like I heard multiple person say that vore is always nsfw or otherwise it isnt vore but is that really true?

Not always.

post #1199877 post #287887 post #296531 post #721035 post #146528

I thought I remember an admin saying that fetishes are never rated safe, but i'm not too sure.

dogenzaka said:
I thought I remember an admin saying that fetishes are never rated safe, but i'm not too sure.

rating:q is still an option in theory.

dogenzaka said: I thought I remember an admin saying that fetishes are never rated safe, but i'm not too sure.

strikerman said: rating:q is still an option in theory.

Fetishes are never safe, but they can be questionable if they are mild enough.
https://e621.net/help/ratings

In fact, this search should probably be reviewed: soft_vore -rating:q -sex -genitals
Because I feel like a good chunk of it is either rated wrong, or missing some tags.

I guess it's one of those "it depends on the context" things.
If it's made sexual, the characters are nude/erect/etc, or some other means of showing they're getting off to it then yes it's explicit. But the Q rating is probably best for the more mild stuff.

The rating guidelines say:

Explicit (Adult)

• any content with obvious "extreme" fetish purposes (e.g. heavy BDSM and BDSM toys, hard/fatal vore, scat, watersports, etc...)

Questionable (Mature)

• 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

Presuming that's examples of fetishes and not an exhaustive list, any fetish can't be Safe.

But that makes me wonder about things like
post #2659159 post #2658106 post #2657299 post #2654800

Transformation is a fetish for a fair number of people, but unless transformation rating:s are all rated incorrectly, it seems more to depend on whether a given piece is intended or likely to be seen as sexual appealing. Though that makes me wonder if it's possible for someone not into a particular fetish to reliably determine whether a given depiction is meant to be sexually appealing or not; vore rating:s has a fair number of posts, some of which I wouldn't think is S, but since I'm not really into vore, I may be looking at it as more of a sexual thing than intended. I mean, cartoony "soft" vore is a thing that happens in children's cartoons (Tom and Jerry, Sylvester and Tweety, who did catch their prey in their mouths on occasion) and games (Kirby, Yoshi), and I wouldn't think instances where it's just that should be Q, but I couldn't say where the line would be between S and Q for vore.

furballs_dc said:
post #296531

That's not vore.

post #146528

Still trying to figure out how to customize my blacklist for this, I don't mind stuff like this, but technically it is vore.

post #2110078 seems pretty SFW for me.

furrin_gok said:
That's not vore.

Still trying to figure out how to customize my blacklist for this, I don't mind stuff like this, but technically it is vore.

"vore -rating:s" is usually enough for me

I think there's an issue where the vore tag clearly indicates the presence of a fetish. That is literally what vorearephilia means, and vore is just shorthand for that. But that lizard guy chomping on a bug is very clearly not fetish content. It's not the kind of thing I'm trying to avoid, and it's not the kind of thing people are looking for when they search vore. Then again, it's impossible to objectively evaluate what could be a fetish.

fenrick said:
Then again, it's impossible to objectively evaluate what could be a fetish.

Literally anything can be a fetish given the right context. See: balloon vs. balloon fetish, fart vs. fart fetish, feet vs. foot fetish, etc. I'm not sure I like the "if x then fetish" idea.

post #1367193 this is also classified as vore, but is as SFW can be. what Strikeman said is right; context is key.