK with. It's about emotion, but potentially the emotion of a fictional character. I think this difference (sensation vs emotion, and perhaps, as mentioned by manandwife, where you first got interested in the subject--a TV rerun of the Great Race was one of my first memories of it--they didn't completely covere Natalie Wood, she still looked like herself, jsut with a bunch of pie/cake on her) explains a lot of other preferences as well.
I can kind of understand the thinking behind having the head done last, and I do like seeing people's facial expressions as well, but I like seeing their expressions when their face is covered in mess. I do like seeing them getting covered elsewhere, and I don't need the head and face being covered to be the beginning of the scene, because I do like seeing their other body parts get messy/clothes getting filled, and it builds anticipation, but it can't be the last thing or else I feel like I'm getting teased too much, because what I like the most is people's faces getting covered. Also, with regards to mess on the face covering up a person's facial expressions, unless you're putting something incredibly thick on their face, I can see their expressions through the mess because there are only a few things thick enough to actually obscure the person's expression.
I don't mind too much where it starts (although I did vote one way)
A direct pie to the face works - or stepping into a bucket of paint in a nice shoe and stockings, or an accidental spillage onto a suit. It's the anarchy and the escalation and best delivered from one person to another. Too much of the same (as others have said) can be overkill - I think that's where things have to become creative - or, maybe, there has to be another substance and a different method of propulsion. Or "rubbing in" whereby a succession of messes are massaged or shampooed. Knowing how much time and effort this adds to the model's clean up is also a delicious notion.
The best 'result' should show evidence of the resilience of the female form through the transformation and the final frames should read as a 'history' of it. eg You can see under the lumpy slop evidence of the lapel of a jacket, or the form of a buried piece of jewellery, a nipple, a stocking top etc.
In some ways, messing up is a linear thing that only goes in one direction but I've found I do like to remind myself constantly where the scenario began. So I make for myself very non-linear edits jumping back and forth.
In addition I'll mention the concept of the 'WAM face'. Lots of models have a WAM face. This is a 'different' post-transformation face they assume. However much they have been obliterated and subsumed, once their eyes (or part of their eyes) and their mouth is visible they assume a recognisable visual identity as a Wammed person. This 'character' transcends any degradation that should befall them and expresses various emotions thus.
I discovered that you often get much more exuberant performances if the model can see themselves during filming, so, wherever possible there was a monitor or mirror to perform their expressions into - their immediate reactions to the destruction of their very own carefully constructed image. Something they find variously amusing, shocking and sometimes liberating.
A direct pie to the face works - or stepping into a bucket of paint in a nice shoe and stockings, or an accidental spillage onto a suit. It's the anarchy and the escalation and best delivered from one person to another. Too much of the same (as others have said) can be overkill - I think that's where things have to become creative - or, maybe, there has to be another substance and a different method of propulsion. Or "rubbing in" whereby a succession of messes are massaged or shampooed. Knowing how much time and effort this adds to the model's clean up is also a delicious notion.
The best 'result' should show evidence of the resilience of the female form through the transformation and the final frames should read as a 'history' of it. eg You can see under the lumpy slop evidence of the lapel of a jacket, or the form of a buried piece of jewellery, a nipple, a stocking top etc.
In some ways, messing up is a linear thing that only goes in one direction but I've found I do like to remind myself constantly where the scenario began. So I make for myself very non-linear edits jumping back and forth.
In addition I'll mention the concept of the 'WAM face'. Lots of models have a WAM face. This is a 'different' post-transformation face they assume. However much they have been obliterated and subsumed, once their eyes (or part of their eyes) and their mouth is visible they assume a recognisable visual identity as a Wammed person. This 'character' transcends any degradation that should befall them and expresses various emotions thus.
I discovered that you often get much more exuberant performances if the model can see themselves during filming, so, wherever possible there was a monitor or mirror to perform their expressions into - their immediate reactions to the destruction of their very own carefully constructed image. Something they find variously amusing, shocking and sometimes liberating.
Bringing pleasure to literally tens of people!
Saturation Hall, Langstonedale
Lord of the Pies
Wow, huge thanks for all the votes and responses on this, absolutely fascinating reading. If I respond to each one individually this post will be the size of a cake you could swim in, so I'll try and respond to the main themes and significant replies. But first, this response defintely deserves respect all on its own!
Damn well done Max!
On with the responses:
Lots of good points about the formative stuff we all grew up with, and true, a lot of of that did involve head-down messings, though thinking back, in my own case there was a show which featured one game where contestants had to negotiate a swamp, and another where they had to try and cross a pool without falling in - and needless to say they invariably went at least waist deep in the swamp and fell into the pool, all fully dressed in overalls. But that particular show didn't really feature head-mess at all, other than soaking them when they fell in the pool. At around about the same time people were getting gunged in the tank on NHP and I always thought dropping the gunge on their heads was a mistake as it just bounced off and sprayed all over the inside of the tank, wasting most of it, so I always thought "straight on the head" mess was a bad idea. There was another show that dropped gunge on people but had them sitting in a laid-back chair (think like an office chair tilted back 45 degrees), and dumped the gunge from on high into their laps. Only ever saw it done once or twice but always thought that was a better approach. All of these were UK shows - I wonder if all/most US ones only dropped on their contestants heads?
That's a good point re "beats", hadn't thought of that. I more or less stopped watching TV gunge shows once I discovered produced WAM videos because the produced stuff offered so much better camera work, detail, etc - the whole reason I'd always wanted to shoot my own WAM videos was to improve on the TV stuff. Yes, in a TV show you might get that one perfect shot - momentarily, for a fraction of a minute - you had to freeze-frame the VHS to actually enjoy it. TV games were (with a few exceptions) 98% build-up and 2% actual messy fun, and that was on a good day, and even then half the time the director would cut to another camera at just the wrong moment.
