Wetlook World ForumCurrent time: Fri 19/04/24 13:52:41 GMT |
Message # 54468.1.1.1 Subject: Re:OT... Date: Fri 01/06/12 03:01:11 GMT Name: guitar guy |
Report Abuse or Problem to Nigel at Minxmovies
|
George Hamilton LOL
It was back in the mid- late 50's, the bikini ushered in a new "tan" culture in the Western world. But now In spite of all the warnings about overexposure to the sun, being tan is still considered a healthy, stylish look. It's still a celebration of the female body on display (or men who are like George Hamilton haha) Both men and women alike sport their tans, and physically fit bodies on the beaches. We also see this in parks and hiking trails where being scantily dressed is the norm. (men too)
BTW I have heard reminders to beach goers on TV/ radio to wear sunscreen OR wear light colored clothing such as a T shirt (but never long pants ironically) as acceptable protection from UV rays.
Also too here in NY, hiking is a popular weekend activity. There is this one trail that has access to a sandy beach on the Hudson river. Hikers do sometimes go straight in the river. Some remove their shoes, some don't! The ultimate wetlook (to me) is a female who enjoys getting wet, everything about her experience that she likes, whatever it may be. It could be the physical sensation, or perhaps a spiritual correlation, or just that she feels sexy or the "shock factor" or some degree of forbidden, scorned behavior which she receives attention. Some females have a wet clothed fetish, I know this as a fact. That's why I like formal wetlook, since she MUST like it to override all socially acceptable appearances, and/or damage an expensive outfit and not care (at least for the moment) If not for any reason at all, then any wet clothed female will do! haha!
|
In reply to Message (54468.1.1) OT...
By MK - wamtec@comcast.net Wed 30/05/12 16:27:23 GMT I think that times are changing when it comes to people's view on tanning. Just as it used to be cool 30-40 years ago to smoke, today it is decidely uncool to be seen smoking.
The interesting thing about tanning is how different people's views are in the western world, versus the people living in the eastern world....i.e. in the western world having a tan used to be viewed as a sign of higher class, wealth and prosperity, because it meant you afford to go on vacation to exotic places etc. However, in Asia having a tan is viewed in the completely opposite way...and it is viewed as a sign of low class cos you are deemed to be poor and having to work in the fields. Having visited most Asian countries, I can tell you that the girls there all AVOID the sun cos getting a tan is something they want to avoid, and they work hard to AVOID getting tanned by the sun.....i.e. in the Philippines and Thailand....they do not use umbrellas to protect themselves from the rain, cos they do not care if they wet when it rains....they only use umbrellas when it is SUNNY....so you will see most girls walking with umbrellas to avoid getting the sun.
Cancer prevention has nothing to do with is....Asians avoid the sun because they want to look as light skinned as possible, cos they view a tan as being a sign of somebody who is low class and once worked in the fields.
So....views towards tanning are totally different in the western world versus the eastern world.
The exception to that would be "Snookie" from the Jersey Shore.....cos she manages to combine tanning and epitomizing being low class all together in one 4ft package.....ha ha
The king of tanning in Hollywood is the actor George Hamilton |
In reply to Message (54468.1) My theory
By AnthonyX - anthonyx@jowc.net Wed 30/05/12 15:21:44 GMT I think it comes down to two things: modesty and vanity.
In the church, modesty takes precedence over just about eveything else, lest there be a distraction from the purpose of going there, so people cover up (which, as we know, doesn't quite work the same for us wetlook fans).
On the beach, modesty gives way to vanity. Coco Chanel introduced the world to the idea that a tan represents both health and beauty. That idea still persists in spite of all the medical research to the contrary. OK, we all need some amount of sun for our bodies to produce the vitamin D we need, but that happens before a tan starts, and a tan is really just an indication of exposure to damaging radiation. Beyond the obsession with tanning, I'm sure a lot of people strip down on the beach just to show off.
|
In reply to Message (54468) Your input, thoughts, comments appreciated:
By (WK)) - waterloggedproductions@yahoo.com Wed 30/05/12 10:01:10 GMT Website: http://www.waterloggedproductions.com// waterloggedproductions.com Not much on making statements here, but unable to sleep and watching late night news, I keep hearing about skin cancer and the sun. Well...Each year the sun seems to be more and more intense and doctors tell us to wear light loose clothing when going out in the sun.....and use a high fpf sunsceen especially when swimming.....
Well here is my point...Not just being an avid wetlooker, but seems to me why is it People especially women like to go into indoor baptism Fully Clothed with long sleeves and full jeans just for a dunking and then later that day the same girls/guys are out in the blazing sun swimming or laying out with barely anything on !!!! Just to get a dangerous tan or burn leading to aging skin and cancer possible.....
And instead of the government telling us to wear sunscreen in the water, if you get baptised fully clothed....then why not tell the people to go swimming in light weight clothing from head to toe to DECREASE the effects of the sun......Would it just hurt the profits of sunscreeen makers ??
But looking at this in a medical and not just wetlook way, it just seems common sense to swim more fully clothed outdoors in the sun....Swimsuits indoors and at night perhaps........But would people think those that did were weird or just sensable ??? (WK)
input appreciated.....
|
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)
|
[ This page took 0.038 seconds to generate ]