|
|
|||
| forums: groups: | |||
|
"Most Expensive Outfit You've Ruinned"
Love you, too
gebakje said: off topic, i don't understand the cothes destruction and ripping wy ?
i like to get messy and dirty in every possible way in every possible substance in beautiful clothes , but i don't like to destroy them.
i prefer to clean it as far as possible en re use it again .
oke after using it a few times de clothes are not resolveble any more , but at least i use it more than once .
a breath taking beautiful satin dress i use it in a way that it is Always resolveble , i think it is to nice te destroy
i like to get messy and dirty in every possible way in every possible substance in beautiful clothes , but i don't like to destroy them.
i prefer to clean it as far as possible en re use it again .
oke after using it a few times de clothes are not resolveble any more , but at least i use it more than once .
a breath taking beautiful satin dress i use it in a way that it is Always resolveble , i think it is to nice te destroy
In a community like this, you'll often find a variety of tastes. It's important to accept this fact early and to learn to enjoy the diversity of things people are into. I think that once you do that, you'll have a more fun time talking with people who are into different things.
In this case, I think clothing destruction plays into the desire to humiliate a person by destroying something they value. Once you get into the fetish, the novelty of messing up someone's hair and body can lose its appeal since it's so easy to recover from. While they do value their appearance, they can just take a shower and they're back to normal.
On the other hand, clothing destruction is permanent. If a person likes a dress hat hey own and looks sexy in it, destroying it both ruins their look and humiliates them on a more personal level. They are forced to submit full control of their personal belongings to another person, who then takes advantage of that control.
Stackland said: This thread makes me wonder how early WAM producers from the 1980s and 1990s managed to produce videos featuring consistently well-dressed models. Was the market so undersupplied back then that they could make more money to afford it?
An under supplied (*and experimental) market, a greater initial investment, far fewer movies and longer to recoup the capital. Very few producers, a highly dispersed market, but whom, once mutually identified would gladly pay an inflated price to see it on screen.
Remembering also, that softcore sexual content in the 80s followed a 'strip tease' convention (for want of something that the audience could identity with) and this naturally combined with the most familiar form wet and messy fun would have taken to the audience: comedy slapstick. Slapstick is inherently destructive, often and trades on the shock value of wonton destruction and damage - out of proportion to real life. Clothes used to be far more expensive and people owned fewer of them. Seeing a woman's clothing spoiled in a messy slapstick joke still gives me that slight hotness under the collar as it does - and did - for many of us perhaps because we were 'shocked' and identified with the outrageousness.
That's why I maintain that the perfect WAM scenario is a woman starting out pristine, perfect makeup , fully dressed with shoes and that it degenerates into utterly mucky chaos: the model(s) eventually unrecognisable (possibly now nude, but not before every piece of clothing has been entirely coated) beneath a thick coating of dark grey sludge.
Bringing pleasure to literally tens of people!
Trouso said:
An under supplied (*and experimental) market, a greater initial investment, far fewer movies and longer to recoup the capital. Very few producers, a highly dispersed market, but whom, once mutually identified would gladly pay an inflated price to see it on screen.
Remembering also, that softcore sexual content in the 80s followed a 'strip tease' convention (for want of something that the audience could identity with) and this naturally combined with the most familiar form wet and messy fun would have taken to the audience: comedy slapstick. Slapstick is inherently destructive, often and trades on the shock value of wonton destruction and damage - out of proportion to real life. Clothes used to be far more expensive and people owned fewer of them. Seeing a woman's clothing spoiled in a messy slapstick joke still gives me that slight hotness under the collar as it does - and did - for many of us perhaps because we were 'shocked' and identified with the outrageousness.
That's why I maintain that the perfect WAM scenario is a woman starting out pristine, perfect makeup , fully dressed with shoes and that it degenerates into utterly mucky chaos: the model(s) eventually unrecognisable (possibly now nude, but not before every piece of clothing has been entirely coated) beneath a thick coating of dark grey sludge.
Stackland said: This thread makes me wonder how early WAM producers from the 1980s and 1990s managed to produce videos featuring consistently well-dressed models. Was the market so undersupplied back then that they could make more money to afford it?
An under supplied (*and experimental) market, a greater initial investment, far fewer movies and longer to recoup the capital. Very few producers, a highly dispersed market, but whom, once mutually identified would gladly pay an inflated price to see it on screen.
Remembering also, that softcore sexual content in the 80s followed a 'strip tease' convention (for want of something that the audience could identity with) and this naturally combined with the most familiar form wet and messy fun would have taken to the audience: comedy slapstick. Slapstick is inherently destructive, often and trades on the shock value of wonton destruction and damage - out of proportion to real life. Clothes used to be far more expensive and people owned fewer of them. Seeing a woman's clothing spoiled in a messy slapstick joke still gives me that slight hotness under the collar as it does - and did - for many of us perhaps because we were 'shocked' and identified with the outrageousness.
That's why I maintain that the perfect WAM scenario is a woman starting out pristine, perfect makeup , fully dressed with shoes and that it degenerates into utterly mucky chaos: the model(s) eventually unrecognisable (possibly now nude, but not before every piece of clothing has been entirely coated) beneath a thick coating of dark grey sludge.
That's still the most ideal scenario for me as well. Unfortunately with the market now oversaturated with producers, it's generally riskier to operate on that model. It's just cheaper to either do messes that are easier to clean, use more dated second hand clothes, or start with little to no clothes.
A $400 suit last week during a shoot. Huge mistake!
Sponsors
Design & Code ©1998-2025 Loverbuns, LLC 18 U.S.C. 2257 Record-Keeping Requirements Compliance Statement
Epoch Billing Support Log In