Those are interesting points I'd not considered. I've always like the "willing victim", possibly pretending it's a terrible thing that's happening to her but we know that she knew all along this was what was going to happen and she happily went along with it in that knowlege, and is now either secretly (or even not so secretly) enjoying it even as she pretends its terrible.
Maude often does faceplants into the mud in her mud scenes, while her face is still clean but the rest of her is at least mud to the waist, but she's only done one "head first" messing, which was the Formal Custard Shampoo Party with Luca, where they each start my shampooing lots of custard into each other's hair while wearing formal dresses, so the custard drips off and down their clothes before any filling or sitting on stuff happens. That one's here: https://saturationhall.umd.net/download_info/formal-custard-shampoo-party
We do have a gunge tank, generally when we use it I tell people to sit back so first pour goes down their front and into their lap, and then lean forward into it so the continuing pour covers their face and hair, and then move sideways to have it also pour on their shoulders. And we keep an extra bucket of gunge not in the tank, for them to use to completely cover any remaining dry bits of their outfit after the flow has finished.
Fair enough, and yes, that is pretty much the polar opposite to my tastes in WAM. My thing is to watch someone get slowly (and pleasurably) covered in mess, and be able to enjoy seeing their outfit go through multiple stages from clean to fully messy - in wetlook for example, I'll buy scenes where someone wades down step by step into a pool so we can watch the water rising up their jeans till it reaches their trunk, one step at a time, or gets showered slowly, but not scenes where someone jumps in to a pool from dry and gets instantly soaked.
TBH the whole "pie in the face on its own" thing has always puzzled me, I can understand scenes where someone gets pied repeatedly with big sloppy pies that then flow and drip down and cover their clothes in gloop, but there seems to be a fairly significanty subgnere of WAM which is entirely about just seeing someone get something in the face, even if the rest of them remains completely clean. I've seen long threads started from posts of scenes like that, and realised that for a lot of people it's entirely about seeing the face itself wammed that works for them. Which I can understand from an intellectual POV but does nothing at all for me personally from an erotic one.
Yeah, I think that would need a rich benefactor, or a producer and models who genuinely enjoyed shooting those kind of scenes and hence were willing to do it regardless of rates. We pay per-scene plus expenses, so something like that would never be affordable.
There certainly is an argument that if what you do works, just keep on doing it, presumably either that producer has enough regular customers to keep their scenes viable, or they are doing them for their own benefit with any sales that happen as a side-hustle?
Good comments about relaxed vs shocked, our thing here is very much that everyone actively enjoys getting messy, so relaxed is normal here, even when there is an element of suprise like the gunge tank or someone getting pushed into the mud.
Know what you mean about it being possible to mess hair without messing face, we actually do that at the end of most dungeon scenes, first the full hair shampoo each, and *then* the full face pour. You might also like the formal messy shampoo scene linked above.
Slightly related, Long ago there was a game show where the victim sat on a seat above a vat of gunge, but before they got tipped into it, they got asked questions and suffered up to three overhead gungings first. One time, one of the victims wore a baseball cap - so the gunge went all over her head, and covered her clothes, but the brim of the hat kept her face clean. I thought that was brilliant, though guessing the hat protecting her hair would have spoiled it from your POV. We actually tried to recreate that once, but the girls kept pouring on each other's brims which made them too heavy and the hats fell off, if we do it again they'll have to be told to pour on crown of each other's heads only.
Clearly you need to hire Jayce to demonstrate the technique, and make an ad.
Fair point!
Ok, that's an interesting point, and I kind of get it. I love seeing someone carry on doing stuff (walking round the dungeon, setting up stuff for the other person to sit in, etc) with messy clothes on, especially the lower half, waist-down. So if someone's had her jeans filled and the stains are coming through around the crotch, or she's sat on a cake earlier and just going about her work with a huge messy splatter all over the back of her skirt. So I get "carry on through the length or the clip", makes sense, ta for that.
Interesting. I'm starting to pick up that a big part of the divergence in tastes is whether someone is more into wam-as-humiliation (even just gentle) and wam-as-straight-up-fun-and-pleasure, though obvs there'll be crossover in there too.
TheSpecialist upthread made the same point - TV shows have far fewer messy "beats" than produced WAM videos do. In any gameshow, even a non-messy one, the buildup is usually 90%+ of the game, the final outcome, big win, whatever, is very much the ! on the end.
Fair points, and this is very much going to come down to personal taste, as others have commented.
Great analysis and ta for sharing the outline on sales, interesting. And yea regarding subniches - ask 12 wammers what the best way to wam someone is, get 144 completely incompattible answers!
Great to hear from those doing it as opposed to just watching. With you on knickerfilling as a great way to start a play session, when Lady Jasmine and I play together we normally wear one-peice swimsuits under our clothes, and fill each other's swimsuits with pourable golden syrup - it does indeed feel amazing, and then it starts to leak and makes our clothes wet and sticky, as on-going buildup.
In my case it's the visuals as well as the sensations, but more or less yes, all of our people are playing characters who genuinely enjoy the feelings of getting messy (and in quite a few cases are actially into getting messy to some extent themselves, some as an actual fetish), so the "ohh, that's nice" reactions to having their clothes filled are entirely genuine. I think I understand where you're coming from though, it's fascinating to see how differently we all interpret and react to things.
Weirdly I saw The Great Race on TV when I was about 4 years old, but didn't get any kind of wam reaction from it (hardly surprising!) - but mum told me after seeing it I went updtairs and built a lego car that could rise up on legs, and had a gun that poked out of the radiator grille. Having seen the whole movie again a few years ago, brilliant film but an absolute zero for WAM interest for me, I utterly hate Natalie Wood's outfit, and I cannot enjoy any wam scene where I don't like the clothes. My own wam awakening as far as I know was a 70s episode of Cannon and Ball where one makes the other stand up and fills his trousers with food in revenge for having stuff nicked off his plate at dinner. I remember intense feelings that I wanted someone to do that to me. A few years later, that developed into "I want a girl to do that to me while I do the same back to her", and the rest followed from that.
