Wetlook World ForumCurrent time: Fri 03/05/24 02:59:40 GMT |
Message # 22992.2 Subject: Re: more random thoughts: the shorts question Date: Wed 14/06/06 01:52:11 GMT Name: klm4748 |
Report Abuse or Problem to Nigel at Minxmovies
|
I also have a couple different opinions on this. First, in pictures, shorts and t-shirts are definitely less exciting than more clothing would be. If there's no shirt, just the shorts or just the t-shirt, then I'm quite disappointed. In real life, however, I was impressed when a girl I knew brought no suit to a pool party (one of a very few I got to go to in my high school days) and borrowed boxers and a t-shirt that turned sheerer than expected :) That was nice wetlook. Later, an almost girlfriend once borrowed the same kind of combo to visit some hot springs with me (though I was disappointed, it turned out the grubby jeans and shirt she expected to find in her truck weren't there). Still, it was nice-- a girl's getting wet in _my_ clothes! Finally, in those rare moments when my wife happens to feel like a swim without a swimsuit around to change into or, post swim, no place to change out of one, the shirt (and even more rarely) shorts she wears are a turn-on. I live for those moments. I particularly wish for a day when I can convince her to get a combo like you described, G.O.P, but on the continent of Speedo and topless sunbathing it's a long shot. At least she actually has a two-piece now, that's step one... |
In reply to Message (22992) more random thoughts: the shorts question
By G.O.P. - Tue 13/06/06 15:47:11 GMT Personally, I do consider shorts and any shirt to be real wetlook. The basic idea of wetlook is getting wet in regular clothes, whatever you have on, instead of changing into a dedicated swimming costume. Shorts are regular clothes. Therefore, shorts do qualify as wetlook. In fact, swim trunks can qualify as wetlook under the right conditions. Many people, both men and women, do occasionally or even often wear a pair of swim trunks with a shirt as their regular clothes for the day. Surely everyone has seen this. I even do this myself sometimes. Some people consider a bathing suit as just another pair of shorts (especially if you remove the liner, like I do). Manufacturers are aware of this, otherwise why would they be made with pockets? The whole idea of blurring the distinction between regular clothes and swimwear is what wetlook is all about, and something I enthusiastically support. Take the following example. A woman puts on a pair of swim trunks and a tshirt and heads out for the day. She wears them to the mall, then to McDonalds for lunch, then to a casino, and then to a poolside barbeque at a friend's house. There she goes in the pool wearing them. Then she gets out and eats barbeque (this post is starting to make me hungry!) and sits around talking for a couple of hours while her trunks and tshirt dry, and then wears them to a movie theater, and then goes home. In this context, for her the swim trunks were regular clothes, and not a dedicated swimming costume. She went swimming in whatever she had on. This totally qualifies as valid wetlook in my opinion. I wish I could be with her on a day like this! On the other hand, if she puts on jean shorts and a blouse in the morning, goes and does all the activities mentioned, and then goes to the barbeque and changes into the aforementioned swim trunks and tshirt, and then changes back into the jean shorts and blouse before going to the movies, then this is totally not wetlook. For her, the swim trunks were a dedicated swimming costume, the antithesis of wetlook. So the exact same clothes can either be or not be real wetlook, depending on context. |
Report Abuse or Problem to Nigel at Minxmovies
If you enjoy this forum, then please make a small donation to help with running costs:
(you can change amount)
|
[ This page took 0.026 seconds to generate ]