Wetlook World Forum

Current time: Thu 25/04/24 03:21:16 GMT

Translate page FROM -> TO

Translate page TO <- FROM

Message # 2064.2.2.1.1

Subject: Fair one, but.........

Date: Fri 31/01/03 00:59:29 GMT

Name: Placebo Effect

Email:

Website:

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)

....to me candid wetlook is the only wetlook worth seeing. For me the thrill is the "naughtiness" and unconventional behaviour of a girl saying "sod it" and going swimming fully clothed. I find modelled or staged wetlook totally unappealing because the models are being instructed to do as they are doing, where's the fun in that imho. I am not knocking the model wetlook producers here, i think the work they do is awesome, it's just not "my thing". If there is anything you feel uncomfortable with then why bother looking at it, just hit the "back" button.

In reply to Message (2064.2.2.1)

Re: Re: Re: baptism - I'm uncomfortable with these

By Kev - kev.styx@ntlworld.com Thu 30/01/03 10:54:51 GMT

Website:

I agree with this view too, and it has nothing to do with undercutting producers. I think intruding into other peoples private (and usually innocent) activites is the wrong thing to do.

Most of us would be shocked and outraged if any of our familes were photographed carrying out some innocent activity, with these pictures being displayed on a fetish website (cleavage, upskirt, shoes, for example) I don't believe wetlook can claim to be a special case, there is no moral highground for this fetish over any others.

These females are someones wives, daughters, girlfriends, and we should offer the respect to their privacy as we would expect to be given to the females in our lives.

In reply to Message (2064.2.2)

Re: Re: baptism - I'm uncomfortable with these

By Renegade 17 + Green - splishsplash@wamfox.co.uk Thu 30/01/03 08:12:51 GMT

Website: http://www.wamfox.com

I find myself agreeing with you, Sopping. I've also long been uncomfortable with what is generally called "candid" wetlook, especially when it is sold, as this undercuts the genuine commercial producers who pay their models for the work. I don't mean things like Leon's work, where the people in the pictures know they are being photographed, but the stuff shot with long lenses from behind bushes, or hotel balconies, or somewhere else where the photographer uses optical technology to capture what the participants think are "private" moments.

Interestingly, the UK govt has just announced a major shake-up in our sex laws, including creating a new offence of "voyuerism" meaning to watch others (presumably without their consent) in public for sexual gratification. Obviously this is mainly targetted at "peeping toms", and I've not seen the actual legislation, just news reports of the announcement, but it is an interesting development.

- Renegade 17.

In reply to Message (2064.2)

Re: baptism - I'm uncomfortable with these

By Sopping - Thu 30/01/03 04:25:20 GMT

Website:

I am uncomfortable with using someone's religious beliefs as an element of satisfying our (and yes I include me) own fetish-driven urges to view wet clothed females.

I remember a posting, not too long ago, of a grieving Korean rushing into the sea at a funeral.

I remember (it was much smaller then) a posting of people wading into the ocean at the memorial for TWA Flt 800 victims.

And now, belatedly I admit, I am having similar misgivings about the "use' of batism photos, in this forum and elsewhere.

I believe there are sufficient wetlook female photos about that we do not have to "intrude" into religious practices.

At least that is how I see it.. and disagree as you may.

In reply to Message (2064)

baptism

By Tommy - Wed 29/01/03 18:22:25 GMT

Website: http://mashiah.org/gallery/Baptizm?&page=1

http://mashiah.org/gallery/Baptizm?&page=1

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)