Jump to content
Existing user? Sign In

Sign In



Sign Up

female A lot of women wet her pants in public for "art"


Guest holaa

Recommended Posts

Everything else aside, I have just one burning question.

How in the hell did anyone male or female get that many women to stand there and pee there pants in public??  The scene is a wet dream for a lot of us, hell I couldn't get one girl to pee much less that many.  Must have been some money involved somehow.  I tried googling more about this chick but I come up with nothing, anyone else have leads?

 

 

Link to comment
  • Replies 108
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Honestly, I expect that the portion of your country's budget that goes to "art" is a rounding error. I'm not going to presume to tell you what your country's problems are, but I will presume to tell y

A Pleasure! Mijar nas calças é arte- E se for pago com dinheiro publico-.mp4

Posted Images

54 minutes ago, szledziwski said:

Agreed. The premise behind these videos could just as well be the "plot" to a JAV.

I don't know what they could do in terms of story with such a simple premise, but tell me what you think they'd do. All I can imagine is some cheesy story involving past histories with Omorashi that ends with all of them pissing themselves in one room because Dora invited them.

Edited by Cookie V.3 (see edit history)
Link to comment
18 hours ago, Cookie V.3 said:

I don't know what they could do in terms of story with such a simple premise, but tell me what you think they'd do. All I can imagine is some cheesy story involving past histories with Omorashi that ends with all of them pissing themselves in one room because Dora invited them.

There's no need to imagine any cheesy plot. It's not like the appeal of JAV is driven by complex and riveting storytelling. The premise would be identical to Dora's videos: a group of women get together to wet themselves for some bizarre performance art project. At the most, maybe the girls could be spiced up with a bit of character (their individual motivations for doing something so strange could be explored. Later, some might feel shy, have second thoughts, or for some other reason have difficulty releasing their bladders).

Edited by szledziwski (see edit history)
Link to comment
2 hours ago, szledziwski said:

There's no need to imagine any cheesy plot. It's not like the appeal of JAV is driven by complex and riveting storytelling. The premise would be identical to Dora's videos: a group of women get together to wet themselves for some bizarre performance art project. At the most, maybe the girls could be spiced up with a bit of character (their individual motivations for doing something so strange could be explored. Later, some might feel shy, have second thoughts, or for some other reason have difficulty releasing their bladders).

Yeah, that was more of an assumption than anything. Never heard of this JAV stuff before. If there is some sort of character stuff here then my opinion on it might change.

Edited by Cookie V.3 (see edit history)
Link to comment
On 7/21/2017 at 5:04 PM, Cookie V.3 said:

For everybody saying this is not art (or saying it is!), this is a complicated question that has engulfed the art world as well as music, literature, poetry, dance—any art form you can think of—for the better part of two centuries. The phrase that comes back over and over again, such as at the beginning of this article, is "I could do that." The proper response to this statement is always:

Sure you could. But you didn't.

For reference, here is a video that addresses this question: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67EKAIY43kg (I've embedded it below)

So let's talk about this performance as art. There's actually a lot going on here! First, most people will look at this differently than we do, because they don't derive sexual excitement from people wetting themselves. The first thing an average museum goer might think is, ew. So what do we learn from that reaction? Well, what do we normally expect from a group of women lined up in a row? Perhaps that they'll dance for us? or sing? or that they'll simply present themselves for the viewing pleasure of a man or group of men. So this performance has taken the expectations we have for women and turned it on its head. These are women on display, and yet when they give their performance, the response of most people will not be titillation or pleasure, it will be ew.

Sorry, did somebody say this wasn't feminist?

Of course that reaction also begs us to consider the women who are performing. It takes considerable bravery to stand up in public and do something, knowing that most people will respond with disgust; something that is viewed as intensely private, something that must count among the most embarrassing memories for anyone who has ever done it. It also takes bravery to go on stage and perform a concerto or dance a ballet. Perhaps this piece says something essential about performance—the courage involved, the fear of rejection.

Now, it's quite apparent that the women were chosen to be diverse. They're different ages, shapes, sizes, and races. Yet their essential nature is the same. On the inside, they have the same biological processes as anyone else, and urinating is an outward signifier of that fact. The piss mingles together on the ground, forming one big puddle. Does that symbolize female solidarity? Or perhaps it says something about ecology. After all, nearly any time anyone urinates, it gets flushed down into a sewer to join and mingle with everyone else's piss. This has taken that process and brought it into the open.

Then of course there's the fact that the women walk away from their puddles one by one as they finish. What does it mean? I can think of a few different things. Can't you?

And of course we haven't talked about the pure aesthetics of it—the trickles and pools and puddles, the patterns appearing on the clothing. There's a strain of art that is interested in incidental patterns that result from a process, rather than starting with an end goal in mind. Pollock did it with paint, this artist does it with pee.

Some of you have pointed out that there isn't a clear message here, but that's not a requirement for something to be art. In fact, if there's a clear, unambiguous message that is the death of art. Art is in the questions, and the spaces between the questions and the meanings. Art resists a single interpretation. It allows continued and repeated engagement. And on that count this is absolutely and unquestionably art.

