What I mean is can you see any female or male regardless of their physical appearance, regardless of lack of a "storyline", regardless of "reaction", regardless of anything but the WAM element being included. (Pies, slime, water, etc). Purely visual, nothing else.

You can call me,

Al

For me, I love seeing a woman pied and messy even if they're just sitting there and taking it, but some story or action makes it even more fun, like Rev Slymsford's 9 Girl Restaurant Pie Fight.

For male content, I need some kind of story or action. A guy just sitting and receiving a mess is OK, but isn't the same for me.

100% visual. Physical appearance is important. As far as story line, I don't care, reactions also, as long as the model seems ok with it. I have zero interest in participation

For me.

Male WAM does nothing for me.

I must 'fancy the woman' and so visual is important.
BUT the backstory, is also key for me.
I prefer men messing women rather than girl/girl WAM.

Perhaps its as much Mental enjoyment as visual.
I need to imagine that i am the one doing the WAMing

The outfit makes or breaks a scene for me.

-JD

Definitely visual, maybe 80 to 90%. The model has to be attractive (and female), has to seem hetero, and there has to be some logic. (Self-pieing usually fails that test.) There is some humiliation factor in it, I'm afraid, which is probably why the sexier and dressier the outfit, the more I get turned on. Finally, if the model is really unhappy, not just pretending to be unhappy like in a TV show, it diminishes my pleasure.

Purely visual, must be an attractive female being messed (or messing me!) and must be dressed sexy. The only vid I that I appreciate that doesn't follow all these rules is the NHP "Pearly Queen" Gunging. While she's not especially attractive, the whole set up of that scene and her laughter is still somehow sexy. Plus the way the blue gunge hits her in the tits at first, surprising her is awesome.

With the right visual, the right pie, the right woman, the right outfit, well, a single still image can stop me in my tracks. The Man and the Wife have some AWESOME pie hits that are almost as great as still images as they are as scenes.

But...almost is the operative word. I'll rather take a good scene over a great image, but I'd take a great image over a mediocre scene.

It has to be the right image, though. Take one of those brilliant pie hits I reference and have some joker take a shitty pixelated photo of his computer screen with his phone and post it to Instagram? No thanks. (It bugs the hell out of me when producers do that for their promo content too...like, stop being lazy and just take a screen clip instead of taking a garbage picture with your phone...but that's another story.)

I really am having trouble separating out the OP's question.

"What I mean is can you see any female or male regardless of their physical appearance, regardless of lack of a "storyline", regardless of "reaction", regardless of anything but the WAM element being included. (Pies, slime, water, etc). Purely visual, nothing else."

They seem to define "purely visual" as meaning JUST the messy element. Model attributes, even visual appear, does not matter according to the OP.

Am I understanding this correctly, Photoslop?

I cannot exclude gender or physical appearance from the visual perception. But other than that it's purely visual for me.

None oif it at all. While I'll happily watch scenes with no storyline, no reaction to the situation would be a total scene-killer, a large part of it is how the person being messed up responds to the sensations and feelings, and that's regardless of whether they are the loser in a gameshow "suffering" a messy forefit, or a full on splosh fetishist totally getting off on having their running pants filled with custard.

Plus physical appearance of the recipients will always also have an impact too. There's no "right" look - some people like super-thin, some people like BB, but most folk will have some kind of preference to who they find attractive and react to.

In order of importance:

Type/quality of mess used
Personality/performance of the model
Filming, production, storyline, all-round "directorship"

If all this is there, the model only has to be female and plain/OK looking for me, and most women of a fairly young age are reasonably attractive. I've definitely watched or downloaded scenes because I liked the appearance of the model, but been disappointed by the scene because one or more of the above weren't right.

Al, I'm still not entirely sure what you were asking, and people are interpreting your question in all different ways. So here goes:

1) Does a great still picture do anything for me? Not anymore. It might've, back in the 90s, when you'd spend 15 minutes downloading a single JPEG from the alt-fetish newsgroup. (Remember that?!?) And you could let your mind race. But even then, and *definitely* now, it's merely a prelude to the real thing. I remember how exciting it was (and still is) to spot some Brazilian model on IG, post-show, with pie cream still in her hair and around her face, and think, "Aw man, I gotta find Show X because she got CREAMED."
But that pic, on its own, with no way to track down the actual video? Huge frustration and not much else. So basically, a picture can't exist in isolation... It has to be the preview of an actual filmed scene. (And of course, sometimes the scene doesn't live up to the pic, but that's an entirely different frustration...)

2) Like every single person who's EVER been on the UMD, of course the model matters: Her look, her smile, her wardrobe... All of it. Anyone who says otherwise is lying. (Same with men, of course, for those into men not women.)

3) That said, the hottest model ever can sit there like a statue and barely react... Or worse, like a hostage victim where you can tell she hates every second... And that scene will go from huge anticipation to total letdown in an instant. Conversely, an "average" model who's bringing her A-game with a great setup, great mess, and perfect reactions (which could be shock, or humiliation, or laughing and enjoyment, depending) is gonna be far more enjoyable.

And of course, the blessing/curse is everyone likes something a little different, so good luck as a producer trying to hit that sweet spot (ahem) where a scene & model presses all the buttons. Even *I* don't know what's gonna work for me sometimes until it actually happens.... which is why, even with my own content, I have specific models and moments that I value WAY more than the public at large.

What I'm trying (poorly maybe) to reference is do people love a single visual of someone being messy WITHOUT regard to their attractiveness to the model, without the clothes on the model without anything else other than a single picture? Does their need to be some/any context?

You can call me,

Al

So, my short answer to your refined question is, no. The attractiveness of the model, the clothes she's wearing, the mess, and more are all important to me.

