You sure bailed from your entire argument pretty darn quickly to now argue “there’s no way to rigidly define it.” There is. It’s “wet.” It behaves in the way wet things do. There’s no reason to say otherwise than to be contrarian. The only way to argue otherwise is to create a strict definition of wetness, as you just have, which ultimately fails when put up against reality and a more human use of language.
“Wet”, like “funny”, “beautiful”, “delicious”, “bright”, “hot”, “spicy”, "soft’, “hairy”, “clean”, “malleable” are subjective, context specific, descriptors. You can’t describe how many hairs makes something hairy: three hairs on a bowl of ice cream is hairy, but the opposite on a human head.
You sure bailed from your entire argument pretty darn quickly to now argue “there’s no way to rigidly define it.” There is. It’s “wet.” It behaves in the way wet things do. There’s no reason to say otherwise than to be contrarian. The only way to argue otherwise is to create a strict definition of wetness, as you just have, which ultimately fails when put up against reality and a more human use of language.
I’m confused, how does any of this help me determine whether that dude is a skilled lover or not?
sadly my wife isn’t on lemmy so we will never know
“Wet”, like “funny”, “beautiful”, “delicious”, “bright”, “hot”, “spicy”, "soft’, “hairy”, “clean”, “malleable” are subjective, context specific, descriptors. You can’t describe how many hairs makes something hairy: three hairs on a bowl of ice cream is hairy, but the opposite on a human head.