Also, finally, the argument of the article posted above essentially boils down to this: art = curation. If curators have chosen it and arranged it, then it's art. I'm not sure I agree with that argument, but this certainly was curated, so I wouldn't use that article to try to argue that this wasn't art.

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, kochel428 said:

For everybody saying this is not art (or saying it is!), this is a complicated question that has engulfed the art world as well as music, literature, poetry, dance—any art form you can think of—for the better part of two centuries. The phrase that comes back over and over again, such as at the beginning of this article, is "I could do that." The proper response to this statement is always:

Sure you could. But you didn't.

For reference, here is a video that addresses this question: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67EKAIY43kg (I've embedded it below)

So let's talk about this performance as art. There's actually a lot going on here! First, most people will look at this differently than we do, because they don't derive sexual excitement from people wetting themselves. The first thing an average museum goer might think is, ew. So what do we learn from that reaction? Well, what do we normally expect from a group of women lined up in a row? Perhaps that they'll dance for us? or sing? or that they'll simply present themselves for the viewing pleasure of a man or group of men. So this performance has taken the expectations we have for women and turned it on its head. These are women on display, and yet when they give their performance, the response of most people will not be titillation or pleasure, it will be ew.

Sorry, did somebody say this wasn't feminist?

Of course that reaction also begs us to consider the women who are performing. It takes considerable bravery to stand up in public and do something, knowing that most people will respond with disgust; something that is viewed as intensely private, something that must count among the most embarrassing memories for anyone who has ever done it. It also takes bravery to go on stage and perform a concerto or dance a ballet. Perhaps this piece says something essential about performance—the courage involved, the fear of rejection.

Now, it's quite apparent that the women were chosen to be diverse. They're different ages, shapes, sizes, and races. Yet their essential nature is the same. On the inside, they have the same biological processes as anyone else, and urinating is an outward signifier of that fact. The piss mingles together on the ground, forming one big puddle. Does that symbolize female solidarity? Or perhaps it says something about ecology. After all, nearly any time anyone urinates, it gets flushed down into a sewer to join and mingle with everyone else's piss. This has taken that process and brought it into the open.

Then of course there's the fact that the women walk away from their puddles one by one as they finish. What does it mean? I can think of a few different things. Can't you?

And of course we haven't talked about the pure aesthetics of it—the trickles and pools and puddles, the patterns appearing on the clothing. There's a strain of art that is interested in incidental patterns that result from a process, rather than starting with an end goal in mind. Pollock did it with paint, this artist does it with pee.

Some of you have pointed out that there isn't a clear message here, but that's not a requirement for something to be art. In fact, if there's a clear, unambiguous message that is the death of art. Art is in the questions, and the spaces between the questions and the meanings. Art resists a single interpretation. It allows continued and repeated engagement. And on that count this is absolutely and unquestionably art.

Also, finally, the argument of the article posted above essentially boils down to this: art = curation. If curators have chosen it and arranged it, then it's art. I'm not sure I agree with that argument, but this certainly was curated, so I wouldn't use that article to try to argue that this wasn't art.

 

 What I was more thinking of when I said meaning was questions, or if it really made me think, why I said "meaning", I have no clue. That, of course, sounds like an excuse to save face, but think of that what you will. As for your interpretation, beautifully done, wish I could've thought of it myself. I'd say that it's art now, even if I'm not really into it.

Edited by Cookie V.3 (see edit history)
Link to comment
3 hours ago, Cookie V.3 said:

 What I was more thinking of when I said meaning was questions, or if it really made me think, why I said "meaning", I have no clue. That, of course, sounds like an excuse to save face, but think of that what you will. As for your interpretation, beautifully done, wish I could've thought of it myself. I'd say that it's art now, even if I'm not really into it.

I didn't mean to single you out at all—there were several people whose main takeaway from this seemed to be something like "I could do that." You just posted the article :)

Link to comment

@kochel428 Hella good analysis! I'm glad I can come to my favorite adult site and get some aesthetic critique on the side.

I am personally drawn to the peeing art stuff, besides my own cathexis of wetting, because it is such a provocative act. It can revel in abjection. It can uncover private shame. It can dismantle shame. In this case, with the title being Transbordação, which means "Overflow," seems to be, according to Smék, about transforming the private, habitual act of releasing urine into a sublime experience by disrupting its utter banality in a public way. But it is also the overflowing of one body into the next, as @kochel428 describes, where the puddles flow into one another. What makes something like this exciting is that regardless of what Smék intended, we all, upon seeing this performance, bring with us our own series of affects and memories that complicate the more or less serene image of a bunch of women peeing their pants while breathing calmly: humiliation, disgust, arousal, relief, dismay, shock, humor.