And, with all due respect to the learned Dr. SStuff, yes I can get turned on by a single still photo. Maybe its because I predate even those alt-fetish newsgroups, going back to a photo in TV Guide or Life. Sometimes my imagination was better than what really happened.

Yes the real thing is better. Usually.

We're definitely all spoilt with the amount of WAM available now.

Nowadays, a picture seems a bit limited, but as a teenager if there was a picture of a woman pied or gunged in a newspaper or magazine the family had left lying around, you can bet that publication would have found its way into my bedroom.

Sorry, but this makes even less sense than the initial question did. Given for me, wam is all about messy clothes being worn by a woman, then it's completely impossible to divorce outfit from wam-response. Or is the question only meant for those who are into nude wam?

I'll answer this with my interpretation of the question. It is more visual than not for me since I don't really care about a story line. But reaction does matter since someone clearly not enjoying it or sitting there stone-faced is kind of a deal breaker for me. My favorite type of video/picture set is of someone that I find attractive simply WAMming themselves with good face coverage because they love doing it. This type of video doesn't seem to be as popular anymore. I still like the highly produced content but I always just really liked the relatable simplicity of someone just messing themselves.

Who I find attractive isn't too particular but I do have some traits that matter a lot to me. So if the model isn't someone that I personally am into, it won't do much for me. Oddly, what outfit they are wearing typically does not matter to me one bit.

So to sum up, I guess while there is a strong visual element, it isn't just the visual of WAM. It doesn't take a whole lot for me to be satisfied but I need a few preferences fulfilled.

Thank you for the additional context.

If I understand you Correctly, you mean does anyone like a picture JUST for messy with NO influence from model, clothes, setting, setup, or anything else but the visual mess from the mess itself?

I think that is going to be a very rare wammer thst will say yes.

It very close to asking if we would like a still pic of mess on a mannequin or something. Some people are probably into that but...

I have to wonder if this is linked to your prolific AI output at all. For most warmers, the enjoyment of the mess includes all sorts of model and scene characteristics, all context that is missing with AI art.

Can I divorce 'pure' WAM from its human context?

WAM, even in real life, is very considerably about the back story for me. So yes, there is a visual element, but the context in which the woman has got messy is actually a key part of the appeal for me - usually a situation which generates a sort of "resigned acceptance" of her messy fate. That situation is very often of my own imagining, whether it's a photo, a video, or even an actual person messy in front of me, but without it, "just the mess" isn't particularly exciting.

It's both, it feels amazing, and considering my eyes are usually glued shut from the mess, visuals aren't necessary. I honestly don't care if there's a story so long as full coverage with non-transparent substances is involved

It's a mix for me. Scenario / context is a big deal for me personally, but if there's a really good visual somewhere that lacks context, I'll often just make up my own in my mind!

A mix for me too - I love the look of it but have to say I love the feel of it tons more

Seeing this thread getting a second life and so I'm giving it a second look...

Being "purely visual" only lasts for a second or two before I start to process what's happening. Almost like the initial reaction to an AI image. I go, "Wow, that's great" when I start to take the image in totality, and then I start to actively process what I'm seeing and get inquisitive about it, and I see the way an arm bends at an awkward angle, the strange sheen to the textures, etc.

Some general WAM images are like that. There might be a moment of pure WOW, regardless of who is the subject to the mess. There are some producers here who produce male model content, which is not my thing, but their pie quality is excellent. I see a thumbnail of an AWESOME hit and go, "Wow, that looks amazing," and then as I start to look more, I start to put the pieces together little by little and realize the scene isn't really for me after all.

So, can WAM be purely visual? Only in the brief initial impression of a scene. Once I start getting drawn in, there need to be other boxes that are checked.

well for me big into slow motion of wam and way look after when watch it back and how messy can go over place and how amazing it is !

Been waiting to see where this goes, so I'll put my interpretations below:


Interpret: "Can I fall in love with (or at least greatly enjoy) a WAM picture without knowing the model's personality / screen persona / acting career / mannerisms / backstory, etc?"

Sure. For me, the synth/AI stuff coming out proves that. I enjoy quite a few of the AI photos - actually both on a technical level, as well as a WAM level.

Specifically on 'visual' attractiveness of the model? Well, that is a pretty wide spectrum. I'd say I find quite a wide array of girls...and people...lol...attractive. And lots of times, being splattered with a little mud bumps that attractiveness up a few notches more. But there is some limit out there where I'd have to say, "Meh - just not attracted to this one."

Interestingly one place I sort of have a 'line' (and which will be at odds with a great many on here) is the 'thick pie in the face' / huge glob of WAM obscuring any facial features. I know some think it's great, but for me it's a turn-off to see a cute face and three seconds in, blammo! totally obscured into a faceless blob monster. Might as well be a balloon on a stick.


Interpret: "Does there need to be any back story as to where she is, or why she is wearing what she is, or why she is in the WAM situation?

No, not for me. Though, obviously the scene or image should be somewhat guide in figuring that out or offer some continuity. Girl in a bathing suit in a mud hole... she just wants to play in the mud and came prepared. Girl in athletic gear on a muddy field... game got rained on, but they kept playing. Voith's messy maids... obviously got into cleaning a little deeper than they intended! Girl in sweatpants, covered in mud at a black tie dinner... well, not really sure, there?!?!


I tend to say, yes - there needs to be some context. But as above, that can be communicated through the image / scene. It doesn't necessarily need to be a written/video/audio narration of an actual backstory. Give me a few bits of visual queue and my imagination can fill in the rest.


As far as "Is WAM purely visual for me?" - Overall, I'd have to say it varies a lot. Definitely a lot more 'visual' during the winter when it's so dang cold, but becomes a lot more tactile during the late spring, summer and early fall when I can't wait to go out for a nice slippery sinking trip to all my favorite mud holes!