Basically, a tag for vore pics where the pred isnt in any actual danger or risk of digestion/death

I noticed that of all the vore tags used, a tag like this doesnt exist, and I know I cant be the only one that enjoys the thought of vore without the usual aftermath, so a tag to round these kinds of images up would be helpful.

I think soft_vore is what you are looking for.

The wiki page states: A kind of vore in which the consumed partner is swallowed and enters the stomach with little to no major injury. Do note that injury or death from digestion is still a possibility. Compare with hard_vore, where the prey is torn or chewed, and endosomatophilia, where no death occurs.

soft_vore -digestion

Chaser said:
I think soft_vore is what you are looking for.

Probably not, since soft vore is often tagged for any vore where the status is not fully determinable.

For exmple: post vore, where it could be safely assumed that whoever's been eaten is dead (suffocation, digestion, etc). And imminent vore, where the prey is about to die. Both are tagged as 'soft', because the prey is not explicitly shown as dead.

There's currently no tag specifically for content where they're shown to be unharmed. Unless posts such as these are mistags and shouldn't actually be tagged as soft vore?:

post #1394600 post #1447272 post #1355386

So... vore is one of those things that is... that borderline for me. Some pictures are HOT, others are very NOT. I think this concept of a 'harmless_vore' tag would be very welcome, at least personally.

Soft_vore only has some 1300ish posts, so not too bad to go through...assuming that soft_vore is properly tagged.

hmm.

vore has 14058 posts
soft_vore has 1370
hard_vore has 273 posts...

Uh-oh.

*squints* ... oral, anal, cock, imminent, post and absorbtion vore have a total of 7210 posts. unbirthing adds 1404 to that for a total of 8614 posts... which means about 5444 "other" posts ... some will be in the other vore tags I didn't add up, but it seems like there might be a number of vore posts with no tags at all.

and if nothing else, I feel like all vore-in-action posts should have soft vore or hard vore tagged o_o

Genjar said:
Probably not, since soft vore is often tagged for any vore where the status is not fully determinable.

For exmple: post vore, where it could be safely assumed that whoever's been eaten is dead (suffocation, digestion, etc). And imminent vore, where the prey is about to die. Both are tagged as 'soft', because the prey is not explicitly shown as dead.

There's currently no tag specifically for content where they're shown to be unharmed. Unless posts such as these are mistags and shouldn't actually be tagged as soft vore?:

post #1394600 post #1447272 post #1355386

Soft vore is supposed to be where it's proven they're unharmed, hard vore where it's proven they are harmed. If it doesn't show one way or the other, it shouldn't be soft or hard.

spoiler alert: getting eaten is still gonna fuckin kill you

Somewhat related, Vore & Venus Fly Traps

Furrin_Gok said:
Soft vore is supposed to be where it's proven they're unharmed, hard vore where it's proven they are harmed. If it doesn't show one way or the other, it shouldn't be soft or hard.

Soft vore means that the prey was swallowed whole and alive. Hard vore means the prey gets chewed and torn apart prior to swallowing. Soft vore is not a guarentee that the prey will survive. All vore is either hard or soft.

What the thread starter is looking for is 'endosoma' or 'endo', basically vore without death or digestion or whatever.

MissChu said:
What the thread starter is looking for is 'endosoma' or 'endo', basically vore without death or digestion or whatever.

Unfortunatly, endosomataphilia and endosoma (both of which have wikis! cool!) only have a total of 22 posts between the two of them, and I honestly can't tell the difference between some of these posts. o_o

post #1428524 <-- the prey seems rather distressed
post #1180327 <-- ditto
post #731821 <-- Those teeth give me anxiety

I mean. and then youv'e got: post #733196 post #731422

A lot of those posts could also just be willing_vore

...willing_vore? 49 posts. Unwilling_vore? 7.

...vore in general seems like it is grossly undertagged.

This would be a very good place for us to go in and take an effort to tag vore more completely.

