post #5063735

Post contains the eviscerated remains of a Seviper. My knee-jerk reaction was that this was the kind of squicky gross thing that warrants the gore tag, but then I realized I'm not sure. Sure, we don't apply gore to depictions of meat such as steak or bacon, but (unless I'm mistaken) this isn't really a cut of meat intended for normal consumption, right? Does the victim character have to be alive, or relatively "whole", for gore to count?

sexygriffon said:
post #5063735

Post contains the eviscerated remains of a Seviper. My knee-jerk reaction was that this was the kind of squicky gross thing that warrants the gore tag, but then I realized I'm not sure. Sure, we don't apply gore to depictions of meat such as steak or bacon, but (unless I'm mistaken) this isn't really a cut of meat intended for normal consumption, right? Does the victim character have to be alive, or relatively "whole", for gore to count?

gore seems like its used for more visceral, bloody stuff. im not sure if theres a tag for cross sections like this though. this is also just a cut of the body/meat, not necessarily being used or prepared as food in this context so cooking_with_furs doesnt apply either.

sexygriffon said:
post #5063735

Post contains the eviscerated remains of a Seviper. My knee-jerk reaction was that this was the kind of squicky gross thing that warrants the gore tag, but then I realized I'm not sure. Sure, we don't apply gore to depictions of meat such as steak or bacon, but (unless I'm mistaken) this isn't really a cut of meat intended for normal consumption, right? Does the victim character have to be alive, or relatively "whole", for gore to count?

The entire point of Guro is to shock, which is what we alias to gore. A better translation might be grotesque. And because, of course there is, there's an erotic version called Ero Guro.

Point is, blood doesn't instantly imply gore, nor does food(meat). It has to be something visceral, where it's obviously meant to be disturbing.

Tl;Dr If you have to ask, it's better to be safe than sorry, and tag it for people's blacklists.

dinbyy said:
gore seems like its used for more visceral, bloody stuff. im not sure if theres a tag for cross sections like this though. this is also just a cut of the body/meat, not necessarily being used or prepared as food in this context so cooking_with_furs doesnt apply either.

Hmm, it looks prepared, though? I tagged it cooking with scalies as some may not want to see that. If I was in error, it was probably on the side of caution.

alphamule said:

Hmm, it looks prepared, though? I tagged it cooking with scalies as some may not want to see that. If I was in error, it was probably on the side of caution.

its cut cleanly, but thats about it and theres no other indications, like it being served on a plate for example. but im not an expert on the whole 'prep/cooking with furs' either

dinbyy said:
its cut cleanly, but thats about it and theres no other indications, like it being served on a plate for example. but im not an expert on the whole 'prep/cooking with furs' either

true, but prep does not always involve serving. It's clearly been gutted/cleaned and has had the parts we wouldn't eat taken out of it.

It should be noted, for those of you not familiar with Pokemon lore, that Zangoose and Seviper have a bloody feud with one another and it's highly implied that the Zangoose was the one who killed the Seviper.

alphamule said:
Tl;Dr If you have to ask, it's better to be safe than sorry, and tag it for people's blacklists.

I did, but the uploader removed it right away.

sexygriffon said:
It should be noted, for those of you not familiar with Pokemon lore, that Zangoose and Seviper have a bloody feud with one another and it's highly implied that the Zangoose was the one who killed the Seviper.

I did, but the uploader removed it right away.

Probably because it's not gore. The violence occurred offscreen, and the meat looks ready to eat. It's even been exsanguinated.

Is there any reason it shouldn't be tagged corpse? A piece of a dead body is still a dead body piece. It's not JUST the meat, it has the scales and bones.

fluffermutt said:
Is there any reason it shouldn't be tagged corpse? A piece of a dead body is still a dead body piece. It's not JUST the meat, it has the scales and bones.

I wouldn’t consider this a corpse, it’s a cleaned and gutted piece of meat. I wouldn’t consider a steak or pork chop with a bone in it a corpse.
Just my opinion though.

You win zero dollars if you can guess I'm a vegetarian and have no idea how any of this works, lmao

sexygriffon said:
You win zero dollars if you can guess I'm a vegetarian and have no idea how any of this works, lmao

Mood. I was vegetarian until a few years ago. I mostly know this stuff because I like cooking_with_furs lol

sexygriffon said:
You win zero dollars if you can guess I'm a vegetarian and have no idea how any of this works, lmao

I will say that the line between when something is "food" or not is a bit weird and the line is hella blury.

