The bulk update request #475 has been rejected.

remove implication after_vore (5014) -> vore (62500)

Reason: Same reasoning as my last de-implicate related to vore: The vore tag is only meant to be for images where the consumption is actively taking place on-screen. This implication means a lot of images are currently tagged vore, when no active vore is actually happening.

EDIT: The bulk update request #475 (forum #301096) has been rejected by @slyroon.

While not the most convenient for people who want to find vore taking place without their search being diluted by purely after_vore images, this implication is valuable for people trying to blacklist vore.

one would already have to blacklist impending_vore, so why not add another to the list?

after_sex isn't sex, after_anal isn't anal, after_vaginal isn't vaginal, so after_vore shouldn't be vore.

watsit said:
after_sex isn't sex, after_anal isn't anal, after_vaginal isn't vaginal, so after_vore shouldn't be vore.

No. Vore as a tag is an adjective used to describe if the image is vorarephilc, not just if a character is being actively consumed. If sexual wasn't an invalid tag due to being ambiguous, then after sex would be sexual but not sex.

Unlike vore, anal and sex don't describe the image, they describe what's in the image.

From the wiki:
"While the word "vore" can describe the paraphilia itself as well as "the act" — the depiction of a character consuming another living creature alive — as a tag vore is exclusively for scenes where a character is actively consuming/has consumed another, and/or a character is being actively consumed/has been consumed by another. "

If you can tell if a character "has consumed another" then the image is vorarephilc, and should be tagged vore.

kyiiel said:
No. Vore as a tag is an adjective used to describe if the image is vorarephilc

We don't tag that kind of thing, otherwise plain mouth_shots could be considered vorarephilic in a number of instances. It would be subjective, with some people saying an image looks vorarephilic to them (because they're more prone to seeing it in things, either because they like it and want to see it more, or because they don't like it and want to avoid even a hint of it), while other people see the same image as no different than any other non-vore image. We don't tag things that are zoophilic or pedophilic for that reason, and instead depend on the actual act to tag. It's used as a verb, not an adjective, otherwise imminent_vore and after_vore would make no sense.

watsit said:
We don't tag that kind of thing, otherwise plain mouth_shots could be considered vorarephilic in a number of instances. It would be subjective, with some people saying an image looks vorarephilic to them (because they're more prone to seeing it in things, either because they like it and want to see it more, or because they don't like it and want to avoid even a hint of it), while other people see the same image as no different than any other non-vore image. We don't tag things that are zoophilic or pedophilic for that reason, and instead depend on the actual act to tag. It's used as a verb, not an adjective, otherwise imminent_vore and after_vore would make no sense.

You say that as if it isn't plainly obvious in most cases when a character has recently consumed another character. Think about it for a second, why would the vore enthusiasts draw/commission a picture that didn't cater to their kink?

wat8548 said:
You say that as if it isn't plainly obvious in most cases when a character has recently consumed another character. Think about it for a second, why would the vore enthusiasts draw/commission a picture that didn't cater to their kink?

I don't see what you're getting at. What I'm saying is it's not a matter of what kinks the image is intended to cater to, it's about what's actually happening or visible in the image. Vorarephilia was aliased away to vore, not the other way around, just as zoophilia was aliased away to bestiality. If someone's consuming another character, it's tagged vore, if the image depicts the moments after vore, it's tagged after_vore. If the image is after vore, vore is no longer happening and shouldn't be tagged, just like if the image is after anal, anal stuff is no longer happening and shouldn't be tagged (after_anal doesn't implicate anal, despite still catering to an anal kink).

Despite the name, after_vore isn't like after_sex or after_anal. After vore depicts an explicit or heavily implied aftermath of a character being ingested and released or digested/absorbed. The tag name is a convenient misnomer, "vore" isn't a specific action in the process of predator and prey interaction like sex or anal — even if the prey character is nothing but bones, it's still vore because another character has eaten them alive, and it's "after" vore because the prey character is no longer interacting with the predator as a living agent in the scenario.

There's not really any reason to unimply this besides splitting hairs.

maplebytes said:
it's still vore because another character has eaten them alive, and it's "after" vore because the prey character is no longer interacting with the predator as a living agent in the scenario.

It's still anal because another character has cum in the anus, and it's "after" anal because the other character is no longer interacting with the anus in the scenario.

I made this same argument with transformation, that transformation could apply to posts that depict anything relating to transformations (be it after, implied, or in-progress), and there was push-back because "transformation" was supposed to be for the process of transforming which was not the same as the aftermath a transformation. I don't see why vore should get special treatment here. If it's "splitting hairs" to not have after_vore imply vore, then it's equally splitting hairs to not have after_sex imply sex, or after_vaginal to not imply vaginal. The aftermath of X is definitionally not the same as X itself, and there's nothing special or unique about vore that it should be any different.

As it is, this argument that vore should apply to anything vorarephilic or anything that caters to the vore kink, means imminent_vore should implicate vore just as after_vore does, although it doesn't. And implied_vore should be a valid tag implicating vore, even though it's aliased away to invalid_tag. These are things that are vorarephilic or cater to the vore kink, after all. This would also mean there's no tag to indicate the period between imminent_vore and after_vore, so people who want to search for or blacklist the act itself (not the aftermath, or the imminent occurrence of it) have nothing to work with.

The bulk update request #475 (forum #301096) has been rejected by @slyroon.

That post is another example of why vore is a shitty tag.