A few folk have made that point, and fair enough, I guess I'm mainly thinking of scenes where someone gets a pie on a tin/plate/whatever in the face and it stays there, or there is just so much mess applied you can't see anything through it. But fair point re body language, that a few people have made.
I will admit I've always liked your approach, and the total messy demolition your people go through, the results have been most impressive. Interesting point about non-linearity too, sometimes watching a scene I'll go back to where someone was cleaner so I can enjoy their messing again, or even just watching them walking about apparently still clean but knowing their underwear is already full of custard that's about to start seeping through their outer clothes, and keeping watch for that first hint of staining coming through from inside.
Good point about enabling peeople to see themselves - we usually turn the video camera screen round so they can see themselves, but that's a tiny image, might have to consider adding mirrors, good call.
Huge thanks to everyone who's voted or commented so far, please keep them coming, vote is open till Halloween. It's currently 2/3 to 1/3 in favour of head gunge, but over 60 people have voted for other areas first, yay for body-wam!
MaxSenate said: Why does so much WAM involve things poured over people's heads?
I don't know!
*GLUNK"
I don't know!
*GLUNK"
Damn well done Max!
On with the responses:
Lots of good points about the formative stuff we all grew up with, and true, a lot of of that did involve head-down messings, though thinking back, in my own case there was a show which featured one game where contestants had to negotiate a swamp, and another where they had to try and cross a pool without falling in - and needless to say they invariably went at least waist deep in the swamp and fell into the pool, all fully dressed in overalls. But that particular show didn't really feature head-mess at all, other than soaking them when they fell in the pool. At around about the same time people were getting gunged in the tank on NHP and I always thought dropping the gunge on their heads was a mistake as it just bounced off and sprayed all over the inside of the tank, wasting most of it, so I always thought "straight on the head" mess was a bad idea. There was another show that dropped gunge on people but had them sitting in a laid-back chair (think like an office chair tilted back 45 degrees), and dumped the gunge from on high into their laps. Only ever saw it done once or twice but always thought that was a better approach. All of these were UK shows - I wonder if all/most US ones only dropped on their contestants heads?
TheSpecialist said: Mainstream WAM scenes may only have 2-3 messy beats before moving on with the rest of the show, but you can bet that most every scene had a beat where something goes over the head. So no matter what our individual "WAM specialties" are, more often than not, the over-the-head pour is going to be involved somewhere. As for why it happens first? No clue. There's probably nothing more to it than "Might as well start with what I'm most familiar with."
That's a good point re "beats", hadn't thought of that. I more or less stopped watching TV gunge shows once I discovered produced WAM videos because the produced stuff offered so much better camera work, detail, etc - the whole reason I'd always wanted to shoot my own WAM videos was to improve on the TV stuff. Yes, in a TV show you might get that one perfect shot - momentarily, for a fraction of a minute - you had to freeze-frame the VHS to actually enjoy it. TV games were (with a few exceptions) 98% build-up and 2% actual messy fun, and that was on a good day, and even then half the time the director would cut to another camera at just the wrong moment.
OscillatorSlop said: I was raised on slime being dumped from above, but I also was raised on chunky slime and slapstick situations, which are much less important to me than they used to be.
Over the years I have come to enjoy light bondage and playful (consensual) cruelty as part of wam and the over the head aspect works nicely with that. The face is a sensitive area and mess can serve a lot of bondagey purposes - it can obstruct vision, breathing and even speech. I also happen to like seeing a woman spit out mouthful of gunge.
This also can be achieved by throwing or squirming mess at the face as well, which I have only recently started to appreciate.
My favorite reaction to gunge is one where the victim hates it and likes it at the same time. Either because they like being humiliated, it feels good but tastes bad, etc.
I also like when the victim cowers or squeals a little, but I dont care for actual pain or danger. People tend to instinctively protect their face, so a facial is usually a good way to get that reaction while keeping everything relatively safe and gentle.
Over the years I have come to enjoy light bondage and playful (consensual) cruelty as part of wam and the over the head aspect works nicely with that. The face is a sensitive area and mess can serve a lot of bondagey purposes - it can obstruct vision, breathing and even speech. I also happen to like seeing a woman spit out mouthful of gunge.
This also can be achieved by throwing or squirming mess at the face as well, which I have only recently started to appreciate.
My favorite reaction to gunge is one where the victim hates it and likes it at the same time. Either because they like being humiliated, it feels good but tastes bad, etc.
I also like when the victim cowers or squeals a little, but I dont care for actual pain or danger. People tend to instinctively protect their face, so a facial is usually a good way to get that reaction while keeping everything relatively safe and gentle.
Those are interesting points I'd not considered. I've always like the "willing victim", possibly pretending it's a terrible thing that's happening to her but we know that she knew all along this was what was going to happen and she happily went along with it in that knowlege, and is now either secretly (or even not so secretly) enjoying it even as she pretends its terrible.
OscillatorSlop said: I adore some of your models, especially Maude, and would love to see them get it face first.
Don't you have gunge tank or am I misremembering?
Don't you have gunge tank or am I misremembering?
Maude often does faceplants into the mud in her mud scenes, while her face is still clean but the rest of her is at least mud to the waist, but she's only done one "head first" messing, which was the Formal Custard Shampoo Party with Luca, where they each start my shampooing lots of custard into each other's hair while wearing formal dresses, so the custard drips off and down their clothes before any filling or sitting on stuff happens. That one's here: https://saturationhall.umd.net/download_info/formal-custard-shampoo-party
We do have a gunge tank, generally when we use it I tell people to sit back so first pour goes down their front and into their lap, and then lean forward into it so the continuing pour covers their face and hair, and then move sideways to have it also pour on their shoulders. And we keep an extra bucket of gunge not in the tank, for them to use to completely cover any remaining dry bits of their outfit after the flow has finished.
