Just a interesting thought I was pondering while in the shower. How did wetlook get thrown in with the messy fetish exactly? To me they are nothing alike at all... In fact it feels super arbitrary that they somehow get grouped. Did it happen because many of same models film videos for both? Do many people that like getting messy also enjoy wetlook videos? Is there that large of a subset of people that enjoy both things that it belongs in the fetish's name? I know they do absolutely nothing for me... I'm not like suggesting the brexit of wetlook from WAM but just wondering why it something that's grouped hand in hand when it seems so distant food play and such... If WAM has taught me anything from watching producer videos... If you like wam you also like feet... Prolly FAM would make more sense as a hand in hand with what I have seen on these producer videos lol thoughts on how or why they are mutual when they are not?

Wet and Messy is intended to be a pretty broad definition that originally happened to be a group on USENET - alt.sex.fetish.wet-and-messy . Feet weren't included because they already had a group. My particular special interest got included because it was covered in the group as well from being peripherally connected by mud. It was never intended to cover things totally and literally. There were other factors but that was one that got us to where we are today.

For what it's worth I've no interest in feet, boots, shoes, at all but wet skin fascinates me. So there you have some proof that WAM works for at least one of us. If my interests were spelled out specifically then I would have to find a showers and quicksand group. Not likely.

Watch me confuse the issue even further.

Ever notice that (unless I have missed them) most (not all) wet videos are purely a "visual" thing? No story or plot. No "humiliation" etc that you find in many WAM videos. It's usually splashing around in a pool or lake, etc.

And yet, the visual of the woman being humiliated by falling in the pool, having a bucket of water dropped on her or doused with a bucket all fit the humiliation "theme." And we have all grown up seeing that happen on TV and in the movies much like we did pies in the face.

So what separates them? Why almost exclusively visual/aesthetic for water and more "psychological" for messes?

Do I have a point? Or am I...........all wet?

Robby

Between that and some of the mud videos, they're definitely more likely to just start playing than with other WAM. Maybe it's because the cost and effort involved in preparing a messy scene. I'm guessing most producers aren't going to make 50 pies and just have people completely freestyle without some sense of direction.

In the early days the vast majority of WAM was fully clothed, and there is a lot of commonality in getting dressed up in a carefully chosen outfit and then deliberately getting soaking wet, or covered in mess or mud, while wearing it. Plus most forms of getting messy involve wet substances so you get both wet and messy as the mess soaks through your outfit.

Most other fetishes involving clothing don't involve doing anything that wets or messes up the clothes, while almost all forms of WAM do, hence grouping them together. This is also I think why combining clothes cutting or ripping with WAM sometimes seems natural to people. It's also why again in the early days some people also included pissing in clothes, and there was at one point on the Splosh forum a guy from mainland Europe who got models to bathe in cow poo, though the majority of WAM people resisted both of those and they were always regarded as separate. Nowadays billing company rules enforce that separation.

This guy now in his 70s getting physically past participation was always a wetlook guy. Since coming to UMD a couple of years back I have found the fully-clothed messy aspect is just as attractive / stimulating to watch as is wetlook. And since when I have shelled out on a significant number of messy downloads which I would never otherwise have done.
So if nothing else I argue keep WAM as one, it broadens everybody's outlook!

I've wondered the same thing myself. The two do seem quite different. My own introduction to the fact that I wasn't the only one was Rob Blaine's publications and website during the infancy of the web. He catered to both and seemed to have an interest each one (but mostly messy). I just assumed it was because of him that both are together. That doesn't seem to be the case but I don't really know why the two are together.

Robby's point above about wet being mainly visual while messy is more about humiliation and plot/acting is also well taken but some of us wet fans branch beyond merely visual. I like the way wet clothes look on a woman, for sure, but I also like it when I know she is feeling wet. I like the little gasps that occasionally sneak out when the model first steps in the water or sinks in deeper. I like wet shoes and socks, and in particular wet heels and hose. I like the squish when the model walks in them. I like it when she is wearing layers and is extra wet. That's not visual, it's about her experiencing being that wet. I like Waminstyle's habit of having girls in jeans, socks, and shoes also wear full pantyhose underneath. That's not about visual (you may not even notice unless you are really looking for it). That's just a gratuitous extra soaking for those of us who want her to be just that much wetter. Wetlook Adventure has an entire series of shoots with girls in winter clothing in multiple layers. That's not about sexy, tight, revealing clothes but more just plain soaking the girls. I like both approaches. There are a few more nuances in the wet world than just the visual, but make no mistake I agree with the distinction between the more visual based wetlook and the humiliation based messy.