Topic: We should probably have a tag for nonsexualized vore

I recently came across post #1657665, a cute kid-appropriate animated short, which is tagged with vore because it features an anteater eating ants. That seems... odd to me. I nearly missed it as a result (since I have vore blacklisted), but it's not remotely in the ballpark of what I think of as vore or containing any of the elements that make me want to avoid vore art. The only reason it appears to be tagged is because the ants have human-like expressions, so I can see the argument that the post does feature the concept of eating sapient creatures and should be tagged for that, but the "vore" is not at all the focus -- the actual eating takes place off-screen, even.

(In this particular case, it also has the odd result of the post being rated Q simply because it's labeled with a fetish tag, even though by all other metrics it's a Safe post.)

Given that death and snuff are separate tags, I think a similar separation for vore is warranted. There is eaten alive, but it's barely used and currently has nearly 100% overlap with vore anyway. There doesn't seem to be any tag for this kind of cartoony, non-gory and non-sexual predation.

beholding said:
I recently came across post #1657665, a cute kid-appropriate animated short, which is tagged with vore because it features an anteater eating ants. That seems... odd to me. I nearly missed it as a result (since I have vore blacklisted), but it's not remotely in the ballpark of what I think of as vore or containing any of the elements that make me want to avoid vore art. The only reason it appears to be tagged is because the ants have human-like expressions, so I can see the argument that the post does feature the concept of eating sapient creatures and should be tagged for that, but the "vore" is not at all the focus -- the actual eating takes place off-screen, even.

(In this particular case, it also has the odd result of the post being rated Q simply because it's labeled with a fetish tag, even though by all other metrics it's a Safe post.)

Given that death and snuff are separate tags, I think a similar separation for vore is warranted. There is eaten alive, but it's barely used and currently has nearly 100% overlap with vore anyway. There doesn't seem to be any tag for this kind of cartoony, non-gory and non-sexual predation.

honestly feel like it shouldnt be vore ngl

Agreed. If there can be a difference between scatplay and feces there can be a difference between vore and eating another.

regsmutt said:
Agreed. If there can be a difference between scat and feces there can be a difference between vore and eating another.

not a good example scat is aliased to feces

beholding said:
I recently came across post #1657665, a cute kid-appropriate animated short, which is tagged with vore because it features an anteater eating ants.

As the others have said, that should not be tagged as vore.

The tagging notes on the vore wiki states:

• Entirely non-fetishistic depictions of natural predation should never be tagged as vore e.g. a bear catching fish from a river, a wolf with a dead rabbit in its mouth, lions feeding from a carcass etc.

funkwolfie said:
not a good example scat is aliased to feces

I forgot that the sexualized tag was now scatplay.

thegreatwolfgang said:
As the others have said, that should not be tagged as vore.

The tagging notes on the vore wiki states:

• Entirely non-fetishistic depictions of natural predation should never be tagged as vore e.g. a bear catching fish from a river, a wolf with a dead rabbit in its mouth, lions feeding from a carcass etc.

All of the examples involve dead or dying prey. It leaves an open area for non-fetishistic, but stylized and not naturalistic, depictions of eating/predation, especially of live prey, as a grey area. The tag for the non-sexualized eating/swallowing of live prey seems to be poorly established or non-existent.

regsmutt said:
I forgot that the sexualized tag was now scatplay.

All of the examples involve dead or dying prey. It leaves an open area for non-fetishistic, but stylized and not naturalistic, depictions of eating/predation, especially of live prey, as a grey area. The tag for the non-sexualized eating/swallowing of live prey seems to be poorly established or non-existent.

bear catching fish from a river,
the fish is alive kinda like how ants are alive (debatable if they are truly alive)

at the very least, the baseline should be if they're ambient_creatures, or not subjects, then it shouldn't be considered vore. I think, in order to be considered vore, the personhood or, like, character-ness needs to be considered by the artist.

regsmutt said:
All of the examples involve dead or dying prey. It leaves an open area for non-fetishistic, but stylized and not naturalistic, depictions of eating/predation, especially of live prey, as a grey area. The tag for the non-sexualized eating/swallowing of live prey seems to be poorly established or non-existent.

The statement does not mention anything about dead or alive, the keyword here is "natural predation".
E.g., A frog using its tongue to eat a (dead or alive) fly is not vore and should never be tagged as vore.

Moreover, the wiki definition for vore is: "Vore, short for "vorarephilia", is the attraction to the consumption, insertion, absorption, and/or digestion of a living creature by another."
The characters involved need to show some sign of "attraction" to the consumption of another living creature/character, not just your typical feeding to survive.

You could make the argument that the definition should be changed to be more concise on what can and cannot be considered a vore scenario; e.g., whether a giant shark or anaconda eating a human alive in an act of "natural predation" could be considered as vore.

this is why furries will be the downfall of civilization (joke)
the concept of eating sentient life is now conflated with fetish

It's best to just make it apply to all such cases. Anything else is judgement based, and as such people will disagree (especially on something as vague as "does this instance show attraction"). For a commonly blacklisted tag, that's quite bad.

If the character consumed is alive, it should always be tagged vore.

scth said:
It's best to just make it apply to all such cases. Anything else is judgement based, and as such people will disagree (especially on something as vague as "does this instance show attraction"). For a commonly blacklisted tag, that's quite bad.

If the character consumed is alive, it should always be tagged vore.

I must reiterate that we already have separate tags for fetishized and non-fetishized scenarios for other fetishes and to my knowledge that hasn't caused problems. I also must reiterate that as I previously stated, this caused my blacklist to register a false positive and exclude a post I did want to see, so it very much is causing a problem for blacklists already. I don't see why people couldn't just also blacklist the non-fetishized tag if they need to.

Followup question: If we do want to have a tag like this, what should it be called? There's eaten alive, but it's very undertagged and is largely used for realistic scenarios, not the cartoony kind seen in post #1657665.

I've also found post #5599786, which features a character putting another miniaturized character in their mouth; it's framed comedically with no fetishistic elements that I can see, though it's also tagged vore.