The Splosh UK Forum

Hi all,

I'm a member of The Wet and Messy Group on FaceBook (previously known as Fans of the UMD.Net). I can see that quite a number of you are too. Their admin recently sent a note about the name change, which ended with the line “No crossdressing or T.V. wam, please.”

This prompted me to go and look at the group page for the first time in ages and I spotted a post from the admin on the group’s wall on 3rd March which ended “This includes not posting cross dressing pictures, because CDing and WAM do NOT belong together. Thanks JM - GroupAdmin.”

It’s precisely this kind of transphobic bigotry that’s caused so many of us to abandon UMD to the much more fun, friendly and open-minded splosh pages here, instead.

Although I crossdress, myself, I am straight and prefer to see women but I don’t jump up and down and scream about it if I happen to see someone who isn’t. I just move on. However, this guy seems to think he has the right to ban anything that upsets his delicate sensibilities so that he won’t have to believe that it exists. (Perhaps he's scared of it because he secretly wants to do it but hasn't got the guts?)

As I’ve pointed out in a reply to that wall post, there are those who might not be looking for women (most likely to be other women!) but they don’t demand that only shots to their taste are to be posted.

Why do we put up with this ludicrous lack of acceptance in what is, after all, a fetish group?

For those of you who are members of that group, I would appreciate your support in adding to the replies on that post in the hope that it lets people see that intolerance is NOT the way forward.

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=5 ... 081&v=wall

Kind regards (and keep it messy, fun ... and tolerant!),
C_W.

I'm not on Faecesbook, but I just had a look at the link above.

Under the box on the left where the bit about no CD wam appears, is another box giving category, etc details.

I quote 'No matter what your WAM background or desire may be in, from fully-clothed mud to Nickelodeon slime baths, its all here for you!'

I smell buuuuuuuuullllshhhiiiiit!!

Either it's for everyone, or it ain't. That sort of rabid intolerance will only serve to lose them members or split our little community into factions, as umd have already found.

I hate intolerance! Kill the warmongers! Smash violence! Come here Saturday, man, we're having a peace riot!!

Mike.

Well I think CD and WAM go together spectacularly well. I love it.

I don't have a WAM related facebook account otherwise would definitely add my support

xxx

I'm not a CD but I think you have as much right as anyone to get involved in WAM. Don't give this prick the satisfaction of being bullied off the site.

I'm not a member of that particular group and if thats their attitude I have no intention of joining it. There are several other splosh orientated groups on facebook so if everybody left that one it would let this 'little hitler' stew in his own juice

“This includes not posting cross dressing pictures, because CDing and WAM do NOT belong together. Thanks JM - GroupAdmin.”

Thinking about this logically, the very fact that someone is seeking to ban these pictures means that they exist, and that therefore, for a number of people and potential group members, they do go together. The Group Admin's view is thus entirely subjective, the product of his (or her) own personal prejudice, and at odds with the tastes of a number of perfectly entitled Sploshers.

I can see this group dying on its ass, or getting a new GA and a change of attitude.

Mike.

I'm very naive about these things but does a woman dressed in male clothes count as cross dressing?

Also there is a word in fashion in UK at the moment and if the outgoing Prime Minister can use it so can I. That JM person is a BIGOT!

As Richard says there are plenty of other messy pages on Facebook under WAM, splosh and sploshing, as well as my Bill Shipton page where I quite a few messy pictures as well as silly stories from the pub (where I'm off to now!). My page mixes sploshers, non-sploshers, models, CDs and straight dressers and they all get on fine! All I ask is that you don't assume every woman I know wants to see your cock covered in custard!

All good points, well made. I totally agree with Bill's last point, though the first issue on which I hooked him was the fact that there are often people who will actually want to see something other than women so who is he to decide.

His recent reply has only condemned his views even further, with references to "this is America.. it's a free country, but it's something I don't want to see and frankly, I find it disgusting" - Falls into the "How to win friends and influence people - NOT" category! He also refers to "...homosexual antics..." thus demonstrating not only illogical and irrational prejudice but also a staggering lack of grasp of the situation, since the vast majority of crossdressers are, as we know, straight. What attitude he would take towards those who might be gay sploshers we can probably imagine. Yes - that word 'bigot' seems most appropriate.

