I am not speaking about the wiki page either, it seems fine. The problem is where people will take the definition, to shove the tag to posts that shouldn't have it. so it isnt a problem with the definition or whstever, the problem comes from how it gets tagged on pretty much anything that could even casually be construed as 'vore', no matter how small that detail is. Maybe a small clarification is in order.

This post has the tag which I thiunk was added becourse there is some written text "Shove!" for context that hints the character wasn't just flattened, he went between the asscheeks into the anus, and I don't think it should be tagged per TWYS. There was a tag war 3 years ago and I dont feel safe doing anything with the tags if that will resurrect it and possibly get me in trouble.
post #2401224

Should this tag ever be influenced by text? If a character said "I ate my neighbor" would that count for the tag? If it was only me, Id replace the tags with crushed because that is the first thing which came to mind before I read the text. Maybe vore_(lore) or implied_vore would be appropriate, but one doesn't exist, the other has been aliased to vore.

Folks would either blacklist or search vore for posts like these.
post #4195735 post #4190854

The above post had accidental_vore as well, so for the sake of the argument there are these that would still interest voraphiles. compare them to the first post!
post #4160962 post #4136122 post #3814006

you can tell the first post shouldn't have the tag!
Again, at best, it can have implied_vore which itself has still been aliased to damn vore

I hope nobody added the blanket "vore" tag to their blacklist, with the way this tag is treated and added to random things that shouldn't have it they will block more than vore! They will block posts that they would have been fine seeing!

Idk what to define vore as, but as someone who has is blacklisted, I really don't think the first one fits to be called that, it can be interpreted as such, but it lacks the "fetishy vibe" these kind of pics normally have.

Considering things like these are tagged explicit, I'd argue the first one is appropriately tagged.

vulpes_artifex said:
Considering things like these are tagged explicit, I'd argue the first one is appropriately tagged.

all but one of those are rated explicit due to the x_anus, with post #2864149 being rated explicit due to feces. ratings are based off what's present in the image, it doesn't matter who created it or how innocent it looks; anuses get rated explicit with no exception, and bodily excretions like urine and feces get rated explicit as well.

in any case, vore's probably not well-kept since plenty of people have it on their blacklists (or, it's not being managed by peers, but instead by whoever doesn't have it blacklisted), therefore you can definitely find images where someone assumes vore despite nothing in the image proving that vore happened. however, if you try and hyper-specify what belongs in vore and what doesn't, it'll cause problems with the tag's usability (especially for the sake of blacklisting) since there's no "not vore, but vore-like" or vore_(lore) tag. if you think a post shouldn't be tagged vore, you can remove it and/or report the post for a tag lock, otherwise i don't think we'd be able to reconsider what vore is or isn't since it's being used wrong, not defined wrong. redefining it won't help if people still tag it based on what they think vore means, this is the kind of problem that can only be solved by focusing your efforts on fixing the posts it's tagged on.

siral_exan said:
all but one of those are rated explicit due to the x_anus, with post #2864149 being rated explicit due to feces. ratings are based off what's present in the image, it doesn't matter who created it or how innocent it looks; anuses get rated explicit with no exception, and bodily excretions like urine and feces get rated explicit as well.

Well, that was kind of my point. Something as abstract as an x, or an x-shaped pattern of bread crust, is still considered an anus.

vulpes_artifex said:
Well, that was kind of my point. Something as abstract as an x, or an x-shaped pattern of bread crust, is still considered an anus.

oh, sorry.

I mean, as somebody into the whole parasitism/infestation part of body horror, it does get... aggravating that vore gets applied to that, meaning there's very little way (given parasite and infestation are undertagged where it would otherwise belong) to find that content while keeping actual vore blacklisted. Perhaps we simply need to have somebody who either is into such things, or at least not disgusted to the point of eye-gouging, go through posts tagged as vore every once in a while to make sure that's what it actually is.

I seriously don't see the argument for the first one not being vore. The size difference is just not large enough for the person on the bottom to be completely hidden under their ass. Pretty much the only other way that image makes any sense is flattening and even then you would still definitely see their tail sticking out.
And I never understood why some people don't think context provided by text is extremely relevant to an image. Cus it really is.

pollexmessier said:
I seriously don't see the argument for the first one not being vore. The size difference is just not large enough for the person on the bottom to be completely hidden under their ass. Pretty much the only other way that image makes any sense is flattening and even then you would still definitely see their tail sticking out.