Gurph Morlicks said: I think my view on this matter is almost the polar opposite to your own, Dungeon Master. You won't be surprised to learn I'm primarily a pie guy, although I do enjoy most other types of mess too (slime, mud, "tar" and feathers all have their appeal to me; never really got into savory food mess though.)
For me, the real thrill of WAM is in seeing a pretty and perfectly clean face (surrounded by nice clean hair and a clean body below it) INSTANTANEOUSLY transformed into a complete mess, and this is something you pretty much only get with a pie or cake to the face -- or less commonly, a huge and sudden jet of mess, such as the ones produced by wetandmessy.com's old whipped cream cannon.
For me, the real thrill of WAM is in seeing a pretty and perfectly clean face (surrounded by nice clean hair and a clean body below it) INSTANTANEOUSLY transformed into a complete mess, and this is something you pretty much only get with a pie or cake to the face -- or less commonly, a huge and sudden jet of mess, such as the ones produced by wetandmessy.com's old whipped cream cannon.
Fair enough, and yes, that is pretty much the polar opposite to my tastes in WAM. My thing is to watch someone get slowly (and pleasurably) covered in mess, and be able to enjoy seeing their outfit go through multiple stages from clean to fully messy - in wetlook for example, I'll buy scenes where someone wades down step by step into a pool so we can watch the water rising up their jeans till it reaches their trunk, one step at a time, or gets showered slowly, but not scenes where someone jumps in to a pool from dry and gets instantly soaked.
Gurph Morlicks said: I like build-up to the sudden huge mess, sure, but for me the ideal build-up is plot-based or at least rooted in some kind of short scenario that leads to the pieing/messing. Personally, I don't want my WAM to "start small" with something like the woman's ankles or the elbows getting messed and then gradually, eventually building to "the logical climax" of having the head and face get messy. I understand that point of view, but I don't personally relate to it at all.
For me, the first pie to the face is typically the most important moment in a pie scene. (There are definitely exceptions, of course.) I get that this point of view is problematic for WAM producers. To me, the ideal WAM videos are the kind produced by a handful of very short-lived producers in the aughts -- PieJinx (who briefly changed their name to Pies Next Door) and Blue Leopard. One video from these producers would be roughly half a dozen short "blackout" skits where the model would start fresh and clean in each one and take one good pie to the face (or occasionally a couple of pies) per scene.
For me, the first pie to the face is typically the most important moment in a pie scene. (There are definitely exceptions, of course.) I get that this point of view is problematic for WAM producers. To me, the ideal WAM videos are the kind produced by a handful of very short-lived producers in the aughts -- PieJinx (who briefly changed their name to Pies Next Door) and Blue Leopard. One video from these producers would be roughly half a dozen short "blackout" skits where the model would start fresh and clean in each one and take one good pie to the face (or occasionally a couple of pies) per scene.
TBH the whole "pie in the face on its own" thing has always puzzled me, I can understand scenes where someone gets pied repeatedly with big sloppy pies that then flow and drip down and cover their clothes in gloop, but there seems to be a fairly significanty subgnere of WAM which is entirely about just seeing someone get something in the face, even if the rest of them remains completely clean. I've seen long threads started from posts of scenes like that, and realised that for a lot of people it's entirely about seeing the face itself wammed that works for them. Which I can understand from an intellectual POV but does nothing at all for me personally from an erotic one.
Gurph Morlicks said: It's not that I don't enjoy seeing models hit with pie after pie, then get slimed a few times, and then pied some more. I do like that, and in select cases I can like it a LOT, but in 80-90% of produced WAM scenes there's an element of overkill for me. The truth is I'd rather see a model go from clean to getting a single great pie in the face in six different scenes than see that same model hit with 30 pies in a single scene. I really don't think many WAMmers are with me on this, not even many of the pie-centric people.
Of course, it's also incredibly expensive to shoot videos this way since there's so much downtime in between very short scenes (with the model having to shower, put on a new outfit, do her hair and makeup over again in between each scene, all while on the clock). Especially in today's WAM market, with so many different producers dividing up slices of the WAM market, it's just not remotely financially feasible to have this as a working model, even if there were producers out there who actually wanted to shoot WAM this way. I don't think PieJinx or Blue Leopard could make it work even back in the aughts, when there were vastly fewer WAM producers and so the ones that were around generally did a lot better (don't get Rich of Slapstick Stuff started on this topic!
). Although perhaps it wasn't the lack of sales that made PieJinx and Blue Leopard quit; I don't really know, it's not like either one publicly explained why they shut down their stores.
Of course, it's also incredibly expensive to shoot videos this way since there's so much downtime in between very short scenes (with the model having to shower, put on a new outfit, do her hair and makeup over again in between each scene, all while on the clock). Especially in today's WAM market, with so many different producers dividing up slices of the WAM market, it's just not remotely financially feasible to have this as a working model, even if there were producers out there who actually wanted to shoot WAM this way. I don't think PieJinx or Blue Leopard could make it work even back in the aughts, when there were vastly fewer WAM producers and so the ones that were around generally did a lot better (don't get Rich of Slapstick Stuff started on this topic!
). Although perhaps it wasn't the lack of sales that made PieJinx and Blue Leopard quit; I don't really know, it's not like either one publicly explained why they shut down their stores. Yeah, I think that would need a rich benefactor, or a producer and models who genuinely enjoyed shooting those kind of scenes and hence were willing to do it regardless of rates. We pay per-scene plus expenses, so something like that would never be affordable.
Pasta said: I have wondered about this too. And it's sometimes more regimented still. There's one individual who has been releasing videos for years, and she not only always starts with the model's head, she then follows a familiar routine of steps for the rest of each video, climaxing in the same way every time. 
