Talk:Wetlook

	Human sexuality portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

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)

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)

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

expansion points

This article makes it sound like this is a weird obscure kink when, while the extreme form (whatever that is) may be, appreciation for women in wet t-shirts and so on seems to be a standard part of male sexuality, with incredibly common cultural references. I've heard enough girls enthusing over wet men to know this is not a gender-specific enjoyment.

Good-looking people of both sexes are show wet or in the process of getting wet (having water thrown or poured over them) in celebrity and fashion photography fairly often. It shouldn't be too hard to get a publicity photograph of this sort to illustrate the article.

Also, there is a Japanese phrase that I've heard of; "a good (looking) man dripping wet" which means something like "with frosting on top", which might be worth adding if someone familiar with Japanese can check it. It could provide a good illustration of the kink in non-western cultures and illustrate that it applies to male subjects as well as female ones.

And like the above user,my first thought when seeing the title of this article was hair product, so maybe this needs a link to hair gel or something for people who get lost.

Of course, I could be totally misunderstanding here and maybe this really *is* about some obscure kink that's different from what I'm understanding. If that's the case, the article needs to be edited so that's clear. IsaacSapphire (talk) 14:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

old urban legend

In ca. 1800 England, there were stories circulating that a friend of a friend had heard about young women who dampened their thin white muslin Grecianesque gowns to make them more diaphanous, or that women in decadent Paris did this, etc. It may never have happened... Churchh (talk) 08:56, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Definition Priority

"The word "wetlook" can also refer to clothing that is shiny in appearance and thus is termed "wet-look"." Isn't this afterthought the primary definition of the term? However much subculture goes on, I think it's better known what a wetlook clothe is. 188.221.72.112 (talk) 21:01, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]