Crush can be added to posts even if the character getting crushed stops being visible. Vore can't, though. Vore needs to have visual proof, and the tail sticking out part isn't accurate. post #4133499 post #4003596 post #3997100
Actually? There is only 3 posts on the first page of crush flattened that meet your specification, only 3 out of 75 posts. This number goes down to only 1 with flattened alone.

And I never understood why some people don't think context provided by text is extremely relevant to an image. Cus it really is.

I reckon the admins decided on that.

wolfmanfur said:
Crush can be added to posts even if the character getting crushed stops being visible. Vore can't, though.

???
who told you _that_?

wolfmanfur said:
Crush can be added to posts even if the character getting crushed stops being visible. Vore can't, though. Vore needs to have visual proof, and the tail sticking out part isn't accurate. post #4133499 post #4003596 post #3997100
Actually? There is only 3 posts on the first page of crush flattened that meet your specification, only 3 out of 75 posts. This number goes down to only 1 with flattened alone.

ALL the posts you gave as examples have substantially bigger size difference where it makes sense that the character could be completely hidden underneath. The size and position of the characters relative to eachother matters. Also EVERY single post under that tag on the first page shows evidence that the character was in fact crushed or flattened. All of them. As well as the first page for both Crushed and Flattened individually. Ether the character is small enough that them completely vanishing under the larger character makes sense, it's a body part where vore can't occur, There's some text indicating it was crushing, or there's some other concrete visual confirmation.

There's just no way that cat could be under that eevee's ass instead of inside of it without any visible body parts sticking out. Without the text I'd still say it's more likely vore than not. But with it, it's basically confirmed.
I'd usually say in situations like this to check the source and see what the artist has to say but they haven't tagged the image as vore or crushed/flattened in the source. They've replied to comments on it that are saying it's vore correting them on the cat's gender, but not denying the vore claim. THE COMMISSIONER on the other hand, has tagged it as anal_vore on their own post of the image. Tho they do also have implied_vore in the tags https://www.furaffinity.net/view/37627167/
Confirmation that the person that commissioned the image intended it to be vore, plus the other evidence in the image pointing towards it is, in my opinion, more than proof enough.

Even if it was tagged implied_vore as per the other forum post on this topic and the commissioner's tags on FA, The anal_vore tag would still need to be there as well.

pollexmessier said:
And I never understood why some people don't think context provided by text is extremely relevant to an image. Cus it really is.

I'd argue that we should be able to use in-image text to resolve ambiguities. Like, if a character with a penis, testicles, and no breasts is saying "I'm a girl!", fine, ignore that, there's no visual ambiguity to the character's sex and doing otherwise would be against tag what you see. But if text can determine which of a number of distinct interpretations of an image is correct, I think it would be fine to use that.

Like, in the first image in the first post, the "SHOVE" onomatopoeia is the tool the artist used to communicate that it was vore. Why should we ignore that? What exactly is the artist supposed to have done to get their image tagged correctly?

vulpes_artifex said:
What exactly is the artist supposed to have done to get their image tagged correctly?

That's looking at it backwards. Art shouldn't be made to fit tags, the tags fit the art. An artist shouldn't try to get a post tagged a certain way, the tags are simply a reflection of what's visible in the image. If a tag applies, it applies, if it doesn't, it doesn't, no need to fret beyond that.

That said, I do think post #2401224 with the eevee should count. Even excluding the text, the sequence shows a character underneath her rump followed by her falling onto the ground where the character was standing, with an expression that strongly suggests penetration occurred rather than simply crushing or flattening.

watsit said:
That's looking at it backwards. Art shouldn't be made to fit tags, the tags fit the art. An artist shouldn't try to get a post tagged a certain way, the tags are simply a reflection of what's visible in the image. If a tag applies, it applies, if it doesn't, it doesn't, no need to fret beyond that.

That said, I do think post #2401224 with the eevee should count. Even excluding the text, the sequence shows a character underneath her rump followed by her falling onto the ground where the character was standing, with an expression that strongly suggests penetration occurred rather than simply crushing or flattening.

I wasn't trying to imply that. Rather, I was saying that the onomatopoeia was part of the artist's visual toolkit, and it shouldn't be ignored.

vulpes_artifex said:
I'd argue that we should be able to use in-image text to resolve ambiguities. Like, if a character with a penis, testicles, and no breasts is saying "I'm a girl!", fine, ignore that, there's no visual ambiguity to the character's sex and doing otherwise would be against tag what you see. But if text can determine which of a number of distinct interpretations of an image is correct, I think it would be fine to use that.

