Talk:Wet and messy fetishism

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Wet and messy fetishism article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Pornography Low‑importance

	Erotica and pornography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pornography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of pornography-related topics 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.PornographyWikipedia:WikiProject PornographyTemplate:WikiProject PornographyPornography articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sexology and sexuality Low‑importance

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mentioned on Graham Norton Show

Hi, The term Sploshing just had a slot on the Graham Norton Show, not sure where it would be appropriate to add it though. 84.67.18.50 21:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did it go into much detail? mattbuck 21:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced?

No, see external link added, and Yahoo! category. This is not original research. -- Karada 23:18, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The existence of mudwrestling does not require verification. The 'theories' listed, and the term wet and messy fetishism, do require verification. In fact, the theories are pretty much discussion. I suppose I could just move them to discussion.Lotusduck 23:08, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

okay, here it is:

Theories

One theory is that the feeling of wet and messy substances on the skin is a surrogate for the feeling of touching a partners' skin while having sex. Other theories are that getting wet and messy amplifies or exaggerates the feelings of lust. Yet another theory is that seeing another person or yourself getting wet and/or messy is arousing, because it reminds of the natural moistures the body excretes when sexually aroused.

Other elements of the fetish cross over with things such as the humiliation element inherent in BDSM, with costumed roleplaying of various fantasies, with an infantilism-like regression to an irresponsible state, or several other stimulai. Even within the WAM community itself, there are many conflicting theories and opinions on what makes the WAM fetish appealing.

Are we happy? Lotusduck 23:10, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are often medical reasons relating to easing the discomfort of dry skin. The wet or messy substance adheres to the skin and rehydrates it, soothing and providing relief from itching, and returning it to its normal, supple state. This may be especially applicable to sufferers of eczema, dermatitis, etc; but also to more minor, undiagnosed forms caused for instance by the drying effect of central heating. For a person who lives with such a condition 24/7, the instant relief may be all that is needed to trigger a sexually charged state. NB: afaik this is unresearched.

More generally, it is a type of body lubrication, heightening sensuality and enhancing sexual activity. This is particularly applicable to couples, eg. in mud wrestling. Bards 03:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And your references for this are? -- The Anome 07:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so why is it considered arousing to see another person messy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.2.178.3 (talk) 02:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know why you like seeing whatever it is turns you on? -mattbuck (Talk) 12:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So very deserving of a deletion nomination

The only reference on this page is in support of a very weasel worded sentance: "it has been generally agreed that wet and messy fetishism is not about humiliation" or something like that. That gives us very little idea about what the book actually said. Right now I'm more interested in deleting what is un-attributable in this article and then merging it to one of several wikipedia articles on very nearly the same topic. Lotusduck 07:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Katharine Gates' Deviant Desires contains a detailed description of this type of fetishism, and there are specialist magazines catering to this fetish, so I believe it certainly merits its own article under the normal notability criteria. However, much of this article appears to me to be unattributable original research, and I believe that it should be first trimmed down to remove the apparent OR, and then expanded with more information from multiple verifiable sources. -- The Anome 07:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome. Should we put citation tags on and wait or just take stuff out? I just wanna take stuff out. Holy! You beat me to it. Good stuff. Lotusduck 07:49, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've now added a {{mergeto}} tag, as this appears to be in almost every aspect covered by saliromania: the exception being where the activity is carried out by a person on themselves in private, in which case it appears to be a form of lube play -- or possibly some kind of "autosaliromania", if such a term exists. Again, the Gates, Splosh and Fiesta references are all relevant, regardless of what you call it. -- The Anome 08:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

surely the point of the article is to accurately reflect the fetish, saliromania is very different to WAM, it is a form of S&M, see umd.net/forums/1/ to get a proper idea of WAM fetishism Urso 14:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forums are not to be how we define these terms. If you think WAM is so different from saliromania, it will have its' own heading under the saliromania article, but not be confused as meaning the exact same thing. Okay? Lotusduck 16:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merger Discussion for Saliromania

see Talk:Saliromania for initial discussion of merger; it was decided to merge with wet and messy as opposed to vice-versa Urso 15:22, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree - Disshevelling the object of desire is not generally the domain of a WAM enthusiast. WAMmers generally take a delight in being messy themselves, not in humiliating their lover. mattbuck 00:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment I agree that all 3 articles should be kept separate. The members who started this discussion (originally merge to saliromania),Lotusduck and The Anome, seem to have abandoned it. I don't know the proper protocol for shutting down the discussion and leaving the 3 articles as they are. If anyone does, I would suggest go ahead and do it... Urso 15:48, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree - Disshevelling or dirtying does not always involve liquid, is not always WAM. Lauren h2003 14:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)Lauren_H2003[reply]

Merger discussion for Mud Wrestling

Disapprove - Mud Wrestling is not necessarily sexual, and as such should not be merged into an article about a sexual fetish. mattbuck 01:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree with the above comment. Mud Wrestling is entertainment where as Wet and Messy is a fetish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.72.66.83 (talk • contribs) 09:44 Apr 21, 2007 (UTC)

Oppose merge for reasons stated above. 130.101.20.140 20:59, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merge I 100% agree. Mud wresteling is not sexual in the same context as a fetish. Any sexual ties with mud wrestling are completely within normal sexuality. To merge mud wresteling with wet and messy fetishism (a sexual deviance for most people) would also suggest that "wet t-shirt contests" are also a form of fetishism. I doubt that those who do sexualize the activity would be interested more in the "messiness" than they would the contestents tightly-clad clothing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.119.62.12 (talk) 20:09, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merger discussion for Food play

Strongly oppose merge. If one just reads the first line in the Food play article you can know why it shouldn't be merged with the Wet and messy Fetishism article: "Food play can have sexual or non-sexual connotations.". WAM is a sexual fetish. Food play isn't always. Furthermore WAM can involve non-food such as slime and mud so it can't be a section under food play.

If you take a look at the Attack of the Show clip linked in the article you will see numerous parts of videos related to the WAM fetish. Or else you can visit http://thewamstore.com or http://umd.net and see that the people into WAM are a huge community.

WAM isn't a fetish a few isolated people have. It has a large group of people associated with it. So the people on here calling for the article to be deleted or merged, turned into a sub-category, should please keep in mind the sheer amount of people into this fetish. It deserves it's own article.

Bigpindahouse (talk) 01:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is debatable whether or not urophilia is "mainstream"

Ctrl + F "commonly found in mainstream pornography" When surveyed, small numbers of people say that they are aroused by the idea of urophilia (people have lied in surveys regarding sexuality in the past, though. eg: The percentage of women who watch porn), though in animated porn/normal porn, I'm geussing its more taboo than emetophilia and coprophilia. Ydhhuwwhsm (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:12, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not everything has to have a wikipedia article

--Baller McGee (talk) 19:42, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Baller McGee: this article has several citations, although granted they're not particularly great ones. If you feel it shouldn't exist then I suggest you nominate it for deletion. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:29, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]