I feel like the following are important things to have tagged:

• Vore Type: Oral, anal, eyeball, whatever.
• Vore Hard-ness: Soft or hard. I feel like every image should be soft or hard. There is either chewing and ripping or there is not.
• Vore Result: Digestion, cum_vore, full_tour, stomachesnuggles, whatever it is that describes what happens to the prey next--if applicable.
• Vore Consent: willing/unwilling, and an ambiguous consent tag of some sort.
• Vore Quirks: Accidental, cooking, mass, same_size, having_sex_while_vored, Vore_orgasms, sexual_voring, etc etc etc/
• Vore Time: Imminent, post, pre, implied, attempted

Am I missing anything?

I'll probably try to put these together into a nice chart or something later tonight-- categorize tags for easier tagging. But I gotta go now.

In conclusion: How the fuck do we have 13 posts tagged tuba_vore, what the fuck EVEN.

SnowWolf said:
Unfortunatly, endosomataphilia and endosoma (both of which have wikis! cool!) only have a total of 22 posts between the two of them, and I honestly can't tell the difference between some of these posts. o_o

We tried those at one point, had to wipe most of it because it just kept getting tagged as a synonym for soft vore (prey swallowed whole, dead or alive). Doesn't look like it's got any better since I last checked.

SnowWolf said:
In conclusion: How the fuck do we have 13 posts tagged tuba_vore, what the fuck EVEN.

Welcome to the frigging internet, I swear.

Also, sadly, endosoma tagging doesn't work so much in e621 because it can be a bit subjective. Except for cases such as comics where the eaten person remains safe throughout.

Thirtyeight said:
Soft vore means that the prey was swallowed whole and alive. Hard vore means the prey gets chewed and torn apart prior to swallowing. Soft vore is not a guarentee that the prey will survive. All vore is either hard or soft.

Most vore taggers seem to use that definition.

But it conflicts with the ratings guide, which lists soft vore as questionable. I've been told by couple of admins that vore should be rated explicit if the prey is not shown alive. (If someone gets eaten, assume that they're dead from suffocation, digestion, etc. And death in general, especially violent death such as being eaten, is by default explicit).

So the definition of 'soft vore' is split, among both users and admins. I wish everyone could just settle on one definition, so we could get those consistently tagged and rated. :/

Could we at least agree that imminent vore shouldn't be tagged as soft vore? If it hasn't even happened yet, I don't see how it's possible to determine if it'll be soft or hard.

MissChu said:
Also, sadly, endosoma tagging doesn't work so much in e621 because it can be a bit subjective. Except for cases such as comics where the eaten person remains safe throughout.

Yeah. It's a shame that it didn't work out, I feel that the should be a tag for all the posts where someone just spends the night sleeping in someone's stomach, etc.

I wonder if non-lethal_vore would work. ...probably not, would still get tagged for ambiguous ones.

Genjar said:
We tried those at one point, had to wipe most of it because it just kept getting tagged as a synonym for soft vore (prey swallowed whole, dead or alive). Doesn't look like it's got any better since I last checked.

Makes scene--there's a similarity, but they're not the same.

MissChu said:
Welcome to the frigging internet, I swear.

I know right? Thought I was a bit amused at the toilet_vore tag, haha.

Also, sadly, endosoma tagging doesn't work so much in e621 because it can be a bit subjective. Except for cases such as comics where the eaten person remains safe throughout.

Well, we're a places where basically ALL THE KINKS come together, including all of the specialty slang.. and that's normally fine, but then you have people who aren't part of 'the scene' who, try to learn by observation--like all of us too-- and they just don't get it right and and and...

that and we're so "tag what you see" it gets.... tricky. Anyway.

Soft vore means that the prey was swallowed whole and alive. Hard vore means the prey gets chewed and torn apart prior to swallowing. Soft vore is not a guarentee that the prey will survive. All vore is either hard or soft.

Genjar said:
Most vore taggers seem to use that definition.

But it conflicts with the ratings guide, which lists soft vore as questionable. I've been told by couple of admins that vore should be rated explicit if the prey is not shown alive. (If someone gets eaten, assume that they're dead from suffocation, digestion, etc. And death in general, especially violent death such as being eaten, is by default explicit).

... I hate to say it, but I kinda feel like the rating guide fails..

There's two ways to look at this.

• All vore is soft until it turns hard: Wallowing around on a tongue or in someone's mouth is soft, until the mean old predator goes chomp.

• All vore is ambiguous until something establishes the situation: the prey is swallowed whole and intact, or the prey is bitten.