Like, in the first image in the first post, the "SHOVE" onomatopoeia is the tool the artist used to communicate that it was vore. Why should we ignore that? What exactly is the artist supposed to have done to get their image tagged correctly?

I absolutely agree. Especially things like the examples in topic #39808: Those are very much what people searching for stuck_knot want to see! That's clearly what's happening in the image and they absolutely belong in a stuck_knot search. To ignore the text there would make search functionality worse, not better.

cloudpie said:
I absolutely agree. Especially things like the examples in topic #39808: Those are very much what people searching for stuck_knot want to see! That's clearly what's happening in the image and they absolutely belong in a stuck_knot search. To ignore the text there would make search functionality worse, not better.

People who blacklist vore like m3g4p0n1 don't want the post blacklisted because no vore is actually shown and people who search vore are not interested by this post because no vore is shown. Have you seen the other posts under the tag?

pollexmessier said:
ALL the posts you gave as examples have substantially bigger size difference where it makes sense that the character could be completely hidden underneath. The size and position of the characters relative to eachother matters. Also EVERY single post under that tag on the first page shows evidence that the character was in fact crushed or flattened. All of them. As well as the first page for both Crushed and Flattened individually. Ether the character is small enough that them completely vanishing under the larger character makes sense, it's a body part where vore can't occur, There's some text indicating it was crushing, or there's some other concrete visual confirmation.

There's just no way that cat could be under that eevee's ass instead of inside of it without any visible body parts sticking out. Without the text I'd still say it's more likely vore than not. But with it, it's basically confirmed.
I'd usually say in situations like this to check the source and see what the artist has to say but they haven't tagged the image as vore or crushed/flattened in the source. They've replied to comments on it that are saying it's vore correting them on the cat's gender, but not denying the vore claim. THE COMMISSIONER on the other hand, has tagged it as anal_vore on their own post of the image. Tho they do also have implied_vore in the tags https://www.furaffinity.net/view/37627167/
Confirmation that the person that commissioned the image intended it to be vore, plus the other evidence in the image pointing towards it is, in my opinion, more than proof enough.

Even if it was tagged implied_vore as per the other forum post on this topic and the commissioner's tags on FA, The anal_vore tag would still need to be there as well.

There is an implied_anal_vore tag as well that hasn't been invalidated.

wolfmanfur said:
People who blacklist vore like m3g4p0n1 don't want the post blacklisted because no vore is actually shown and people who search vore are not interested by this post because no vore is shown. Have you seen the other posts under the tag?

I don't agree that people into vore wouldn't be interested in this, otherwise the very concept of "implied vore" wouldn't be so common.

vulpes_artifex said:
I don't agree that people into vore wouldn't be interested in this, otherwise the very concept of "implied vore" wouldn't be so common.

Because some folks care about elements that are not inherent to a scenery or a piece of art. That's why we have trans_(lore) trans_woman_(lore), gay_(lore) and so many more, but most people don't care about things that aren't inherent to a drawing, the first reply very much indicates that.

wolfmanfur said:

People who blacklist vore like m3g4p0n1 don't want the post blacklisted because no vore is actually shown and people who search vore are not interested by this post because no vore is shown. Have you seen the other posts under the tag?

There is an implied_anal_vore tag as well that hasn't been invalidated.

vulpes_artifex said:
I don't agree that people into vore wouldn't be interested in this, otherwise the very concept of "implied vore" wouldn't be so common.

Perhaps we could call it light_vore and then imply vore from it?
Kinda like anus and x_anus. A tag applied on cases where a certain theme or subject is depicted in a less in-your-face or detailed way.

Then I could simply add "vore -light_vore" to the blacklist, and vore folks could still search their stuff.

wolfmanfur said:
Because some folks care about elements that are not inherent to a scenery or a piece of art. That's why we have trans_(lore) trans_woman_(lore), gay_(lore) and so many more, but most people don't care about things that aren't inherent to a drawing, the first reply very much indicates that.

Not everyone who's into a thing is going to be interested in every artwork that includes that thing.

wolfmanfur said:
People who blacklist vore like m3g4p0n1 don't want the post blacklisted because no vore is actually shown and people who search vore are not interested by this post because no vore is shown. Have you seen the other posts under the tag?

but there literally is vore shown, though? I'm not seeing the ambiguity of this situation, just because it's not shown in gratuitous detail dosn't mean that it's not happening, the same way we can tag sex and penetration with the entire act being obscured.

