Wetlook World ForumCurrent time: Mon 06/05/24 02:46:55 GMT |
Message # 39121.2.3.1.1 Subject: Re: ..an interesting philosophical debate Date: Fri 20/02/09 23:21:58 GMT Name: Poliut |
Report Abuse or Problem to Nigel at Minxmovies
|
"It's kinda ironic that wet clothing below the belly button (meaning topless!) is considered wetlook, yet wet clothing above the waist is not."
Well, using my first example, there's wet clothing from shoulder to sole, yet there I don't consider it to be wetlook.
I guess it's (Wet T-Shirt Contests) one of those things where the more you think about it, the more it actually is wetlook, even though you may not see it that way.
Take for example the Gatorade Shower. At the end of a football game (where it's most commonly seen), few people consider it to be wetlook; but if Leon Moomin films a clip where someone dumps a 10 gallon jug of Gatorade on someone else, people consider that wetlook. Exact same act, exact same amount of clothing, exact same amount of liquid. It goes back to context - like MK stated - and standards for wetlook, and both are subjective criteria. |
In reply to Message (39121.2.3.1) Re: ..an interesting philosophical debate
By wetwhiteandblue - Fri 20/02/09 22:29:48 GMT I don't consider the wet t-shirt by itself wetlook. But if the contestants are all wearing full clothing (jeans, skirts, shorts), then the whole concept of the wet t-shirt contest is considered wetlook. It's kinda ironic that wet clothing below the belly button (meaning topless!) is considered wetlook, yet wet clothing above the waist is not. |
In reply to Message (39121.2.3) Re: ..an interesting philosophical debate
By Poliut - Fri 20/02/09 20:41:18 GMT And just to add to the term context - I think perception also has a key factor to it.
For example, take a football game played in the rain (BTW, American and Canadian Football = Football | Rest of the World Football = Soccer). Everything about it can qualify as wetlook: Nonstandard swimwear clothes getting wet (and muddy) - wet socks, wet shoes, wet pants, wet jerseys, wet shirts, wet gloves, wet armbands, etc. - yet not too many people would consider it wetlook. I know I don't. Example: http://static.nfl.com/static/content/catch_all/nfl_image/AJ_Feeley_040926_2_gallery_600.jpg
(Rest of the gallery can be viewed here - http://www.nfl.com/photo/photo-gallery?chronicleId=09000d5d80154067 )
Another example would be the "Wet T-Shirt" contest - that itself is something that gets debated on this forum as to whether or not it's considered to be wetlook, even though it meets the requirements of being wetlook. |
In reply to Message (39121.2) ..an interesting philosophical debate
By MK - wamtec@comcast.net Fri 20/02/09 17:27:20 GMT ...i.e. what turns you....is it "the fabric".....or "the context of how that fabric is used".
- if denim is your fetish....then you don't care how it is used...wet or dry...denim turns you on
- if wetlook is your fetish....then "context" is EVERYTHING...cos if you use a fabric in the wrong context (i.e. making a denim bikini) then it totally misses the concept you are looking for...
Nylon and satin are great fabrics for wet clothing scenes too....but a nylon swimsuit is not the right context that wetlook fans want to see....they would rather see a wet nylon shirt or slip dress or pants etc.
For me....wetlook it is all about "context" these days....and if something is purposely designed as a "swimsuit".,...then no matter how you look at it...it's a STILL a swimsuit....and thats "the norm"...and if I was a normal person...I would not be on this forum....ha ha.
I feel the same way about muslim burkhinis too....i.e. that outfit is purposely designed for swimming in....so it does nothing for me.....but an Indian sari is a different matter...cos that is not designed for swimming...so Indian wet sari scenes are much better than muslim burkhinis (even thought they may look similar) cos a sari is interesting...cos you know that was not designed for swimming in...whereas a burkhini is a big yawn cos it has no wetlook context....
but I am sure many of you have differing opinions....so I will turn the debate over to you guys...
MK
|
In reply to Message (39121) No Subject
By micater - Fri 20/02/09 15:34:51 GMT http://www.trenddelacreme.com/2009/01/ready-to-get-your-denim-wet.html
what do you think about that...!? i'd like to see them wet!
|
Report Abuse or Problem to Nigel at Minxmovies
If you enjoy this forum, then please make a small donation to help with running costs:
(you can change amount)
|
[ This page took 0.031 seconds to generate ]