We all know that Wikipedia can't be relied upon for providing absolutely factual data on any subject in particular, however I've noticed recently that the entry for "Wet and Messy fetishism" is being frequently modified, sometimes with what seems to be some pretty far out and unproven stuff.
Although most of what's there is broadly accurate, some seems to make fairly sweeping assumptions about the nature of our passion. Things like suffering from sensory processing disorder, which confuses me given that half of us are into this because of the humiliation aspect, and I for one have a more heightened than average sense of touch.
I'm concerned that Wikipedia could.give some fringe fetishists or sex researchers a malformed assessment of what WAM is all about, and I wonder what one has to do to lock down a proper account of who we actually are.
not sure exactly how wikipedia works but can you make it so that [citation necessary] is included? I guess the best way to set the record straight is to add content yourself which you believe to be true and reflective of this subject
Would like it if you wrote the whole thing Titania! The way you've phrased it here sounds a lot more rational than how it's written on Wikipedia.
I guess I'd just prefer it if people stated that things were "unproven theories" behind the psychology of WAM, rather than making them sound absolute.
We're all interested in why it is that we find getting covered in mess sexually appealing, because, after all, it's not exactly regarded as mainstream/'normal', but I don't expect it's the mark of a known sensory disorder.
Maybe I'm wrong but I expect it's got somewhat more complex or experiencial origins than that.
Anyway, if the majority here are not concerned then maybe I shouldn't be either. I don't think it was put there with any malicious intent, but I just felt IMHO it sounds very authoritative without necessarily being factual. (Perhaps it is factual, but the Wikipedia version doesn't sound like it applies to me (Titania's version is more accurate).)
I think 'disorder' is a very incorrect way to sum it up. It is a choice. Why we are wired this way is impossible to answer. It's like asking a gay or lesbian why they chose not to be straight. They do not have a 'gay disorder'. Wam is simply one of the many flavors of 'normal'.
OK, at the risk of sounding completely hypocritical, I actually have asked someone I know who is good at these things to update the entry on Wikipedia.
No content has been deleted, only added, and the 'offending' comments listed as "unproven". Hopefully the entry now reflects the true diversity of what WAM fetishists are into more broadly, without being unfair to any individuals who have previously posted their opinion on Wikipedia.
I don't know why but I just couldn't let this one lie - like Bobographer said, I think labelling as some sort of autotherapy for a sensory disorder is well out of line (especially stating that it was "typically" the case (I think removal of that word was the one exception to the rule above)).
Anyway, hopefully people will feel happier with it - the intention was only to make people feel more comfortable about what was written up there!
Hopefully no one will come along and just delete the entire thing and put "All WAM fetishists have a mental problem"!!
Love you, too