Tag What You See does not mean to only tag stuff that's fully visible, we also tag actions and situations that can be reasonably extrapolated from the content of the image. _{it's just that TWYS&AWCBRE don't roll off the tongue the same.} sometimes we're forced to make assumptions about what the content of an image is, that's why without a body to attach it to a penis is male and why stuff like the non-euclidian_* tag family is able to function at all.

wolfmanfur said:

People who blacklist vore like m3g4p0n1 don't want the post blacklisted because no vore is actually shown and people who search vore are not interested by this post because no vore is shown. Have you seen the other posts under the tag?

There is an implied_anal_vore tag as well that hasn't been invalidated.

Firstly everyone I know who's into anal vore LOVES that image. So your assertion that people into vore wouldn't be interested cus it's not shown is just objectively false. Aside from the fact that it is pretty overtly a vore image and you're in denial about it.

Here's the major issue with tagging implied on something like vore. Especially when the image is that blatant about it. If the image is only using implied tags for vore, people looking for vore and would like that image will miss it. And someone who has vore blacklisted will likely not be interested in the image anyways, so using implied_vore instead of vore is counter productive. Maybe some people who want to avoid vore would like that image. But it really, REALLY is a vore image. I can't stress enough how much that image is objectively vore. It's a pretty huge stretch to say it's only implied there.

The main point of implied tags is for blacklisting purposes. Nobody's going to search for implied tags. So if an image is such that people looking for that thing would actively want to seek it out, the definitive tag should be used so the people that want to find it can. An implied tag should be used in instances where the implication itself would be cause for discomfort in some people, but not others who don't mind the implication but don't wanna see the overt stuff ether, and people looking for that kink wouldn't be all that interested in the image.

Ultimately tags are there for people to find what they want to find and avoid what they want to avoid. So I think they should be used with that in mind. The eevee image greatly interests people into vore. It's very strongly suggested to be vore, so that's how it should be tagged.

In this light I kindof see the argument for doing away with implied tags and just tagging implied images with the definitive tag. If it's something you're uncomfortable with enough to blacklist, the implication alone is probably enough to disinterest you in an image. When it comes to digestion tho, there's a very wide spectrum of what people are and aren't okay with, Sometimes preds in vore images will say digestion related stuff just to be a dick but not actually intend to do it, and in some of my other examples of what could be classified as implied_digestion, there's room for argument on if the prey's fine or not, and that room for argument can be a turn off to some and not to others. Largely because so many instances of it have the character completely obscured, because a lot of people that are into digestion are not actually into seeing it happen. This is a huge reason why "are they okay?" comments are such a massive point of contention in the vore community. So I think implied_digestion has a lot of merit to be used heavily. Vore on the other had, it's really hard to find an instance where implied_vore is a thing. It's ether fairly obviously taking place in the image, about to happen (imminent_vore), or has happened (After_vore). Very few really specific scenarios that don't show up too often could be classified as Implied_vore. This is not one of them, and most of the time they're still instances where they mostly interest people looking for vore and not really anyone else.

I've noticed this but didn't want to bother pursuing it. It's problematic in that it makes blacklisting vore cast a hugely wide net in which any micro/macro interaction involving orifices get the vore tag copiously applied. I don't like vore. I do like size difference. I know better than to complain so I just "suck it up" so to speak since blacklisting hard vore is straightforward.

(Examples feature explicit M/M content.)
Example 1:
https://e621.net/posts/41173

Example 2:
https://e621.net/posts/41174

In some cases you just can't win though. I could imagine people with vore blacklisted finding those images and having a knee-jerk reaction assuming vore even though I think nothing about them indicates it's anything more than micro/macro sex. Actually I'd go further and say the poses have evidence the character is not being eaten, especially the leg positioning.

zeorp said:
I've noticed this but didn't want to bother pursuing it. It's problematic in that it makes blacklisting vore cast a hugely wide net in which any micro/macro interaction involving orifices get the vore tag copiously applied. I don't like vore. I do like size difference. I know better than to complain so I just "suck it up" so to speak since blacklisting hard vore is straightforward.

(Examples feature explicit M/M content.)
Example 1:
https://e621.net/posts/41173

Example 2:
https://e621.net/posts/41174

In some cases you just can't win though. I could imagine people with vore blacklisted finding those images and having a knee-jerk reaction assuming vore even though I think nothing about them indicates it's anything more than micro/macro sex. Actually I'd go further and say the poses have evidence the character is not being eaten, especially the leg positioning.

