Talk:Wet and messy fetishism

message: 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)
replies: text: Did it go into much detail? mattbuck 21:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mentioned on Graham Norton Show 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: And your references for this are? -- The Anome 07:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: I've now added a  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  So very deserving of a deletion nomination 

message: 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)
thread_title: Merger Discussion for Saliromania

message: 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)
thread_title:  Merger discussion for [[Mud Wrestling]] 

message: Regarding slapstick: It took me a minute or two to figure out the correlation, maybe a mention in the article or next to the link would be helpful? Otherwise, why have it there?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.46.137.159 (talk) 01:55, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Related Articles

message: 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)
thread_title: Merger discussion for [[Food play]]

message: 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)
thread_title:  It is debatable whether or not urophilia is "mainstream" 

message: --Baller McGee (talk) 19:42, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Maybe not everything has to have a wikipedia article