Wetlook World Forum

Current time: Sat 27/04/24 04:27:20 GMT

Translate page FROM -> TO

Translate page TO <- FROM

Message # 3257.3.2.2

Subject: Re: Re: Re: Likes and dislikes

Date: Sat 19/04/03 03:10:01 GMT

Name: Kev

Email: kev.styx@ntlworld.com

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)

I think WAM sites fit into two catagories, those where the producer shoots what he or she likes and those where the producer produces material to suit other people's taste.

Styx falls into the latter catagory. We go to great lengths to discover what people want to see and then shoot it. The forums are not a place to get this information because the views on them represent such a tiny proportion of wetlook fans.

We are currently getting ready to add to our site possibly the most comprehensive survey of what people want to see, that has ever been seen (thanks to wetlongskirts for his help on this).

Initially it will be for Styx members only, but we are considering opening it up to a wider audiance in the future. This will allow us to "hone" our content production even more to what people want to see.

From our "intelligence" of what people want to see we have discovered that for every person who dislikes something someone else loves it.

There's no doubt that many people like to see wet underwear, just as many people don't. Some people like the erotic whereas some like the fun element. Some people like outdoor, but lots of people like indoor too.

The Styx approach is to cast a wide net and produce a mixture of material to suit as many tastes as possible. We know when we do a shoot that some people will like full length views of a girl wet, others are interested in her hair, other feet, others boob, bottoms, back,legs, arms- a whole mix. That's why Styx's material usually contains close -ups of all these areas- we like to think there's something for everybody. We know people like these close ups because of the feed back we have received and also people have commented on how they like to zoom into pictures to look at certain things that interest them.

We actually have a database that catagorises all our sets (something we are thinking of adding to the site in the future) so we can ensure the content on the site is "balanced". We are then able to ensure that the content reflects the tastes of the members- well, to the extent that we can detect them.

It might seem that it is an "artificial" way of putting the material together, but we know when we need to increase the amount of (say) soaping material on the site, because it has fallen below a certain percentage of the site content.

I won't go into figures, but I think you would be absolutely staggered at the membership level of Styx. So the approach clearly works, members sign up feeling pretty confident that they will get a reasonable amount of material that they enjoy seeing, irrespective of their tastes.

Styx was set up with the intention of becoming the biggest wetlook resource on the internet. To do that we have to provide material to suit a massive range of tastes, every one different.

All I can say is that the approach works and the site is mind blowingly successful, with loads of members with widely differing likes and dislikes- and who appear to be very happy with the "balancing act".

Anyone who want's an idea of what the majority of wetlook fans want to see could look at the Styx mix of content- it's representitive of the the wetlook scene (based on the feedback and info we get)- after all Styx has it's membership base firmly anchored in the "silent majority" who you never see posting on the forums.

I also think that many people are pleasantly suprised when they contact us with ideas- we are extremely receptive and wherever possible we try to include what people want to see.

In reply to Message (3257.3.2)

Re: Re: Likes and dislikes

By Renegade 17 - splishsplash@wamfox.co.uk Wed 16/04/03 10:05:53 GMT

Website: http://www.wamfox.com

Interesting post Kev!

My own taste is indeed mainly governed by the clothes the models are wearing - I'm about to start collecting Erik's tapes because I like his "casual, slightly scruffy, girl next door" approach. My ideal would be to see girls in well-fitting industrial clothes, overalls, boiler-suits (coveralls in the US), work-dresses, real medical uniforms, etc - but I suspect I'm in a very small minority there! I've managed to include a few shots like this on WamFox, but as it's not really Green's bottle of Southern Comfort I've not taken it to it's limits. Some day, when we can afford to pay models... :-)

For underwear, I prefer when a model wears a one-piece swimsuit in a plain colour, black or dark blue or dark green, under her ordinary outer clothes. To me, that indicates that she's dressed willingly to get wet, plus I prefer the simplicity of a plain lycra swimsuit to the frills and fancy-work you get on "normal" underwear.

I can see the point of a girl in a close-fitting dress or trousers wearing a thong beneath the clothes simply to avoid having a "visible pant line" - this would make for a smoother fit of her clothing, but I agree with the view others have expressed, thongs and t-shirts without "real" clothes over them aren't wetlook (or WAM), they're just a fraction away from nudity. I dislike a lot of WAM sites (including many in the UMD) for this reason. I think people who like nudity regard "wearing underwear" in the same category as "fully dressed", whereas to wetlookers and clothed-wammers, "just underwear" is something we'd lump in with the porn.

Other than WamFox, my own favourite wetlook site is probably Just Add Water - I especially love the denim dungaree set, and the way that Veronica gets wet slowly, just standing there while water is poured over her, first just a little on the shoulders, then more over her head and down her back, leading on to larger bucketfulls being poured on her from above. It's also beautifully photographed, which makes a difference to me. The only WAM pay site I've joined so far is MessyFun, mainly because even when the pictures aren't to my taste, you can admire Rob's stunning photography.