Yeah I don't consider maw-play to be vore. In a sense being in something's mouth is still technically inside of them so it could be argued to be vore. But I wouldn't say it is personally. Maybe Partial_vore could work for instances like this. Only one post currently uses it but I think it's a tag that could be good to use. There's a lot of instances of characters being partially inserted into an orifice that don't entirely feel like vore. Head_in_ass is a particularly specific instance of this. Coincidentally the only post currently using partial_vore is also a head_in_ass pic.

sipothac said:
the same way we can tag sex and penetration with the entire act being obscured.

It has its own tag: obscured_sex and that does not implicate sex obscured_sex -sex.

zeorp said:
I've noticed this but didn't want to bother pursuing it. It's problematic in that it makes blacklisting vore cast a hugely wide net in which any micro/macro interaction involving orifices get the vore tag copiously applied. I don't like vore. I do like size difference. I know better than to complain so I just "suck it up" so to speak since blacklisting hard vore is straightforward.

(Examples feature explicit M/M content.)
Example 1:
https://e621.net/posts/41173

Example 2:
https://e621.net/posts/41174

In some cases you just can't win though. I could imagine people with vore blacklisted finding those images and having a knee-jerk reaction assuming vore even though I think nothing about them indicates it's anything more than micro/macro sex. Actually I'd go further and say the poses have evidence the character is not being eaten, especially the leg positioning.

These don't count frankly speaking. Implied_vore would mean the post hints that it's vore without showing it overtly. These posts shouldn't be tagged vore period, but as with everything with this tag it gets added to everythingthat can be construed as vore and a maw-shot can be construed as vore or imminent_vore to some folks, It desperately needs a clarificatioon in the wiki.

pollexmessier said:
Firstly everyone I know who's into anal vore LOVES that image. So your assertion that people into vore wouldn't be interested cus it's not shown is just objectively false. Aside from the fact that it is pretty overtly a vore image and you're in denial about it.

Here's the major issue with tagging implied on something like vore. Especially when the image is that blatant about it. If the image is only using implied tags for vore, people looking for vore and would like that image will miss it. And someone who has vore blacklisted will likely not be interested in the image anyways, so using implied_vore instead of vore is counter productive. Maybe some people who want to avoid vore would like that image. But it really, REALLY is a vore image. I can't stress enough how much that image is objectively vore. It's a pretty huge stretch to say it's only implied there.

The main point of implied tags is for blacklisting purposes. Nobody's going to search for implied tags. So if an image is such that people looking for that thing would actively want to seek it out, the definitive tag should be used so the people that want to find it can. An implied tag should be used in instances where the implication itself would be cause for discomfort in some people, but not others who don't mind the implication but don't wanna see the overt stuff ether, and people looking for that kink wouldn't be all that interested in the image.

Ultimately tags are there for people to find what they want to find and avoid what they want to avoid. So I think they should be used with that in mind. The eevee image greatly interests people into vore. It's very strongly suggested to be vore, so that's how it should be tagged.

In this light I kindof see the argument for doing away with implied tags and just tagging implied images with the definitive tag. If it's something you're uncomfortable with enough to blacklist, the implication alone is probably enough to disinterest you in an image. When it comes to digestion tho, there's a very wide spectrum of what people are and aren't okay with, Sometimes preds in vore images will say digestion related stuff just to be a dick but not actually intend to do it, and in some of my other examples of what could be classified as implied_digestion, there's room for argument on if the prey's fine or not, and that room for argument can be a turn off to some and not to others. Largely because so many instances of it have the character completely obscured, because a lot of people that are into digestion are not actually into seeing it happen. This is a huge reason why "are they okay?" comments are such a massive point of contention in the vore community. So I think implied_digestion has a lot of merit to be used heavily. Vore on the other had, it's really hard to find an instance where implied_vore is a thing. It's ether fairly obviously taking place in the image, about to happen (imminent_vore), or has happened (After_vore). Very few really specific scenarios that don't show up too often could be classified as Implied_vore. This is not one of them, and most of the time they're still instances where they mostly interest people looking for vore and not really anyone else.

Thank you for the wall of text, but last time I checked you wanted implied_digestion revalidated, so that sounds utterly hypocritical coming from you.

