Wetlook World Forum

Current time: Sat 20/04/24 06:01:01 GMT

Translate page FROM -> TO

Translate page TO <- FROM

Message # 22712.1.1.2.1.1

Subject: Re: OK, some thoughts...

Date: Mon 29/05/06 15:16:14 GMT

Name: Jerney Verney

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)

About the only well-known clothed swimming site I know of is wackywet.com (and that's by design a male-dominated site unfortunately); some lifesaving sites also mention clothed swimming but only in a regimented way, as part of training, not for spontaneous fun. It's one of those hard-to-categorize areas which is neither truly a fetish (like wetlook) nor a sport (like lifesaving or competitive swimming). That makes it very difficult to find like-minded people if all you want is fun and not anything more serious (such as intimacy). That was the good thing about Trafalgar Square, most people there weren't wammers as such, just people cooling off on a hot day -- there now don't seem to be any standard places to do this apart for the beach (in south-east UK, Bournemouth and Brighton seem to be the best for this if you want to meet other clothed swimmers). There are many out-of-the-way places such as rivers and lakes where one can swim fully-clothed on you own, but then you may as well get a back-garden PVC above-ground pool for £200. (except this year because of the drought order!) Open air public swimming pools although they now often allow teeshirts because of sunburn, don't have the spontaneity, and indoor swimming pools usually don't allow males to even wear teeshirts, though they may allow rashguards (lycra swimshirts), but that's proper swimwear, so no fun again. I can see their point regarding the filters getting blocked with fluff, and the danger of people wearing dirty clothes and causing a hygiene problem (look at how cloudy and green the water used to get at Trafalgar Square on a hot day after a few hundred people had swum in it...)

And yes I *do* enjoy looking at wet women (or passable crossdressers), but I much prefer joining in! :-)

SW, FW, and BH :-)

In reply to Message (22712.1.1.2.1)

OK, some thoughts...

By Telcontar - mrnemesis@ntlworld.com Mon 29/05/06 13:16:52 GMT

Website:

Yes, the research is harder. Wetlook is well documented and very illustratively so, and this forum is a good place to understand people's habits.

However, clothed swimming for fun is not well documented. Most of the wet clothing clubs seem to be in the German speaking parts of the world and I simply cannot understand any of the sites! I've written to number of them to see if they have a photo I can use and, with any luck, they'll correct me on the difference between wetlook and wet clothing. Looking at Christian Gallati's site and Akuna Video clearly indicate the popularity of the subject but not any background to it. There are also one or two Dutch ones and a Swedish one (in Goteburg) but none so far in English.

Personally I feel trapped -- I really, really don't want to show off my body in a pool (most men have no problems walking around wearing very little, but I was the type who wore a sweater in the summer to not show any skin as a kid) but I'd also look weird keeping all my clothes on!

I've looked on the Net to see if Britain has any wet clothing clubs and we appear not to. A friend in the states claims there's one near him in North Carolina, but I've yet to find one in any English speaking part of the world.

And yes, I imagine most folk here are the type who like ogling women in wet clothes, that's why we're here! So it's going to be very hard to find much of a viewpoint about whether there are folk who only swim in clothes, and who aren't interested in staring at wet women. Or who don't make such a big deal over wet women.

Swimming Fully Clothed is one site that might offer some leads, again, I'll see if he offers me a reply. Nothing from any sites yet, though, about wet clothing.

In reply to Message (22712.1.1.2)

Re: I don't suppose you want to separate the two out on Wikipedia?

By idlewild - Mon 29/05/06 11:49:56 GMT

Website:

A Wikipedia article should not contain original opinions but rather be a summary of other people's authorative work. So you don't need to be a practioner or have any personal experience of the subject matter, just the motivation and ability to do the research.

In this case, the research might not be quite as easy as for some other subjects; for example there is no mention of the history of wetlook (because it's difficult to get the information?). Perhaps the help of participants in this and other forums could be sought. My own contribution: http://www.thevalkyrie.com/stories/html/ursa/ursaobje.htm the earliest known mention of wetlook? (Scroll down to "semi-transparent gowns so popular in ancient Egypt".)

In reply to Message (22712.1.1)

I don't suppose you want to separate the two out on Wikipedia?

By Telcontar - mrnemesis@ntlworld.com Sun 28/05/06 21:05:02 GMT

Website:

Or maybe explain to me what the text on each page should say, if you don't know how to work with a wiki (they're fiddly bastards to understand)

In reply to Message (22712.1)

Re: "Wet clothing" or "wetlook" -- the difference?

By Jerney Verney - Sun 28/05/06 19:21:35 GMT

Website:

Glad you mentioned that :-) I've always felt that there's a big difference between swimming (or getting wet) in clothes, and looking at other people getting (or being) wet. That's prolly one reason why the genre (I won't call it a fetish, because I don't believe it is only a fetish!) is so confused by the general public.

It is clear from events at swimming pools and theme parks, that many more people enjoy getting wet themselves, than watching others getting wet from afar. Also the public don't regard the first as weird or kinky (unless the clothes become transparent or the intention is sexual), whereas the second is often regarded as odd by most people :-|

This also leads to the well-known ''percentage of wetlookers equation''... Far more than ten thousand people enjoy getting wet in their clothes! More like twenty percent of the population I reckon have enjoyed it at least once in their lives, often as children, because most adults are so closed-minded, and worried about other people's opinion of them (so-called ''dignity'').

SW, FW, and BH :-)

In reply to Message (22712)

"Wet clothing" or "wetlook" -- the difference?

By Telcontar - mrnemesis@ntlworld.com Sun 28/05/06 18:48:48 GMT

Website:

Still thinking about this Wikipedia article, and trying to track down a good example of a wet clothing photograph.

I've been struck with a thought -- is there not a distinct difference between wet clothing (e.g. Nasse Klamotten, Wet Clothing Club Berlin, NJCO) and wetlook (e.g. modelled wetlook, candid wet pics)? Wetlook is all about how people other than oneself look, but when you swim in clothes for fun, that is wet clothing -- you're doing it for the experience, not the look.

As such, should these not be kept as separate articles in Wikipedia? And if so, do I now need a new second picture to illustrate the wetlook article? And of what?

And does anyone here feel qualified to write an article about wet clothing as an activity? I barely feel qualified to work on the wetlook article as I know so very little about wetlook really, but it's always the least qualified people who end up having to do it :P

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)