Talk:Wetlook

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Not a joke

Bizarre as it seems, this appears to be a kink broadly spread enough to produce commercial pornography specifically targetted to it. Hey, whatever floats people's boat, I suppose. Point being, it doesn't appear to be a joke, though how widespread this is, who knows--Robert Merkel 01:50, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I know for sure that some men who would not be triggered by naked women would get arosed when they see women in wet clothes (especially in wet white dresses). That's why "Wetlook" is popular.--Perdaughter 09:40, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

I did some cleanup here, but I don't really have any knowledge of the subject matter. Someone from the 211.95 IP range keeps removing the cleanup tag, by the way. Rhobite 02:52, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Greased hair

I thought wet look meant greased hair :o —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.245.29.229 (talk • contribs) 03:36, 14 March 2005

[edit] Candid wetlook?

Does anyone know why this section was removed?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wetlook&diff=prev&oldid=81748319

To me, it seems a perfectly valid section, but clearly someone disagreed and did not state a reason for the removal, either in the edit comment or the talk section.

Ghiraddje 01:30, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

This article needs sources, and the removal of original research, meaning things which cannot be attributed to published sources. Lotusduck 04:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Does this http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/GESUND/ARCHIV/P_WETLOOK.HTM count as a valid source? (I'm new to Wikipedia, so I'm asking ...) --213.39.173.168 12:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality?

I think this article could stand to be a little more neutral in its descriptions of "many people enjoy" such and such and so on. Put up a Neutrality Tag, unless someone knows a better one to use. Albino Bebop 02:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Definitely (and I'm responsible for plenty of its lameness). I'm part of the community but it's very hard to get proper documented evidence (we don't write books on ourselves :) There is also a lack of outright stated facts within the community itself, since all we have is individual accounts and experiences that don't necessarily add up to a clear, concise whole. I guess the problem is that the fetish is still too obscure in the mainstream mind to be written about by anyone in an official publication, although a UK magazine has just the other day printed an article on it. Two of the three illustrated stories therein were written by people I know from a wetlook forum, although the Internet does have the snag that you cannot prove anything! The magazine is trashy though so the credibility is questionable in the public mind even if I have good reason to believe most of what it says (the stories were embellished a little as you'd expect). Ghiraddje 22:18, 6 July 2007 (UTC)