Yes, there are many splosh-type groups on facebook (and I'm sure I'm on some of them) but this just made my blood boil (a rarity for me), as you can probably tell but failing to speak out on this is merely to allow it to be propagated.

Your support is appreciated, folks. If those of you who can post on that group could do so too, it would help to get the message across. Miss T is doing a grand job there but, so far, it's just the two of us.

Mike Nomic wrote:Under the box on the left where the bit about no CD wam appears, is another box giving category, etc details.

I quote 'No matter what your WAM background or desire may be in, from fully-clothed mud to Nickelodeon slime baths, its all here for you!'
Mike.

That bit's still there but he's already changed the rules, Mike. New rules now read:
No non-WAM Spam. Please keep links/photos relevant to wam
• Absolutely NO Bodily fluid/excrement WAM (yuck)
• No harassing other group members
• No nudity (at least obvious nudity)

The third one is presumably in preparation to boot me off by saying that I've been harassing him with my replies.

Claymore_wam wrote:His recent reply has only condemned his views even further, with references to "this is America.. it's a free country, but it's something I don't want to see and frankly, I find it disgusting"

Or ... it's a free country, subject to everybody agreeing with me.

This is America - is it, or is it the internet?

Mike.

Yes, exactly! It seems that he's starting to realise that logic is not on his side, in his latest reply. However, he's now talking about deleting the post, thus disguising the ability of logic to defeat such attitudes and, consequently, allowing them to continue to be promulgated.

What's almost as astonishing is that I've had a reply from a female wammer saying "quit complaining - it's his group". Sheesh! Talk about missing the point! It's a shame there isn't an intelligence test before you can use the internet! We might not have this problem in the first place if that were the case.

C_W.

This issue sounds a bit American, or umd-ish to me. The well known tunnel vision. The direction they look is the only right and accepteble direction. Don't want to offend people personaly, but I think their bigness is getting between their ears to much. Ofcourse, you like it or not, but don't make such a religious statement out of it...

Calling a group 'For male wam' or 'dedicated to female wammers' sounds a bit nicer then NOT for tv's, cd's etc.

I am a woman and I quite often wear trousers. They're a traditionally male clothing item.
Can I not join then? Or post pictures?

The only "problem" I have is that some you buggers are damn convincing when dressed up - I have to look very closely LOL...

Whilst I have no problems with TV's, CD's or anyone for that matter I will play devil's advocate here (just for the sake of it). As mentioned, it is his group so in all honesty he is entitled to do/say/require what he wants. Remember, the right to free speech requires that you will hear some you don't like - "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. [Voltaire]" - you do not have a right to not be insulted. Of course, it's also your right to criticise his stance, but you have no right to force him to change it.

This is where most of society fails wrt to "discrimination". If there was only one Facebook group on the subject and you were blocked from joining it because of some arbitrary, discriminatory rule then that would be wrong - he would be infringing on your right to free speech by blocking your access. Same would apply (but to a lesser degree) if the cost (not just financially) of setting up a new group etc. was high

However, as said, there's more than that one group and you could even start your own. Therefore you can easily exercise your right to free speech by doing that. You could even start a "XX's group sucks" group or a group *just* for TV's, CD's.

Of course, him silencing dissent causes problems but it's also perfectly within his right to free speech to do that, as it's perfectly within your rights to continually post the same message every time he deletes it or to start a group to say it which he is unable to silence, from where you can delete what you like.

I don't agree with many people (David Irving, Gordon Brown, most of the BBC, vegetarians etc) but he's got every right to say what he wants as long as he doesn't *force* others to adhere to that view - people are free to believe what they want - they should also be able to say what they want - again, as long as it's not forced on others or restricts them without alternatives.

And yes, technically women wearing trousers used to be cross dressing (but isn't considered as such now) - the definition tends to be along the lines of "a gender wearing clothing usually associated with that of the other gender" - it's no longer "unusual" to see women in trousers so it fails on the "usual" part.

Edit: sorry if this is a bit "lecture-y", I tend to have problems with that...