Link to comment
22 hours ago, kochel428 said:

For everybody saying this is not art (or saying it is!), this is a complicated question that has engulfed the art world as well as music, literature, poetry, dance—any art form you can think of—for the better part of two centuries. The phrase that comes back over and over again, such as at the beginning of this article, is "I could do that." The proper response to this statement is always:

Sure you could. But you didn't.

For reference, here is a video that addresses this question: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67EKAIY43kg (I've embedded it below)

So let's talk about this performance as art. There's actually a lot going on here! First, most people will look at this differently than we do, because they don't derive sexual excitement from people wetting themselves. The first thing an average museum goer might think is, ew. So what do we learn from that reaction? Well, what do we normally expect from a group of women lined up in a row? Perhaps that they'll dance for us? or sing? or that they'll simply present themselves for the viewing pleasure of a man or group of men. So this performance has taken the expectations we have for women and turned it on its head. These are women on display, and yet when they give their performance, the response of most people will not be titillation or pleasure, it will be ew.

Sorry, did somebody say this wasn't feminist?

Of course that reaction also begs us to consider the women who are performing. It takes considerable bravery to stand up in public and do something, knowing that most people will respond with disgust; something that is viewed as intensely private, something that must count among the most embarrassing memories for anyone who has ever done it. It also takes bravery to go on stage and perform a concerto or dance a ballet. Perhaps this piece says something essential about performance—the courage involved, the fear of rejection.

Now, it's quite apparent that the women were chosen to be diverse. They're different ages, shapes, sizes, and races. Yet their essential nature is the same. On the inside, they have the same biological processes as anyone else, and urinating is an outward signifier of that fact. The piss mingles together on the ground, forming one big puddle. Does that symbolize female solidarity? Or perhaps it says something about ecology. After all, nearly any time anyone urinates, it gets flushed down into a sewer to join and mingle with everyone else's piss. This has taken that process and brought it into the open.

Then of course there's the fact that the women walk away from their puddles one by one as they finish. What does it mean? I can think of a few different things. Can't you?

And of course we haven't talked about the pure aesthetics of it—the trickles and pools and puddles, the patterns appearing on the clothing. There's a strain of art that is interested in incidental patterns that result from a process, rather than starting with an end goal in mind. Pollock did it with paint, this artist does it with pee.

Some of you have pointed out that there isn't a clear message here, but that's not a requirement for something to be art. In fact, if there's a clear, unambiguous message that is the death of art. Art is in the questions, and the spaces between the questions and the meanings. Art resists a single interpretation. It allows continued and repeated engagement. And on that count this is absolutely and unquestionably art.

Also, finally, the argument of the article posted above essentially boils down to this: art = curation. If curators have chosen it and arranged it, then it's art. I'm not sure I agree with that argument, but this certainly was curated, so I wouldn't use that article to try to argue that this wasn't art.

 

Thank you for taking everything I was thinking and saying it with far more eloquence and clarity than I could have ever managed.

Edited by molhado
grammars (see edit history)
Link to comment
9 hours ago, CreativePup said:

Can I add something that is unrelated to the questions of art?

Is it me, or was anyone else surprised that none of the women appear to be desperate? No signs of shifting around, doing the pee pee dance, etc. 

i'm not surprised, they did it on purpose, pushed the piss out, no holding, desperation and all that, just pure purposeful wetting, and i love it that way :) i think the big part of this project is showing the freedom of choice of these women, who calmly and without pressure chose to piss their pants instead of going to the toilet, what the society expects everyone to do. That's what I actually like the most about this fetish, you feel you're doing something wrong, it's dirty, wet, pointless, but there is no harm or damage, so nothing is really wrong. 

Edited by slovenc79 (see edit history)
Link to comment

For me this is not art, it is just a protest. It goes better on a newspaper than on a museum or a concert hall.

Of course it moves the emotions and feelings of the people, and it gets a point out (like you are free to do anything you want with your body, and that everyone is the same at the most basic instinct levels). In this way it's similar to art.

But for me, this does not involve any talent out of the ordinary. Each person there has the courage to step on the stage, of course. But they didn't practice years for getting there. An artist (i.e. a musician) practices every day and gets the right notes all the time, before going to stage. And afterwards he can watch his own performance, find the mistakes and keep improving his talent. Or take a photographer, usually they know their cameras down to the most hidden setting and take 100+ shots before getting the right one to display on a museum (after a lot of selection by the judging staff).

This is a protest, sure, but not art. I don't see the 'curation' process here, not to mention the self-improvement of the skills and talents of the performers.

( Not saying that I don't enjoy watching the video, hehe, that's why most of us are here )

Edited by lenna (see edit history)
Link to comment
15 hours ago, realmadrid said:

http://adrianagarciabenitez.virb.com/pee-blue-omorash

Visit this site for a similar "art" project. Excellent wetting too from many years ago.

Thanks for bringing this back to the fore. That video is great, and the artist has a well-articulated explanation of it here. She actually produced this as part of a series exploring types of low-key fetish content (sneezing, crushing, bubblegum, shampoo, etc) made possible by youtube/web 2.0. The pee video was the only one to get reported as porn, booting her project from the site.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...