Anybody not into WAM?

[notexactlyaguest]

I've seen parallels with quicksand fetish community and WAM. No offense to any WAM folks but I'm personally not into it.

I just like quicksand peril, seeing gals in danger and unable to escape. Am I the only one here?

[dlodoski]

I've seen parallels with quicksand fetish community and WAM. No offense to any WAM folks but I'm personally not into it.

I just like seeing gals in danger and unable to escape. Am I the only one here?

I never imagined seeing this juxtaposed like this. The Quicksand Fetish/Kink is considered an offshoot of WAM, not the other way around.

The fact that there is so much more WAM content out there means that we have pretty much a zero tolerance for anything off-topic here. If we let any 'mud' stuff on here, the floodgates would be open.

So, don't worry. This place is Quicksand Only.

[Fred588]

I've seen parallels with quicksand fetish community and WAM. No offense to any WAM folks but I'm personally not into it.

I just like seeing gals in danger and unable to escape. Am I the only one here?

I do not understand your question. If you are asking if there is anyone here who is only interested in quicksand peril, then the answer should be very obvious, as that is the main, if not only, point of the forum. Perhaps you could clarify.

[notexactlyaguest]

Yeah, I'm asking if anybody else on this forum is just into quicksand peril.

Though, I find both responses to be strangely interesting as it feels like they both contradict each other. I guess sinking in quicksand attracts both WAM and peril crowds but maybe those who are not into both (like me).

[dlodoski]

Yeah, I'm asking if anybody else on this forum is just into quicksand peril.

That's better.

Too early in the morning for salad. What you're asking about is commonly referred to as 'cross-over', such as, "Anyone here cross over into other kinds of WAM? (because I don't)"

[Fred588]

Yeah, I'm asking if anybody else on this forum is just into quicksand peril.

Though, I find both responses to be strangely interesting as it feels like they both contradict each other. I guess sinking in quicksand attracts both WAM and peril crowds but maybe those who are not into both (like me).

I have oftensaid there are two kinds of people when it comes to admitting a fetish, kink, turn-on, etc. Those who will are called those who will admit,...// The others are called liars. That is my personal opinion, of course, and I could be wrong. That said, there are all sorts of crossovers and boundaries. I have met many people who are into quicksand, but only from the point of view of going into mud themselves. Others are only interested in watching others,live, on film, in stories, or in artwork. I would all those things boundaries. I have also met many people interested in quicksand, to the extent of visiting my Studio, who are also interested in bondage, WAM, pony play, and all manner of other things.

A conversation occured in my car a number of years ago, among myself, two actresses, and a crewman, on a trip from the airport to my Studio, in which we all finally agreed that EVERYTHING is a fetish, kink, tun-on, etc. for someone.

From the point of view of an online forum, however, I think Dave is correct there need to be boundaries.

[Vandercat]

I can sympathize with the lack of interest in WAM. I don't hate the messy part of sinking/quicksand, but I can say that it doesn't really interesting me in the slightest. I enjoy watching someone sink into something squishy and soft, the slow descent, the sounds, the reactions of the person sinking, those things are what push my buttons. Seeing the character slowly disappearing is what is fun to me, seeing them covered in mud or sand doesn't really do anything for me.

I would say roughly ~60% of QS kinksters enjoy the messy aspect of sinking, some of the most popular QS content usually involves an attractive person getting covered as they sink, usually naked, rather than just the sinking itself. I definitely feel like the odd one not really liking WAM sometimes.

[ghostofmyeyes]

Yes, that's me. I don't consider my quicksand fetish to be a "subset of WAM" because the wetness and the mess are merely incidental to what I really like: the danger and primal fear of slowly sinking into something that traps you the more, the more you try to escape, until you run out of time and disappear. I have never been turned on by wetness and messiness of themselves, but only insofar as a wet and thick appearance makes quicksand look more dangerous and inescapable. Also I tend to like imagining quicksand as a 'pure', more-or-less sterile substance as opposed to something unhygienic that might be classified as a 'mess'.

In fact it bothers me when people write "quicksand" stories in which the only thing at stake is that the girl fears being judged for getting turned on by wallowing in mud, and there isn't any actual danger of sinking to her doom. I wish such creators would use a different word so I would know to skip them, kind of like how in the vore community they have the "safe_vore" tag for works in which characters get taken inside a body without any threat of being digested or absorbed. I reckon "deep mud" captures the potential sensation of sinking, without implying deadly danger the way "quicksand", with all its associated folklore, does.

Ideally, the kind of sink I want to see doesn't involve an inch of the body being relinquished by the quicksand once it slips under - a one-way trip into the depths of the soft yet stubborn substance. Significant coverage above the quicksand's surface can be, to me, evidence of quicksand slacking on the job, failing to keep what it has taken.

Another angle is that I find a sink heightened when both victim and pit are unspoilt beforehand - the quicksand's surface unmarked and undisturbed, and the victim generally unmuddied, until the irreversible interaction has begun. But like I said, I don't respect quicksand that allows its victims to even partially resurface without some leverage or external help, so that leaves little room for WAM. If an escape or rescue should be effected, the mud on the body does nothing for me one way or the other. The interesting part, the peril, is already done with.

That said, I do like to imagine victims discovering they have the same crossed wire I do, chagrined to find themselves getting more turned on the more dire their situation gets, and then finding the quicksand's unsparing touch quite vexingly sexually stimulating once it reaches certain spots. But crucially, the sinking, amorphous entrapment, and danger are what make the body receptive to the texture, caresses, suction, etc. never the other way around.

[cbqdbq]

The messy appearance doesn't really matter to me - it can be or not be. What I most find appealing is the person sinking, especially if they go out of sight. Especially to watch the stuff close up over the person. (And if live acting rather than AI, to be assured the actor is rescued.)

For me, to watch such videos is the substitute for getting to do it myself, which I have never been able to do and will not ever be able to do, despite an interest in experiencing it for myself. I like to imagine the fantasy beyond just sinking to my neck, lingering with the stuff pressed against my skin, then getting out, or going under then getting out - and the fantasy that I imagine is to sink down and be swallowed by quicksand, never to be seen again.