As to Candid stuff, I fully agree and so does Green - we've long felt that candid wetlook is both an invasion of privacy, and bad for the professional producers who have to struggle to pay their models.

Thinking about it, the other thing that "makes" a scene for me is when it's been shot from a "non-erotic" viewpoint. I tend to dislike extreme close-ups of bent-over girls bottoms, or breasts, etc - I prefer to see the scene shot as a "fun" or "comedy" scene, even though the result, to me at least, is an erotic reaction. So for example two fully clothed girls playing sicissors - paper - stone, with the winner throwing a cup of water over the looser of each round amid much laughter, would appeal to me far more than the same two girls in the same outfits doing a psuedo-lesbian act under a shower.

How do other people feel about this? Do more prefer "fun" shoots or "erotic" ones?

- Renegade 17

- http://www.wamfox.com

In reply to Message (3257.3)

Re: Likes and dislikes

By Kev - kev.styx@ntlworld.com Wed 16/04/03 07:18:02 GMT

Website: www.styxwetworld.com

Interesting points.

First thing to bear in mind is that this forum, although the biggest wetlook forum, reflects the views of maybe less than 1% of the wetlook community. There's a whole range of likes and dislikes that never get aired.

These views are either sent privately in emails to the various producers (no doubt they too have many member's and customers who would never post on the forum)or we have to tease out what's popular by looking at responses to various sets- how many are sold or downloaded.

There's no doubt that many people prefer outdoor wetlook. But it is really a fantasy, whereas many people actually like the "reality" of indoor locations. Let's face it wherever you are in the world, water in lakes and rivers is cold. To most people "real" wet activities take place in warm water- in the bath or shower. Quite few people enjoy this aspect. If you ever want to get a wife or girlfriend to indulge you'd be crazy to get her get in the river- you'd stand a better chance with a bath of warm water.

I think a shower can be brilliant for showing off wet clothing, in many ways superior to a pool or river. Clothes can be wet gradually and the sight of water running down a girls hair and across her face it extremely popular and can most effectively done in a shower. Likewise, skirts tend to stay down, rather than riding up around a girls waist which you tend to get rivers, pool (and baths for that matter).

Many people also love the sight of the clothes (and girl) getting washed- this looks somewhat peculiar in a river and even worse in a pool. Many pool owners are not too pleased at the prospect of shampoo being used in their pools either.

I've seen some really boring wetlook shot in pools, I don't think the location matters a great deal. If all a girl does is get into the pool and then get out again wet, then you might as well have shot it in a bath. At least in a bath of warm water you are more likely to achieve the sort of response you want from a girl- not cajoling her to "smile and look happy" whilst she's freezing to death in a river.

Seriously, the biggest "drivers" on what's popular is mainly down to how pretty the girl is, and what she's wearing. Location tends to come very much in third place to the majority of wetlook followers

Agreement on the thongs issue- widespread disapproval of the 99% of wetlook fans who make up the "silent majority"

The only way to capture any accidental fallings in, is to either be extremely lucky or to "lurk" and find candid shots.

I cannot comment on other producers views, but the Styx view is that candid pictures are an intrusion into someone else's privacy. I wouldn't like my loved ones to appear on a fetish site (of any description) and therefore wouldn't subject someone elses wife/daughter/sister to that- it's a matter of principle

In reply to Message (3257)

Likes and dislikes

By Sopping - Wed 16/04/03 06:14:41 GMT

Website:

In the past I have put these and similar thoughts on these pages, and in my “column”[when I had one at the WetCasual site.] I have been both flamed and complimented.

So, not attempting to trash others' preferences, and in the interests of maintaining conversation on these pages, I shall fire off a few more rounds.

Outdoors vs indoors: Like many others on these pages I vastly prefer wetlook scenes in fountains, streams, lakes, rivers and beaches. Pools are good too, and they may be both outdoor on indoor. Unfortunately, in pool parties in particular, the range of a camera flash on indoor pictures too often falls too short.

Tubs and showers fall short since there are limited scenes, scenarios and such available. A girl gets into a tub and gets wet..period. Sometimes with gestures, sometimes frozen faced.

A girl steps into a shower and turns it on. She gets wet. End of sequence!

Shallow water vs deep water. This is possibly a minor matter, but I prefer to see a gal waist deep in waist-deep water rather than sitting down in knee-deep or less shallow water. It somehow gives me a bigger kick!

I detest thongs. I do not consider a skimpy T-shirt or top over thongs to be wetlook. In fact, like others here, I detest thongs. The girls'butts look like a well-baked loaf of bread. I really am not fond of bikini bottoms either. But pantie briefs, particularly black can be really sezy!And the new style of "boy shorts" offers promise.

I prefer seeing a bra under a soaked shirt or blouse. Don’t ask me why.

Finally, I would love to see a photo of a girl actually falling into the water in a summer dress.. Really...accidentally.

I’ve seen it happen, and I actually photographed it once,

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)