There certainly is an argument that if what you do works, just keep on doing it, presumably either that producer has enough regular customers to keep their scenes viable, or they are doing them for their own benefit with any sales that happen as a side-hustle?
Good comments about relaxed vs shocked, our thing here is very much that everyone actively enjoys getting messy, so relaxed is normal here, even when there is an element of suprise like the gunge tank or someone getting pushed into the mud.
GungedHairFan said: My niche is seeing mess being poured over a woman's hair...so for me, that's where you start lol. I'm not really into messy clothes, feet, boobs, clothes etc...but I am into reactions, so if they're going straight for a face covering by looking up into the mess, or a pie comes first, that's when I get disappointed. You can slime a woman without covering her face! I like the idea of a clean looking woman thrown into a situation where she's suddenly having slime, gunge, batter, chocolate, molasses, water, or whatever pouring over her hair...it can be fun seeing them being "humiliated" by it, scared by it, or hell, it's even fun when they're enjoying it. I dunno why it is, it's just what I like.
Know what you mean about it being possible to mess hair without messing face, we actually do that at the end of most dungeon scenes, first the full hair shampoo each, and *then* the full face pour. You might also like the formal messy shampoo scene linked above.
Slightly related, Long ago there was a game show where the victim sat on a seat above a vat of gunge, but before they got tipped into it, they got asked questions and suffered up to three overhead gungings first. One time, one of the victims wore a baseball cap - so the gunge went all over her head, and covered her clothes, but the brim of the hat kept her face clean. I thought that was brilliant, though guessing the hat protecting her hair would have spoiled it from your POV. We actually tried to recreate that once, but the girls kept pouring on each other's brims which made them too heavy and the hats fell off, if we do it again they'll have to be told to pour on crown of each other's heads only.
RobbyWLP said: I have tried to tell people for years that they should start with people's kneecaps and elbows but do they listen to me?
Nooooooooooooooooooo.
Robby
Nooooooooooooooooooo.
Robby
Clearly you need to hire Jayce to demonstrate the technique, and make an ad.
Zan said: But I thought it was "HEAD, shoulders, then KNEES and toes" huh, learning so much today.
Fair point!
artflsoul said: For me... Total head coverage whether dunking, pouring, glopping... is so intensely hot I prefer to see it sooner rather than later so it will carry through the length of the clip. 
Ok, that's an interesting point, and I kind of get it. I love seeing someone carry on doing stuff (walking round the dungeon, setting up stuff for the other person to sit in, etc) with messy clothes on, especially the lower half, waist-down. So if someone's had her jeans filled and the stains are coming through around the crotch, or she's sat on a cake earlier and just going about her work with a huge messy splatter all over the back of her skirt. So I get "carry on through the length or the clip", makes sense, ta for that.
larryniven said:
So just speaking for myself, this is a double-edged sword that depends on the person's intensity threshold. There are some people who seem to have a really low threshold for noticing the intensity associated with this type of experience, such that they're going to have a legible reaction no matter where you start. But on the other hand, there also seem to be some people who have a higher threshold, and those people might have a minimal reaction to having something on their, say, feet or hands or shoulders or whatever. So if you're looking to guarantee an experience (and hence a response) of a certain intensity, it makes sense to just go for the most shocking thing early. That, to me is one element of what's going on here.
DungeonMasterOne said: This has always puzzled me a bit as once you pour something over someone's head, that experience is going to be so intense that they won't really notice what else you do to them, so the whole experience becomes mainly about just the head-gunge.
So just speaking for myself, this is a double-edged sword that depends on the person's intensity threshold. There are some people who seem to have a really low threshold for noticing the intensity associated with this type of experience, such that they're going to have a legible reaction no matter where you start. But on the other hand, there also seem to be some people who have a higher threshold, and those people might have a minimal reaction to having something on their, say, feet or hands or shoulders or whatever. So if you're looking to guarantee an experience (and hence a response) of a certain intensity, it makes sense to just go for the most shocking thing early. That, to me is one element of what's going on here.
Interesting. I'm starting to pick up that a big part of the divergence in tastes is whether someone is more into wam-as-humiliation (even just gentle) and wam-as-straight-up-fun-and-pleasure, though obvs there'll be crossover in there too.
larryniven said: Part of it is surely also logistical. If you're making a 20-minute video with only one model or something, then you can give yourself a little more leeway to explore and take things slowly. But it's harder to maintain a more leisurely pace if you're making a shorter video (or, equivalently, if you're trying to divide the mess across multiple models). This surely also was a prime factor in the source material that people have cited (game shows, etc.), in which the entire point was to devote most of the time to the buildup and then have the messy component act as a very short-lived exclamation point at the end.
TheSpecialist upthread made the same point - TV shows have far fewer messy "beats" than produced WAM videos do. In any gameshow, even a non-messy one, the buildup is usually 90%+ of the game, the final outcome, big win, whatever, is very much the ! on the end.
larryniven said:
Another few considerations:
Insofar as there's a dominance/submission power-play thing happening, in my opinion the face and hair are very natural places to start (at least when producing for a visual medium, which by definition prioritizes things that are visually striking and noticeable). I know it's not impossible to do power-exchange stuff with, again, calves or shoulders or whatever, but you sort of said it yourself: the head and the face are the apotheosis.
I also think it's a bit inaccurate to say that there can't be any added intensity if you start with the head or face. After all, part of the intensity comes from the meaning of what's happening; otherwise we'd experience slime or gunge roughly the same way that we do shampoo (i.e., with extremely minimal intensity). So, depending on how you set it up and who's involved, the mere fact of using more and more mess can cause a different response, or using a different type of mess can cause a different response, etc.
