Wetlook World Forum

Current time: Thu 25/04/24 14:42:54 GMT

Translate page FROM -> TO

Translate page TO <- FROM

Message # 39707.1.2

Subject: Re: Wetlook - innate or trained?

Date: Mon 13/04/09 15:10:09 GMT

Name: AnthonyX

Email: anthonyx@jowc.net

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)

An interesting notion about the sex center and the more-or-less random association with fetish themes or objects. I've held a similar notion for many years.

I could add a couple of other ideas:

1. Rule breaking - we often find excitement in breaking parental or social rules. That excitement can transfer or morph into a sexual response, and there you go.

2. Sensory stimulation - if you're not accustomed to it, the sensation of wet fabric on skin can be quite intense - interesting for some, unpleasant for others. For those who find it interesting, it can become a sensual thing which again can morph into something sexual.

I think the appreciation of wetlook - as with any fetish - is learned, not innate. It all comes down to formative experiences. I mean really... how can there be an inborn predisposition for a balloon fetish?

The common thread amongst us all is that we've experienced one or more of the following:

o had a fun time in water with clothes on,

o seen a pretty girl/woman in wet clothes which became revealing in some way (clingy or transparent)

o seen a pretty girl break the rules by swimming in her clothes

o enjoyed breaking the rules as a child by splashing in puddles, playing in the rain, or some such

I'm sure there is more I could add to the list, but I think you get the idea.

In reply to Message (39707.1)

Re: Wetlook - innate or trained?

By Anonymous - Sun 12/04/09 15:20:59 GMT

Website:

If any producer is earning 30.000 dollars with his website or material - then good for him. He apparently sells a service that we're happy to pay for, putting him way above used-car-salesmen in ethical terms. May he enjoy his earnings to the fullest.

As for the nature/nurture debate: Allow me to share my own, private and non-verified hypothesis:

Somewhere in our unconsciousness, we have a 'sex center' that activates somewhere during puberty. That center knows that 'sexy' exists, but I has no clue what it looks like. It starts looking around to find anything to latch onto. When it finds something that might do, it says "Gotcha!" and never lets go - whether it's a nude, rubber boots, kinky underwear, his ferrari or Doom2.

It would mean that our love for wetlook is neither nature nor nurture - it's mostly chance. You might even call it luck: What better fetish could a man wish for?

In reply to Message (39707)

Wetlook - innate or trained?

By Poliut - Sun 12/04/09 14:06:39 GMT

Website:

This question came to me after I was engaged in an IM conversation with someone, and eventually I happened to bring up one of the wetlook sites that frequently advertises themselves on this forum (Which one? Visit them all, dammit!

), and he more or less laughed it off, finding it totally weird and lousier than softcore pornography, prior to making theories on the webmaster's income, saying that he makes probably $30,000 a year off that website (the guy I was talking to runs a fansite for a sports team, BTW) and then he joked that he should start his own porn site.

So this led me to another question, is our enthusiam of wetlook something we trained ourselves to be, or is it an innate characteristic, activated by a satisfying stimulant?

... I guess this is yet another installment of "Nature vs. Nurture"

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)