I would like to see what images you want to apply implied_digestion to, I can guarantee I can use your very same arguments and logic against your own posts. Why would you ever tag implied_digestion since nobody's going to search it? Why would you ever tag implied_digestion when digestion is fine as-is, I mean you said it yourself there is enough context to tag digestion, so why jump straight to implied_digestion?

wolfmanfur said:
It has its own tag: obscured_sex and that does not implicate sex obscured_sex -sex.

the fact that a tag currently lacks an implication does not mean an implication be inapplicable.

the fact that the sex tag has never been removed from a post with this tag would seem to confirm that the remaining posts in the obscured_sex -sex search are undertagged, potentially with the assumption that there would be an implication, and not that these should be mutually exclusive situations.

pollexmessier said:
Yeah I don't consider maw-play to be vore. In a sense being in something's mouth is still technically inside of them so it could be argued to be vore. But I wouldn't say it is personally. Maybe Partial_vore could work for instances like this. Only one post currently uses it but I think it's a tag that could be good to use. There's a lot of instances of characters being partially inserted into an orifice that don't entirely feel like vore. Head_in_ass is a particularly specific instance of this. Coincidentally the only post currently using partial_vore is also a head_in_ass pic.

It's telling that searching mawplay oral_vore returns primarily mawplay images without the act of swallowing. Considering the fact that mawplay doesn't have any implications, and this tidbit from the oral_vore wiki page:

Oral vore typically has the "prey" character swallowed, travelling down the predator character's throat, and arriving in their stomach...

It seems to imply that oral_vore shouldn't be tagged on mawplay images. Personally, I don't like oral vore, but I do like mawplay, so instead of simply being able to throw oral vore into my blacklist I've had to concoct this mess of tags to make sure mawplay content isn't blocked. (Compounding that with the fact that the swallowing tag is liberally applied where drinking_* tags would be more appropriate, you can see why the situation might be somewhat frustrating.)

axakatl said:
It's telling that searching mawplay oral_vore returns primarily mawplay images without the act of swallowing. Considering the fact that mawplay doesn't have any implications, and this tidbit from the oral_vore wiki page:

It seems to imply that oral_vore shouldn't be tagged on mawplay images. Personally, I don't like oral vore, but I do like mawplay, so instead of simply being able to throw oral vore into my blacklist I've had to concoct this mess of tags to make sure mawplay content isn't blocked. (Compounding that with the fact that the swallowing tag is liberally applied where drinking_* tags would be more appropriate, you can see why the situation might be somewhat frustrating.)

You're right, and this has been a problem for a long time from what I can tell. Folks here will tag anything vore when it shouldn't be tgged vore.On the other hand, there are folks who are furious that posts which don't have visible vore have vore in-lore and isn't tagged as a result, this mess is confusing as hell.

wolfmanfur said:
You're right, and this has been a problem for a long time from what I can tell. Folks here will tag anything vore when it shouldn't be tgged vore.On the other hand, there are folks who are furious that posts which don't have visible vore have vore in-lore and isn't tagged as a result, this mess is confusing as hell.

I think the main issue is definition, as you said at the top. Vore includes all forms of consumption, but in a static image, that can be tricky to tell. Particularly with the mawplay or oral_vore example, the difference is sometimes only intent. Past a point it's clearly vore, but any case a character is partially inside of another could be vore.

Given that we're supposed to lean towards including tags that are commonly blacklisted, I think most of the posts in mawplay oral_vore are correct to have oral_vore. I haven't seen any examples in this thread that I think ar incorrectly tagged vore.

scth said:
Given that we're supposed to lean towards including tags that are commonly blacklisted, I think most of the posts in mawplay oral_vore are correct to have oral_vore. I haven't seen any examples in this thread that I think ar incorrectly tagged vore.

You might be right, to be honest, but I think there's a practical aspect to take into consideration here. I know there's a pretty significant contingent of folk who consider mawplay to be distinct from oral vore, and I'm pretty sure there's a decent chunk who like the former but not the latter. There really doesn't seem to be an easy way to distinguish them with the tags as they are.

axakatl said:
You might be right, to be honest, but I think there's a practical aspect to take into consideration here. I know there's a pretty significant contingent of folk who consider mawplay to be distinct from oral vore, and I'm pretty sure there's a decent chunk who like the former but not the latter. There really doesn't seem to be an easy way to distinguish them with the tags as they are.

There is, don't tag vore if no character is trying to eat another character. That's simple!

Example, this is obviously vore, it should undoubtedly be tagged:
post #4212297

This is only implied to be vore via text it shouldn't be tagged:
post #2401224

No character is actually visibly getting eaten here, this shouldn't be tagged:
post #4116151

wolfmanfur said:
There is, don't tag vore if no character is trying to eat another character. That's simple!

(To be clear I meant there isn't currently an easy way to distinguish them)

But yeah, agreed. With that last one she isn't even in the bigger character's mouth, so putting any vore tag on it is a bit ridiculous.

wolfmanfur said:
There is, don't tag vore if no character is trying to eat another character. That's simple!

