Wetlook World ForumCurrent time: Fri 19/04/24 20:44:46 GMT |
Message # 63308.1 Subject: Re:Are models or producers getting more prudish ? Date: Sun 11/01/15 16:16:46 GMT Name: Tim |
Report Abuse or Problem to Nigel at Minxmovies
|
yes |
In reply to Message (63308) Are models or producers getting more prudish ?
By nemo - safisch02@gmail.com Sun 11/01/15 13:43:03 GMT im following the wetlook community since i found it in 2000. while i was too young to own a visa card (was +21 in europe at the time) and therefore get a membership, i enjoyed the previews (untill i finaylly got one, juste because of wetlook)
everything developed great - hihher bandwith, higher resolution pictures and videos, larger picsets etc. but since some years, the content seems to change a bit from wet and incredibly sexy (barless, no underwear, seethru) over no more nudity/strips to just wet (with bras and no seethru). even producers who started like that, (wetrom/eurowam, wetlookadventure, etc.) have none o these sets anymore. some new sites started, but the output is not the same as it was.
even when girls in messy sets destroy most of their clothes or get undressed in the process, there are next to no wetlook sets like that anymore. i just noticed the diffrence when the wamretro opened and tzmodels and epb underwater closed.
im not talking about pure nudity, there is a lot of on the web (even wet nudity). more about the fact that wetlook was more revealing in the past (seethru clothes, seethru underwear). in some past sets you thought "these clothes were deinitely NOT meant to be wet, they show a LOT when wet".
why so ? is there no more demand for more erotic sets ? did the producers change their mind ? are the models more prude ore demand more money ? or ist there no demand in the community for this anymore ?
and why are the standarts in wetlook and messy sets so different ?
|
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 0.011 seconds to generate ]