Intolerant attitudes in Splosh/WAM

[messyanthony]

It retarded that someone would judge one of our own. Im personally not into CDs of TVs but they are not hurting anyone... they have just as much right to enjoy the fetish as everyone else. Im sorry guys... thats pretty lame that people give you shit. Id say more so u guys a get what its about... putting a pretty dress and ruining it. You know what they say about phobic people like that... its something worried they will like. People are idiots... i dont get how they can be so closed minded sometimes.

[jonn]

I have no objection to anyone wether they WAM crossdressed or any other way they feel they want to. This is not open minded at all to say that

[Lizzie_Claymore]

Well sparx, I think many of the points you make would stack up were it not for the fact that, as Mike pointed out, his group description is:

"This is a group for WAM (Wet and Messy) fans. From fully-clothed mud to dunk tanks to pie fights to Nickelodeon slime baths... getting wet and messy is not only fun to do, it's something we live by!"

Notice that it doesn't say "This is a group for WAM (Wet and Messy) fans but only those who don't engage in crossdressing or anything else that *I* deem to be unacceptable" In other words, he is putting it on himself to present the impression that this behaviour and attitude is all there is and that nobody disagrees.

It's also interesting to note that he's already changed that in the last couple of hours. It used to say "No matter what your WAM background or desire may be in, from fully-clothed mud to Nickelodeon slime baths, its all here for you!" ... which it clearly isn't (or, rather, wasn't).

>Remember, the right to free speech requires that you will hear some you don't like

...er...yes, I think that's the point I'm making! He needs to expect to hear about some things that he doesn't like. We call that free speech. That's not the same as people *not* being able to hear the things that they *do* like. We call that censorship. Strangely enough, the two are diametrically opposite!

[Mike Nomic]

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.

Many traditional Scots wear kilts, thus wamming in one would not be cross-dressing. Surely to then say that other males can not do it in a skirt is racial prejudice.

Mike.

[Lizzie_Claymore]

Interesting point, Mike.

That also reminds me of an old Willie Rushton joke: "When in Scotland, remember that a gents toilet is denoted by a man wearing a kilt!"

[sparx104]

True, I missed the bit about the group topic, it should be changed so it's obvious that certain content is blocked.

However - censorship within one group of many is not censorship in a "dangerous" sense - should schools allow porn? should there be no "kids only" moderated groups? Restrictions on content and its management are perfectly valid, *as long as* there are alternative means to acquire the information or materials - a school may restrict access to the internet but is not infringing on free speech - there are alternative ways to access it, China restricts the internet so certain material is inaccessible - local censorship is acceptable (as long as it is not promoted as not being there - hence the group's topic should be changed), "hidden" or global censorship affects free speech. I also don't know how facebook's post removal works - does it show a message to indicate it's been removed? If not then removal without the topic being changed could be considered an issue in some ways.

And, if we're assuming that everyone should be able to do what they want (within reason - ie. doesn't affect another) why should he not be able to set whatever rules he wants? It may be bigoted or blinkered but why should X's view override Y's if it's not "hurting" anyone? Either everyone is equal or some are more "powerful" than others, and how do you decide who's right/more "powerful"? Problems that way lie...

And I'll not start on the overuse of the term "racial prejudice".

Please note, I'm not "attacking" anyone here, this is just an intellectual exercise. Personally I think he should just change the group's topic and that he is a narrow-minded fool if he can't accept TV's, CD's or any other type of person.

[Lizzie_Claymore]

Personally I think he should just change the group's topic and that he is a narrow-minded fool if he can't accept TV's, CD's or any other type of person.

I think that just about wraps it up nicely!

[messyamature]

im known by a few as one who practises 'gross' wam. apparently thats ok, as long as its within his remit.
forgive me for being stupid....
WAM... wet and messy...
if its wet and messy, and not hurting or offending, the little off button usually gets rid of offending articles...
whats the bloody problem. live and let live, or, live and join in, or dont bloody watch.
it would seem there are so many ways round his issues, i dont understand why he's making such a big deal.
maybe he's just a closet cd, whats the phrase, methinks the lady doth protest too much.
im rambling now, sorry.