Example, this is obviously vore, it should undoubtedly be tagged:
post #4212297

This is only implied to be vore via text it shouldn't be tagged:
post #2401224

No character is actually visibly getting eaten here, this shouldn't be tagged:
post #4116151

The second is vore by context, not text. The text is entirely irrelevant to it being vore, or at least heavily implied; and heavily implied tags can simply be tagged.
For the third, I agree, that's not vore. Potentially imminent_oral_vore, though. Likely enough that that's how I'll tag it.

scth said:
For the third, I agree, that's not vore. Potentially imminent_oral_vore, though. Likely enough that that's how I'll tag it.

I wouldn't even say that. The smaller character's hugging the tongue, and the other doesn't have their mouth open enough to fit them down. There's no indication they're about to be eaten.

votp said:
I mean, as somebody into the whole parasitism/infestation part of body horror, it does get... aggravating that vore gets applied to that, meaning there's very little way (given parasite and infestation are undertagged where it would otherwise belong) to find that content while keeping actual vore blacklisted. Perhaps we simply need to have somebody who either is into such things, or at least not disgusted to the point of eye-gouging, go through posts tagged as vore every once in a while to make sure that's what it actually is.

If you can come up with a definition for vore and jnfestation where both are cleanly separated, I would be very interested. I tried my hand at coming up with one severat times in the past (because it would help tidying other tags like penetration interlock, pred/prey willingness, regurgitation, etc). It's been my thousand dollar question for many years.

wolfmanfur said:
I am not speaking about the wiki page either, it seems fine. The problem is where people will take the definition, to shove the tag to posts that shouldn't have it. so it isnt a problem with the definition or whstever, the problem comes from how it gets tagged on pretty much anything that could even casually be construed as 'vore', no matter how small that detail is. Maybe a small clarification is in order.

This post has the tag which I thiunk was added becourse there is some written text "Shove!" for context that hints the character wasn't just flattened, he went between the asscheeks into the anus, and I don't think it should be tagged per TWYS. There was a tag war 3 years ago and I dont feel safe doing anything with the tags if that will resurrect it and possibly get me in trouble.
post #2401224

Should this tag ever be influenced by text? If a character said "I ate my neighbor" would that count for the tag? If it was only me, Id replace the tags with crushed because that is the first thing which came to mind before I read the text. Maybe vore_(lore) or implied_vore would be appropriate, but one doesn't exist, the other has been aliased to vore.

Folks would either blacklist or search vore for posts like these.
post #4195735 post #4190854

The above post had accidental_vore as well, so for the sake of the argument there are these that would still interest voraphiles. compare them to the first post!
post #4160962 post #4136122 post #3814006

you can tell the first post shouldn't have the tag!
Again, at best, it can have implied_vore which itself has still been aliased to damn vore

I hope nobody added the blanket "vore" tag to their blacklist, with the way this tag is treated and added to random things that shouldn't have it they will block more than vore! They will block posts that they would have been fine seeing!

The problem with vore, to me, has always been the lack of distinction between "vore, the theme" and "vore, the action". Most "inside stomach/balls/uterus" images get tagged as their corresponding vore type, but so do "imminent vore" images and things like "mouth play" (which straddle the line but purists would consider not vore). The purview of "vore" is a complete mess as a result (not helped by this being a heavily blacklisted tag, as you pointed out, so people try to paint very broad strokes with it), and the definition is very hard to narrow down.

Also not helping is that vore is a bit of a "symptom" for like 4 different fetishes:

post #2596559

It's hard to properly clear up the tags around this without clearing out why people are sometimes into this and why they sometimes would want it blacklisted.

fifteen said:
If you can come up with a definition for vore and jnfestation where both are cleanly separated, I would be very interested. I tried my hand at coming up with one severat times in the past (because it would help tidying other tags like penetration interlock, pred/prey willingness, regurgitation, etc). It's been my thousand dollar question for many years.

The current issue seems to be "Organism inside/entering/bonding/bonded with other organism" = automatically some form of vore, which to me at least makes the term about as useful a tag as "hair" if it is applied to fur. I wouldn't be surprised if I started seeing Changed or Venom art tagged with absorption vore, for example, as given how the tag seems to be used they would logically be applicable, along with most latex/suit TF/droneification and similar things. Given the root meaning of the word, it seems as though vore should only apply when it is active consumption of one by another, rather invasion. I also question how deep tentacles need to penetrate before they are considered "vored" given how loosely it seems to be used.

