Wetlook World Forum

Message # 50462.1.1

Subject: Re:A personal editorial on wetlook

Date: Sun 29/05/11 15:48:55 GMT

Name: AnthonyX

Email: anthonyx@jowc.net

Website:

By MK - wamtec@comcast.net Sun 29/05/11 15:00:22 GMT

Website:

Anyway....what those dates mean, in relation to your current age group....is that any wetlook fan currently under the age of 30 has no appreciation of what life was like "before the internet" or "before Youtube"....and if you are in your 40's or 50's or older.....you had a much better appreciation for how scarce it was to find wetlook media in those days before Youtube came along and spoonfed you on a "drip feed" every day. I am sure the old timers such as "Sopping" and all my wamtec contacts who have known me since Wamtec was created in 1991....all went thru the same experience as a youngster....i.e.

- spending hours at the public library.....hunting for the a few pics here and there

- being glued to the tv set just trying to find an occasional scene of interest etc

- spending many summers at the beach with a poloroid camera

As you say...."Over all that time, my tastes and specific interests have evolved"

Very true.....when you lost are in a "desert"....you are happy just to find a few sips of water.....but when you are locked inside a brewery....you lose some interest in drinking.   I can remember in the late 60's and early 70's when I finished scouring all the books at the public library and could no longer find any more pics of interest in old National Geographic magazines, I would even go to a  Travel Agent in London and grab all their holiday magazines off the shelves, cos sometimes I could find some occassional wet blouse pics in those catalogs too.

These days all you have to do is set up a youtube rss feed for the wetlook keywords you want and they come directly to your mobile device.....and you get spoonfed with wetlook automatically....how times have changed.

So.....if you are under 30....you take the internet and all the latest technology gadgets for granted.....just like every student these days takes a calculator for granted....and that is why people who serve you at fast food restaurants just dump the change in your hands, cos they don't know how to count by hand...all they can do is push the button with the hamburger on it and the machine spits out the change for them.

I agree with you....my tastes have certainly changed over the last 40 years too....cos prior to 1995...I would be happy just to find any kind of wetlook media...no matter how lame it was.....but today being on this forum and being spoonfed with youtubes.....this is like a beer fan who works inside a brewery every day.....after a while....you get bored with the same old beer and start to look for some "real ale" instead.

I dunno about you Anthony....but my own personal evolution of wetlook tastes has been in 2 stages.....i.e. Stage 1 was..... to get more and more bored with certain kinds of clothings and to develop more specific interests in certain kinds of clothings instead......but I have completed that stage 10 years ago, cos I hired hundreds of models and shot thousands of wetlook scenes over the last 20 years....so I basically covered every clothing topic that interested me and I did that subject to death.....so now I am not really focused on clothing styles any more...and now I am in Stage 2 mode.....i.e. for me these days....the number one most important factor now is "context"....and whether the scene is staged or spontaneous.....and so I lost all interest in staged wetlook scenes now and am only interested in the more spontaneous scenes or events etc.

I guess Stage 3 will be..."total saturation point" (bad pun)....which is when the men in white coats come to wheel me away to the funny farm....ha ha

MK

By AnthonyX - anthonyx@jowc.net Sun 29/05/11 12:21:29 GMT

Website:

I've been following wetlook on the internet since about 1995, which now adds up to more than a decade and a half, and I've had a personal "interest" for as long as I can remember. Over all that time, my tastes and specific interests have evolved, and I've seen a wide variety of wetlook. From casual to formally attired, totally un-sexy outfits to all-out sexually provocative, from barely dressed to multiple layers with barely an inch of skin visible, from scripted film scenes to glamour to spontaneous dunkings to accidents, and from thoroughly enjoyed by the subject to thoroughly disliked, and scenes/situations which are somewhat unique to scenes/situations which tend to occur frequently. In all that I've seen, I've come to find that there are certain elements which make up an enjoyable and/or erotic wetlook scenario, and some which just don't register for me.

I've occasionally encountered some jeans-and-t-shirt scenes/pictures which make nice wetlook, but that's almost always because the subject is wearing a thin, tight t-shirt without a bra and you can clearly see her nipples and the contours of her breasts. I'm pretty sure the appeal has to do with the woman effectively exposing herself (as if the shirt isn't there), but she is technically clothed, and that the wet shirt is sublty enhancing her figure. Since casual clothes seem to be a frequent option for impromptu swimwear, it often leads me to find more appeal in outfits which are more formal. Business wear for me comes out as a favourite because of the incongruity when the wearer gets wet. All-out formal (like evening gowns) don't really do so much for me because a lot of formal wear is about exposing skin - bare arms, shoulders, short skirts, etc. generally mean there's less clothing involved, and it just ain't wetlook if there aren't clothes getting wet.

This leads me to the matter of "coverage". Summer casual is frequently shorts and tank top, which to me is about the same as a swimsuit... not all that interesting as wetlook. Conversely, heavy winter coats, with hats, mittens, and boots, seem to take things too far the other way. It's nice to see a woman's shape, and all bundled up for blizzard hides pretty much everything. Those latex body suits, although form-fitting, and somehow interesting on some level, also seem to go a little too far for my liking. That leaves blouses, skirts and dresses, which are generally on the modest side, but dressy... hence my focus on business attire.

For me, sexy-when-dry outfits don't always make for good wetlook. Sometimes, they don't look any different when wet. Sometimes there just isn't enough there. Perhaps also, it's a matter of how much the wetlook adds to a turn-on. A sexy outfit is already a turn-on; getting it wet for the sake of "turn-on" factor is somewhat redundant. On the other hand, a non-sexy outfit owes everything to the wetlook factor when it gets wet.

The situation is also an important factor. Scripted scenes can be quite interesting from a wetlook point of view, but can also be non-starters. If the subject is in jeopardy, it seems to take away from the appeal of a scene for it's wetlook content; likewise, if the subject dislikes the situation, it's difficult not to empathize with the character. The same goes for accidents and impromptu dunkings... if the subject ends up enjoying their situation, despite it being unintended, it can be enjoyable to watch, but otherwise, it's difficult to enjoy a scene where the subject (character, actress, or self) just wants to be somewhere else. That's why I often enjoy glamour scenes; the subject is most likely enjoying the scene (at least not disliking it), although they can get predictable. Also, the more unique a scene is, the more interesting it can be.

All this leads me to a (perhaps inconsistent) personal "profile" of those scenes I currently enjoy versus those I don't. Those scenes of impromptu pool jumps at weddings are nice to watch, although it depends a lot on what the wedding party is wearing: more bare skin = less interesting wetlook. Those ads (TV and internet) built around the catchphrase "girls look hot wet, guys don't" hit most of the marks as I've discussed. Wet t-shirt contests are for me almost always non-starters... planned soaking of casually attired subjects, and there are a LOT of them. There are some classic movie moments which may be funny, may "count" as wetlook, but do nothing for me (e.g. Lucy and Ethel in a shower), and some moments from not-so-classic movies like John Derek's version of Tarzan, or a certain episode of "Tremors" which for me contain good helpings of great wetlook.

As I said, this is all just a personal view.