From the way people go after each other in amateur contexts, it also seems like maybe this is just the most statistically intuitive way of trying to get someone messy? Admittedly there are a ton of confounding factors here, but, like, there does sort of seem to be a broad consensus even among non-WAMers that the most satisfying ways of getting someone messy are either to dump something over their head, throw something in their face, or launch them bodily into something (dunk tanks, gunge tanks, mud pits, etc.).
Another few considerations:
Insofar as there's a dominance/submission power-play thing happening, in my opinion the face and hair are very natural places to start (at least when producing for a visual medium, which by definition prioritizes things that are visually striking and noticeable). I know it's not impossible to do power-exchange stuff with, again, calves or shoulders or whatever, but you sort of said it yourself: the head and the face are the apotheosis. I also think it's a bit inaccurate to say that there can't be any added intensity if you start with the head or face. After all, part of the intensity comes from the meaning of what's happening; otherwise we'd experience slime or gunge roughly the same way that we do shampoo (i.e., with extremely minimal intensity). So, depending on how you set it up and who's involved, the mere fact of using more and more mess can cause a different response, or using a different type of mess can cause a different response, etc. From the way people go after each other in amateur contexts, it also seems like maybe this is just the most statistically intuitive way of trying to get someone messy? Admittedly there are a ton of confounding factors here, but, like, there does sort of seem to be a broad consensus even among non-WAMers that the most satisfying ways of getting someone messy are either to dump something over their head, throw something in their face, or launch them bodily into something (dunk tanks, gunge tanks, mud pits, etc.). Fair points, and this is very much going to come down to personal taste, as others have commented.
HotWamHD said: I didn't know which way to vote so I flipped a virtual coin in order to see the results 
I haven't checked but I reckon my own scenes are about 50/50 between the two. I haven't noticed a huge difference in popularity between the two approaches but I can see both sides of this. I have done some very sensual scenes where the model starts by getting her feet messy, her legs, her body, chest, hair . . . and until her face is finally covered the camera can capture all of her anticipation and reaction. I've also done some great scenes where a perfect-looking model goes from zero to obliterated in the first minute, and we carry on building up the mess from there!
Very interesting thread though, as this is yet another way that our little fetish niche gets split down the middle!
I haven't checked but I reckon my own scenes are about 50/50 between the two. I haven't noticed a huge difference in popularity between the two approaches but I can see both sides of this. I have done some very sensual scenes where the model starts by getting her feet messy, her legs, her body, chest, hair . . . and until her face is finally covered the camera can capture all of her anticipation and reaction. I've also done some great scenes where a perfect-looking model goes from zero to obliterated in the first minute, and we carry on building up the mess from there!
Very interesting thread though, as this is yet another way that our little fetish niche gets split down the middle!
Great analysis and ta for sharing the outline on sales, interesting. And yea regarding subniches - ask 12 wammers what the best way to wam someone is, get 144 completely incompattible answers!
chalkypie said: Oooh! Great poll!! For a general messy session, food fight, gunge, etc, me and the wife always start with some knicker filling, cleavage filling, shoes/boots filling, just because it feels so bloody nice when it's warm and gooey. Over the head then follows soon after, whether that be custard, cream or pies.
If we're primarily doing pies, then yes, going from pristine and clean and well dressed, perfect hair, etc, to a good splat of a sloppy pie in the face, dripping down the clothes into the cleavage, that's great too. So basically we do both, depending on the scenario we're acting out.
If we're primarily doing pies, then yes, going from pristine and clean and well dressed, perfect hair, etc, to a good splat of a sloppy pie in the face, dripping down the clothes into the cleavage, that's great too. So basically we do both, depending on the scenario we're acting out.
Great to hear from those doing it as opposed to just watching. With you on knickerfilling as a great way to start a play session, when Lady Jasmine and I play together we normally wear one-peice swimsuits under our clothes, and fill each other's swimsuits with pourable golden syrup - it does indeed feel amazing, and then it starts to leak and makes our clothes wet and sticky, as on-going buildup.
Myds said: I can't say I care much for a slimed body and a clean face. So much of WAM is about the face and head for me--including reactions. I have nearly zero interest in clothes filling, and totally zero interest in gungened arms, shoullers, feet, legs, etc. If I see some WAM without getting the face messy, I think, "oh, this is like mainstrream sites/old magazines where they had light whipped cream play," and it doesn't register as WAM to me at all. Honestly, I prefer pies to slime because I'd like the scene to seem like some kind of food fight that "could" happen in public.
Although I don't dislike nudity in WAM, I prefer when things begin clothed, so I can imagine such a scenario.
I think, DungeonMasterOne, where we differ is you seem to be intereted in the physical sensations the character (a model can be playing a character during a shoot, let's say) feels. ("that experience is going to be so intense that they won't really notice what else you do to them") And on the other hand, some of us are less concerned about the feeling of cold, viscuous messiness than the emotional content and reactions--the expression on the face of a bully who had the tables turned on her, for example. This explains why I don't enjoy "full coverage," because that expression of the character (I'm not saying the model is a bully!) is lost. On this point I don't really agree with the idea of the objectification of the person through obliteration (mentioend in an earlier post) as something I'm OK with. It's about emotion, but potentially the emotion of a fictional character. I think this difference (sensation vs emotion, and perhaps, as mentioned by manandwife, where you first got interested in the subject--a TV rerun of the Great Race was one of my first memories of it--they didn't completely covere Natalie Wood, she still looked like herself, jsut with a bunch of pie/cake on her) explains a lot of other preferences as well.
Although I don't dislike nudity in WAM, I prefer when things begin clothed, so I can imagine such a scenario.