For example, the artist qwaxi~lixard seems to have had a fair deal of posts hit with the vore tag, while others have not. It would not be quite as... annoying, I suppose, if folks actually used the parasite, infestation, and similar tags so that I could make a blacklist exception of, say "vore -infestation", but those tags are critically under-utilised and, perhaps, need re-definition for clarity as well. We also run into the issue of what should be defined as a parasite versus vore, as you have very large, very developed creatures like the classic Xenomorph which, by definition, is a parasitoid, or Synxes. It's a mess, really.

fifteen said:
The problem with vore, to me, has always been the lack of distinction between "vore, the theme" and "vore, the action".

The vore tag is supposed to be the verb, used when the act is happening, which is why imminent_vore doesn't imply vore (if it's about to happen, it's not currently happening).

We don't generally tag "themes" (in the 'people into X will like this' sense), since it's subjective. Different people can both be into vore and like/dislike vastly different images, so trying to tag based on whether someone may like a given image would be overbroad, returning too many results in a search. Same for the reverse, people who aren't into vore may dislike different 'vore themed' images, resulting in too many posts being blacklisted when they don't depict it. We don't tag zoophilia on images that people who like feral-on-non-feral stuff will like, we tag bestiality on images directly depicting feral-on-non-feral sexual activity. We don't tag somnophilia on images that people who like sleep sex will like, we tag sleep_sex on images directly depicting sex with one of the characters asleep, etc. We tag the act that we can see happening, not the associated -philia that an image may trigger in someone.

It seems asinine to not tag the first image whatever tag you'd normally give for taking an entire body in your ass (anal vore?).

It's not graphic, but a lot of these types of images don't seem to be. It's about as explicit as many of the "ambiguous penetration" images without animation or an x-ray shot & those are still explicit. If he picked him up with an open mouth, then next panel he's gone with a "chomp" sound effect I think we can safely say he was ate, & moreover it's something the people into the tag want the tag to find & those who do not want it to blacklist.

Otherwise are we arguing post #4217624 is 'Safe' just because you can't technically see genitals? I doubt it.

Do we have a "soft" vore tag for when things aren't bloody or messy? If someone really wants nongraphic they can blacklist the "hard" variety.

damieng said:
It seems asinine to not tag the first image whatever tag you'd normally give for taking an entire body in your ass (anal vore?).

It's not graphic, but a lot of these types of images don't seem to be. It's about as explicit as many of the "ambiguous penetration" images without animation or an x-ray shot & those are still explicit. If he picked him up with an open mouth, then next panel he's gone with a "chomp" sound effect I think we can safely say he was ate, & moreover it's something the people into the tag want the tag to find & those who do not want it to blacklist.

Otherwise are we arguing post #4217624 is 'Safe' just because you can't technically see genitals? I doubt it.

Do we have a "soft" vore tag for when things aren't bloody or messy? If someone really wants nongraphic they can blacklist the "hard" variety.

The post example you use contains penetration which is tagged, which is also explicit and which is clearly visible. My post example contains no vore, it is not visible and it looks like the characte's being crushed.

You understood the definitions of soft and hard vore incorrectly. Soft is when the character isn't torn to shred before being eaten while hard is when the character is tirn apart and maybe all bloody before being eaten. most examples of hard vore are characters being chewed on with the pred's own teeth or a subset of vore called cooking_with_furs. All my post examples are soft_vore, apart from the first one which is only implied to be vore through text once again. dunno if they've been tagged, but all with the exception of that one is soft_vore. There's no practical difference between vore and soft vore, it's about as useful as using hard_vore in the search or -hard_vore in the blacklist.

For example, the artist qwaxi~lixard seems to have had a fair deal of posts hit with the vore tag, while others have not. It would not be quite as...

The stainous relationshop between vore and infestation likely stems from this comment. Additionally, infestation does include a back link to vore.

I'm not too into "True Vore" so my usage of the tag is conditional. I only tag vore infestation qwaxi~lixard when you can see the parasites going. This meets the vague criteria of "consuming".

Things like testicle impreg, parasite birthing, generally being infested, and non-animal/slime consumption will have the vore tag omitted -vore infestation qwaxi~lixard unless added by a user.

Finally, I don't think you could fully decoupled infestation and vore. The act of becoming infested is often an act of consuming a creature and thus vore. The type of infestation I most enjoy is probably best described as a hybridization of vore and impreg involving non-mammalian creatures. The "hard infestation" that involves burrowing into the flesh, extreme body horror, or brain play does not at all appeal to me.