I like all things WAM, but my main interest is mud. I see all sorts of solo female videos (and solo male, but I'm not into that) with girls doing just about everything in mud - masturbating, nude wrestling, lesbian erotica, etc. Those are awesome! However, I'd like to see a lot more mud sex - literally just straight up a man and woman having sex, just like in any regular porn video, just in the mud. However, those seem to be somewhat few and far between. Plus, many of the few that exist have super bad resolution so you lose a lot of detail. Why is this? Am I just an outlier in my interests?

I've honestly thought about finding a willing woman and go make my own videos like this, and even include a scene of sex in the shower afterwards.

Won't the mud be abrasive if that was actually tried though? Like the dick would push mud deep into the pussy or something?
Like the female solo mud scenes they use vibrator or hands. Never an inserted thing.

Nah, it's fine (if smooth clay) vaginas are self cleaning and clay is really inert - also very clean especially if freshly made

Plus the natural lubrication tends to mean not much makes it actually inside

Whole long form article - focuses on mainly sweet stuff and irritation, but applies to any WAM https://www.spotlesssploshing.com/post/vaginas-wam-how-to-have-fun-while-avoiding-infections-irritation-more

As for the OP's question...

Probably because hiring models that do hardcore sex levels is incredibly expensive, eg my messy hardcore BG scene cost £1500 to make.

and amateurs, like couples who wam together, usually one or both of them don't really want to be on film or show their faces.

I actually got to shoot some "playing with toys, including insertions, stark naked in the mud" scenes for a visiting model last summer, which was way beyond anything I'd ever done before - we traded, she did some awesome fully clothed scenes for me in exchange for me filming her own solo kinky stuff. It was a very interesting challenge to shoot though from a technical filming POV not actually that different to my own work, no clothing but still the primary emphasis being to keep the money-shots in view, no idiotic zooming or panning, etc. It also gave me the fright of my life when a sheep suddenly coughed at the edge of the field just behind us mid-scene, sounded exactly like a large bloke's cough! Baa!

But there's certainly no way I could ever have afforded to pay someone sensible rates to do that, and paying two people willing to have actual sex would be even more expensive, as Candy said above. Basically for a scene like that to happen you need a) a producer who wants to shoot mud xxx, b) two full-xxx willing models who want to do it, c) a suitably secluded location, d) a lot of cash. You'd probably also need extra people for security, etc, esp if planning to do such shoots regularly.

To put it simply, what you are asking for is way too expensive and impossible to do. How dare you come up with such silly ideas, why cant you just enjoy what is on the market now.

Well it sounds like what's on the market now isn't covering what they want to see, which is a fair enough reason to ask the question. It being easier and cheaper to shoot clothed wam doesn't mean no-one should like naked or xxx, the problems are just with the practicalities.

TBH the long term solution to this is probably AI wam. Primitive and early days at the moment but within not very long - probably less than ten years - it'll be possible to generate AI content that's indistinguishable from human-made, and the porn industry does tend to lead the way in new technology, it was a major driver of the VHS revolution, not to mention sales of camcorders. And once fully-convincing virtual WAM is possible all the cost and complexity problems of shooting with real humans in real mud will go away.

Forget sex, how about more coed mud scenes for a start?

I have a mixed opinion about this.

On one hand, I frequently post links to a theoretical WAM outfit picture and 90% of the time, it's some mom blogger in a dress that you can't buy anymore. Heck, I'm surprised that Amazon still has Chevron maxi dresses on their site. If I'm being totally honest, the only time I ever saw someone in one of those was my friend's mom at our graduation in 2017, and before that was at church in like 2014. But that's beside the point.

It'll be nice when the time comes where I can input a link to a photo and it'll generate a scene of that outfit getting messed up to the max.

On the other hand, and I don't know how much of a profit is involved with customs, but I will feel bad I'm denying a model the chance to throw on a dress and a Jean jacket and go roll around in the mud or something (obviously much more to it than that but still).

As far as sex in the mud goes, this is the ultimate scene for me, shot on the banks of the River Severn: https://wsmprod.com/show_store_xxx.php?prod=XXX031&cur=gbp

Considering it was filmed 23 years ago, the quality is still quite good.

And with one snealy random photo you took on your phone of a stranger you fancied at the grocery store and you can make thousands of fetish photos and post them all over the internet!!!

Yeah, there are going to be a LOT of issues, legal and moral with AI generated images in the very near future.

Couple this with audio technology we have now that lets you make famous people say anything you want them to even with emotional inflection, and we're going WISH for the days of the "fake news" of the 2010s.