I think, DungeonMasterOne, where we differ is you seem to be intereted in the physical sensations the character (a model can be playing a character during a shoot, let's say) feels. ("that experience is going to be so intense that they won't really notice what else you do to them") And on the other hand, some of us are less concerned about the feeling of cold, viscuous messiness than the emotional content and reactions--the expression on the face of a bully who had the tables turned on her, for example. This explains why I don't enjoy "full coverage," because that expression of the character (I'm not saying the model is a bully!) is lost. On this point I don't really agree with the idea of the objectification of the person through obliteration (mentioend in an earlier post) as something I'm OK with. It's about emotion, but potentially the emotion of a fictional character. I think this difference (sensation vs emotion, and perhaps, as mentioned by manandwife, where you first got interested in the subject--a TV rerun of the Great Race was one of my first memories of it--they didn't completely covere Natalie Wood, she still looked like herself, jsut with a bunch of pie/cake on her) explains a lot of other preferences as well.
In my case it's the visuals as well as the sensations, but more or less yes, all of our people are playing characters who genuinely enjoy the feelings of getting messy (and in quite a few cases are actially into getting messy to some extent themselves, some as an actual fetish), so the "ohh, that's nice" reactions to having their clothes filled are entirely genuine. I think I understand where you're coming from though, it's fascinating to see how differently we all interpret and react to things.
Weirdly I saw The Great Race on TV when I was about 4 years old, but didn't get any kind of wam reaction from it (hardly surprising!) - but mum told me after seeing it I went updtairs and built a lego car that could rise up on legs, and had a gun that poked out of the radiator grille. Having seen the whole movie again a few years ago, brilliant film but an absolute zero for WAM interest for me, I utterly hate Natalie Wood's outfit, and I cannot enjoy any wam scene where I don't like the clothes. My own wam awakening as far as I know was a 70s episode of Cannon and Ball where one makes the other stand up and fills his trousers with food in revenge for having stuff nicked off his plate at dinner. I remember intense feelings that I wanted someone to do that to me. A few years later, that developed into "I want a girl to do that to me while I do the same back to her", and the rest followed from that.
dbl999 said: Also, with regards to mess on the face covering up a person's facial expressions, unless you're putting something incredibly thick on their face, I can see their expressions through the mess because there are only a few things thick enough to actually obscure the person's expression.
A few folk have made that point, and fair enough, I guess I'm mainly thinking of scenes where someone gets a pie on a tin/plate/whatever in the face and it stays there, or there is just so much mess applied you can't see anything through it. But fair point re body language, that a few people have made.
Trouso said: I don't mind too much where it starts (although I did vote one way)
A direct pie to the face works - or stepping into a bucket of paint in a nice shoe and stockings, or an accidental spillage onto a suit. It's the anarchy and the escalation and best delivered from one person to another. Too much of the same (as others have said) can be overkill - I think that's where things have to become creative - or, maybe, there has to be another substance and a different method of propulsion. Or "rubbing in" whereby a succession of messes are massaged or shampooed. Knowing how much time and effort this adds to the model's clean up is also a delicious notion.
The best 'result' should show evidence of the resilience of the female form through the transformation and the final frames should read as a 'history' of it. eg You can see under the lumpy slop evidence of the lapel of a jacket, or the form of a buried piece of jewellery, a nipple, a stocking top etc.
In some ways, messing up is a linear thing that only goes in one direction but I've found I do like to remind myself constantly where the scenario began. So I make for myself very non-linear edits jumping back and forth.
In addition I'll mention the concept of the 'WAM face'. Lots of models have a WAM face. This is a 'different' post-transformation face they assume. However much they have been obliterated and subsumed, once their eyes (or part of their eyes) and their mouth is visible they assume a recognisable visual identity as a Wammed person. This 'character' transcends any degradation that should befall them and expresses various emotions thus.
I discovered that you often get much more exuberant performances if the model can see themselves during filming, so, wherever possible there was a monitor or mirror to perform their expressions into - their immediate reactions to the destruction of their very own carefully constructed image. Something they find variously amusing, shocking and sometimes liberating.
A direct pie to the face works - or stepping into a bucket of paint in a nice shoe and stockings, or an accidental spillage onto a suit. It's the anarchy and the escalation and best delivered from one person to another. Too much of the same (as others have said) can be overkill - I think that's where things have to become creative - or, maybe, there has to be another substance and a different method of propulsion. Or "rubbing in" whereby a succession of messes are massaged or shampooed. Knowing how much time and effort this adds to the model's clean up is also a delicious notion.
The best 'result' should show evidence of the resilience of the female form through the transformation and the final frames should read as a 'history' of it. eg You can see under the lumpy slop evidence of the lapel of a jacket, or the form of a buried piece of jewellery, a nipple, a stocking top etc.
In some ways, messing up is a linear thing that only goes in one direction but I've found I do like to remind myself constantly where the scenario began. So I make for myself very non-linear edits jumping back and forth.
In addition I'll mention the concept of the 'WAM face'. Lots of models have a WAM face. This is a 'different' post-transformation face they assume. However much they have been obliterated and subsumed, once their eyes (or part of their eyes) and their mouth is visible they assume a recognisable visual identity as a Wammed person. This 'character' transcends any degradation that should befall them and expresses various emotions thus.
I discovered that you often get much more exuberant performances if the model can see themselves during filming, so, wherever possible there was a monitor or mirror to perform their expressions into - their immediate reactions to the destruction of their very own carefully constructed image. Something they find variously amusing, shocking and sometimes liberating.
I will admit I've always liked your approach, and the total messy demolition your people go through, the results have been most impressive. Interesting point about non-linearity too, sometimes watching a scene I'll go back to where someone was cleaner so I can enjoy their messing again, or even just watching them walking about apparently still clean but knowing their underwear is already full of custard that's about to start seeping through their outer clothes, and keeping watch for that first hint of staining coming through from inside.
Good point about enabling peeople to see themselves - we usually turn the video camera screen round so they can see themselves, but that's a tiny image, might have to consider adding mirrors, good call.