The soft/hard divide isn't a statement of survival--after all, a common vore theme is "swallowed and is warm and happy, until digested". and I'm sure someone, somewhere has drawn something where they prey is ripped up, swallowed, then pooped out healed and healthy (Man, that sounds like a shitty RPG class--the Voremancer.)

It's not a division between willingness and unwillingness either: some hard vore is willing. Some soft vore is unwilling.

The question, really, is how we regard images where there's not a firm conclusion one way or another.

(sorry for the maw pics, man.)

post #1448719 post #1448736 post #1447619 post #1444424 post #1436193 post #1429694

We have no idea if those are actually gonna lead to vore--and in fact, some of those are basically "implied maybe prevore"-- the one with the girl and the sacrifice, as well as the shark in the pool. Some seem like they're definitely going to eats-ville, while others--like the two with penises--could just be part of a perfectly healthy non-vore relationship between a macro and a micro.

But ultimately, the very next moment could be hard vore. or soft vore. or non-vore.

They're all of a voring interest, I think, but... well, should the shark in the pool be considered questionable jsut because there's a shark with an open mouth? Or the one that really gets me--the giantess with the sacrifice--that one, by the ratings guidelines, should be considered Q...

Ratings Guide:

• all content with slight (but obvious) fetishistic material
• light teasing bondage (done with household items and similar), soft vore, or depictions of older characters in diapers with otherwise no explicit content are acceptable under Questionable

Interesting, no pun intended, food for thought. and I'd say that all but the sacrifice and pool shark pictures above contain more than "slight" content.

So the definition of 'soft vore' is split, among both users and admins. I wish everyone could just settle on one definition, so we could get those consistently tagged and rated. :/

Could we at least agree that imminent vore shouldn't be tagged as soft vore? If it hasn't even happened yet, I don't see how it's possible to determine if it'll be soft or hard.

Again, goes back to the two choices: all for is soft until hard, or all vore is ambiguous, until soft/hard.

On the other hand, if am 'ambiguous' vore is brought into the mix, then basically, almost nothing is soft vore anymore. BEcause any 'soft' picture' could simply be "hasn't bitten yet".

Yeah. It's a shame that it didn't work out, I feel that the should be a tag for all the posts where someone just spends the night sleeping in someone's stomach, etc.

I wonder if non-lethal_vore would work. ...probably not, would still get tagged for ambiguous ones.

I think we could definetly work something out though -- come up with some tags to cover these situations. maybe something to indicate "vore where harm has occurred' and 'so far so good vore' :P

Maybe some tags to indicate actual vore-timelike? imminent vore, tongue-play, partway-through-swallowing, going-down-the-throat, in_stomach, prey-pooping, etc.

I think oone of the bigger questions of, when does imminent vore become vore? is laying in someone's mouth vore? y'know?

anyway, I'mma head back to bed, I"ll throw together that chart later-- think I should keep it here or start a new thread?

Genjar said:
Most vore taggers seem to use that definition.

But it conflicts with the ratings guide, which lists soft vore as questionable. I've been told by couple of admins that vore should be rated explicit if the prey is not shown alive. (If someone gets eaten, assume that they're dead from suffocation, digestion, etc. And death in general, especially violent death such as being eaten, is by default explicit).

So the definition of 'soft vore' is split, among both users and admins. I wish everyone could just settle on one definition, so we could get those consistently tagged and rated. :/

Frankly I think it should be used as people who use the tag use it. It's not a terribly useful tag for those not already into vore, and those into vore have certain expectations and definitions for what 'soft vore' is. Going against that is going to be, at best, an uphill battle.

As far as the rating issue goes- A lot of soft vore includes genitalia, arousal, jizz, masturbation, and various other things that make it explicit. Allowing death and gore into the mix doesn't really add much more work.

A lot of it is ambiguous about whether or not the prey dies, and this is on purpose to appeal to a broader audience. I don't really think that vore should inherently be assumed to be one way or the other if it's not shown. You see similar stuff in non-vore images- there's enough images of micros being stepped on and surviving to make imminent squishing images ambiguously lethal. It definitely straddles the line between explicit and questionable in the same way that images that most likely show sex happening/about to happen but it's cropped in such a way you can't see to make it 100% certain.