Very expensive to make, but I have made some:

https://umd.net/download_info/mud_fuck

https://umd.net/download_info/vika--filthy--part-1

https://umd.net/download_info/mud-sweat-and-fucking

https://umd.net/download_info/texas_heat_part_1_3

https://umd.net/download_info/hard_hat_hump

Phil

Oh yeah, absolutely. Don't get me wrong, I've posted a fair bit about it and generated loads of images, but I'm not cheerleading for AI, rather I can see what's coming and that trying to oppose it is like trying to hold back the tide.

I'm the stage-coach driver watching that gawky little early steam engine huffing it's line of coal wagons along at not much more than walking pace, all my passengers and fellow coachmen are saying "very clever for the mines, but it'll never replace the horse on the road" - and I'm thinking "Ok, that's primitive and slow and complicated to drive, but it'll never get tired, never get lame, go on forever as long as there's someone to shovel the coal into it's belly. And the people who made that are clever. The next one will be bigger, faster, smoother, easier to operate, and before my guffawing fellows here know what's happened, there'll be steam trains criss-crossing the country at a mile a minute, and all of our much-vaunted coach-horses will be naught but dogfood."

There's a revolution coming. All any of us can do is get on, or get out of the way.

For all the questions like this, there is an easy answer. Because you don't order the custom from a producer. I am sure the producers can tell you how much customs can bring them into new types of WAM. I am almost positive the reason Messygirl started doing the Human Garbage Disposal was because of the custom. They try it and see if it sells. If it sells they keeps doing it. Want to change the way WAM is done, use your wallet.

And if you are an artist basically plan your funeral.

TBH that is a factor. As you say, HGD was entirely custom-driven by Scroggle. And it has had an impact, TBH I'm tempted to do a fully clothed version of it. And our rainwear scenes were entirely the result of custom orders initially. Looking back now it's obvious that there's a lot of commanity, looks-wise, between girls in boilersuits and girls in rainsuits, but it wasn't a connection I'd made until a customer ordered the original "Rainwear Mess Test", which went on to make sales. Like boilersuits, not mass-market and I'm not going to be retiring on the proceeds, but also not as "only one person in the world will like this" as might be assumed at first.


I'm not so sure. A hundred years ago people thought photography would exterminate artists, but it didn't, and then later that cimema would kill theatre, and that didn't either.

AI art is fun to play with, and you can create some gorgeous things, but there still isn't that level of inspiration and actual creativity you get in genuine human-made art.

Porn is fairly straightforward, you produce an image of the thing that turns the viewer on, whether that's naked people having sex or a woman in jodhpurs sitting on a gateaux. While we all like to think we're being creative, in reality erotica, like generic pop music, is fairly mechanical in terms of what you need to do to achieve the desired effect. Which is why I believe AI porn has a bright future and will eventually replace human-made at all bar the very highest levels.

Actual fine art on the other hand, paintings that inspire and delight and set off entire scenes and stories in the mind of the viewer, those are a very different level of creativity. AI might reproduce them, but is unable to be able to create entirely new ones to the level of a skilled human artist.

There will be change. The advent of recorded music saw the end of many small local orchestras, leaving us instead with fewer, but spectacularly good ones, like the Wiener Philharmoniker and the London Symphony Orchestra, which many more people can now listen to via recordings. But there are still musicians and instrument makers.

TBH my day job includes coding. Something else that will probably be largely replaced by AI. Change comes for us all eventually.

I wonder if it's also because most of the demand for WAM content featuring men is coming from gay men, and the population of men actively featuring in WAM video also tends more towards the gay side? So there may not be such a big pool of models to choose from.

They've been teasing AI sex (calling it "VR" at the time) all the way back in the 90s. Dennis Miller (pre-crazy) had a bit about it in one of his stand-up specials.

AI "art" might get a little nicer, but you can't AI creativity or soul. Now if you're absolutely hurting for content, you might be able to squint and tell yourself AI generated WAM is as good as the real thing. But it's still going to suck. The Star Trek holodeck ain't walking through that door.

Not to be mean, but the more I hear these "futurists" talk the more I think they just want sex without developing people skills and artistic acclaim without developing creative talent.

This is an interesting take to hear from someone who has been producing WAM for as long as you have. Like anything else, the results depend on how much you put into it. In pop music, you can be Rebecca Black or you can be The Beatles. If you think the apex of your work can be overtaken by AI then you get the fate you get.


I've never seen anyone gatekeep themselves on the outside of the gate. Are we forgetting that a lot of "fine art" was just long-dead horny dudes putting down their vision of the ideal female form? Maybe the only thing separating WAM from fine art is a couple of centuries of academic study.

I'm not here to pump up other people's work if they don't want to pump up themselves. But on behalf of all people who put their heart into whatever they do--be it videos of ladies getting messy or hand-painted landscape portraiture or just their famous Sunday Morning Pancakes recipe--may I offer a hearty (and ironic, I know) "speak for yourself."