Huge thanks to everyone who's voted or commented so far, please keep them coming, vote is open till Halloween. It's currently 2/3 to 1/3 in favour of head gunge, but over 60 people have voted for other areas first, yay for body-wam!
Saturation Hall - Forth! The Gungemaidens!
At my last few pourings I actually respected the advice of a good buddy to pour the goo first over my shoulder and breast since especially the shoulders are one part who are not covered when the the goo flows over my head. (see pics)
that way my buddy wanted that I pull down my swimsuit and especially get my intimate area filled with goo and roll it back up after this procedure.
the first head pouring came as I pulled my casual outfit back on over the swimsuit.
pretty excited by that situation I fulfilled my objective to pull off my clothes to receive my first pouring with my intimate area visible.
To also respect my preferences I finally changed into my favorite shirt and as I fulfilled receiving the 12 buckets I got enough goo available to submerge totally in the goo and giving my head another recycling pouring from above. So actually yes it is not only required to receive a pouring onto the head to fulfill a good coverage but in my case it is required to justify my goggle fetish.
that way my buddy wanted that I pull down my swimsuit and especially get my intimate area filled with goo and roll it back up after this procedure.
the first head pouring came as I pulled my casual outfit back on over the swimsuit.
pretty excited by that situation I fulfilled my objective to pull off my clothes to receive my first pouring with my intimate area visible.
To also respect my preferences I finally changed into my favorite shirt and as I fulfilled receiving the 12 buckets I got enough goo available to submerge totally in the goo and giving my head another recycling pouring from above. So actually yes it is not only required to receive a pouring onto the head to fulfill a good coverage but in my case it is required to justify my goggle fetish.
Saturation Hall, Langstonedale
Lord of the Pies
Final result: 124 for over the head gunge, 62 for starting elsewhere. So exactly a 1/3 / 2/3 split.
Lots and lots of interesting comments and ideas to think about.
Huge thanks to everyone who took part, much appreciated. You all rock!
Lots and lots of interesting comments and ideas to think about.
Huge thanks to everyone who took part, much appreciated. You all rock!
Saturation Hall - Forth! The Gungemaidens!
I almost always start with a pie to face because I don't want whom ever I'm messing up to see what's coming next so it's more suspenseful
I have of course started with chest especially the two friends with benefits I had
With gfs and now wifie face and head usually get smashed with pies but slime over head is next just to give them way more meat covered face.
My wifie has started with a pie sitting but that was originally a punishment (that now she actually likes) and then some underwear filling which was the take off and straight to her face N hair to "wear" so I could mush it around more. She wasn't thrilled with that one.
But she on her own started saying she would look down as I poured gunge and then slowly look up to we could get shots of it dumping on her face so not sure if she saw other pics of people on here or she just knew I got off seeing her face obliterated with gunge.
She does have OCD with her hair so ruining it IS. Grest comeuppance for her get get
I have of course started with chest especially the two friends with benefits I had
With gfs and now wifie face and head usually get smashed with pies but slime over head is next just to give them way more meat covered face.
My wifie has started with a pie sitting but that was originally a punishment (that now she actually likes) and then some underwear filling which was the take off and straight to her face N hair to "wear" so I could mush it around more. She wasn't thrilled with that one.
But she on her own started saying she would look down as I poured gunge and then slowly look up to we could get shots of it dumping on her face so not sure if she saw other pics of people on here or she just knew I got off seeing her face obliterated with gunge.
She does have OCD with her hair so ruining it IS. Grest comeuppance for her get get
I sway either way with starting with mess over the head. I love gunge tank scenes where a large amount of gunge is dropped on the head very quickly so that the whole body gets coated very quickly.
Where the mess is applied slower I prefer it to build up to covering the head. If it's me getting covered then I prefer something like snow filling first, then underwear filling and then work up from there. That way I get the benefit of the different sensations one by one.
Each to their own I guess though.
Where the mess is applied slower I prefer it to build up to covering the head. If it's me getting covered then I prefer something like snow filling first, then underwear filling and then work up from there. That way I get the benefit of the different sensations one by one.
Each to their own I guess though.
I must admit, im really not one for getting my face covered, let alone pouring over my head. In all my gunging sessions I have never once got gunge any further up than my chin. And as for mud, I love being submerged, but only up to my neck
I even started using a swimming cap in recent years to avoid getting any mess in my hair.
If I think about it, I dont really have any reason not to cover my face, it doesnt panic me or anything, I just dont want to do it. Maybe its something about not wanting it in my eyes or something, I dont know.
One idea I have is that I enjoy watching the messing process, be it watching the colour of the clothes change as they absorb the liquid, or as they slowly get covered in gunge/mud, and I feel that if my face (and thus eyes) are covered, I wont be able to see or enjoy it as much
However, when I see anything posted by FOXXY, where her beautiful models are completely submerged headfirst, or the amazing Maude sat there on the mudbanks covered top to tail, it does make me wonder if I should try a full submersion one time....
I even started using a swimming cap in recent years to avoid getting any mess in my hair.
If I think about it, I dont really have any reason not to cover my face, it doesnt panic me or anything, I just dont want to do it. Maybe its something about not wanting it in my eyes or something, I dont know.
One idea I have is that I enjoy watching the messing process, be it watching the colour of the clothes change as they absorb the liquid, or as they slowly get covered in gunge/mud, and I feel that if my face (and thus eyes) are covered, I wont be able to see or enjoy it as much
However, when I see anything posted by FOXXY, where her beautiful models are completely submerged headfirst, or the amazing Maude sat there on the mudbanks covered top to tail, it does make me wonder if I should try a full submersion one time....
Sponsors
To avoid content being blocked due to your local laws, please verify your age ?
Sponsors
Design & Code ©1998-2026 Loverbuns, LLC 18 U.S.C. 2257 Record-Keeping Requirements Compliance Statement
Epoch Billing Support Log In