_{I still think it's weird that we consider all fruit food, even in mostly inedible states. like, apparently, a raw pumpkin is food... even if it's a carved into a jack-o'-lantern.}

I've thought about this before. What I thought was "Is a steak gore? What about a raw chicken?"
The conclusion I came to is that it's context sensitive. It stops being gore once it is food.

ChatGPT seems to agree here, and gives more reasoning:

You said:
Something I thought about before, and now people are talking about on a forum, is "When does meat stop being gore and start being food?"
Like, for example if you were to slice up a cow with katanas for example, that'd be seen as gore. But if you do that but in a meat processing sense, it isn't gore but instead meat.

ChatGPT said:
That's an interesting question! The line between "gore" and "food" seems to be more about the context and the intent behind how the meat is presented and processed, rather than just the physical reality of it.

In the case of a cow being slaughtered:

• Gore is typically associated with a sense of violence, brutality, or the visceral depiction of something meant to shock or disturb. It’s the presentation of blood, guts, and harm for dramatic effect or emotional impact. For example, if someone were to slice a cow up with katanas in a chaotic or exaggerated way, the focus would be on the gruesome nature of the act, making it more about "gore."
• Food is the end goal in meat processing. In this context, even though the same animal is being butchered, it’s done in a controlled, sanitized environment with the purpose of preparing the meat for consumption. The process is often hidden from public view or made clinical to avoid focusing on the violent aspects. Once the meat is cut into familiar, non-animal shapes (like steaks or ground beef), it’s no longer seen as part of a living creature or "gore."

So, it seems like the distinction comes down to intention and presentation:

• Intent: If the goal is to shock, disturb, or show the reality of death and violence, it’s more likely to be seen as "gore."
• Presentation: If the animal is processed systematically and with the intent to create food, it's no longer viewed through that gory lens.

What makes it even more complex is that people's sensitivity to this line varies widely. Some might see any depiction of slaughter as gory, while others can separate the process entirely from what ends up on their plate.

It also notes at the end that "people's sensitivity to this line varies widely", which is something I didn't consider. So to one person it might stop being gore once it is cooked and turned into food. 🤷🏻‍♂️

sexygriffon said:
It should be noted, for those of you not familiar with Pokemon lore, that Zangoose and Seviper have a bloody feud with one another and it's highly implied that the Zangoose was the one who killed the Seviper.

Lore is irrelevant for the sake of tagging. Going purely by TWYS, it's just a strangely colored piece of purple meat. Not gore IMO.

sexygriffon said:
You win zero dollars if you can guess I'm a vegetarian and have no idea how any of this works, lmao

Damn, there's more vegetarian furs than expected. Same

dba_afish said:

_{I still think it's weird that we consider all fruit food, even in mostly inedible states. like, apparently, a raw pumpkin is food... even if it's a carved into a jack-o'-lantern.}

Hmm, I don't think people searching for food would necessarily be looking for jack-o'-lanterns (huh it doesn't imply pumpkin), but what's the best way to remedy that? Remove the fruit to food implication, or pumpkin -> fruit? Or is the status quo the least bad option

snpthecat said:
Hmm, I don't think people searching for food would necessarily be looking for jack-o'-lanterns (huh it doesn't imply pumpkin), but what's the best way to remedy that? Remove the fruit to food implication, or pumpkin -> fruit? Or is the status quo the least bad option

also, by extension all living fruit characters are food_creatures, meaning that during October that tag is super diluted with jack-o'-lantern characters rather than actual fall/October/Halloween food characters. this was a topic I brought up in a BUR several years ago but it got hella downvoted so I just gave up on it.

honestly, I feel like the -> food implication for fruit should just be handled on a case-by-case basis rather than just blanket imply it from all fruit. stuff that's in an edible state like an or near-edible state by default would be fine to have it implied.

also, jack-o'-lantern dosn't imply pumpkin because, reasonably just about anything could be carved into one, in fact, it was originally something done with turnups.

dba_afish said:
_{I still think it's weird that we consider all fruit food, even in mostly inedible states. like, apparently, a raw pumpkin is food... even if it's a carved into a jack-o'-lantern.}

Not to mention straight-up inedible or toxic fruit. Seems weird to tag poison as food just because it's a berry.
Oh and nut_(fruit) doesn't make it better. I don't care about botanical accuracy, I doubt people looking for 'fruit' are trying to get acorns and peanuts in their searches.

regsmutt said:
Not to mention straight-up inedible or toxic fruit. Seems weird to tag poison as food just because it's a berry.
Oh and nut_(fruit) doesn't make it better. I don't care about botanical accuracy, I doubt people looking for 'fruit' are trying to get acorns and peanuts in their searches.

Not food to you. ;)

Anything is edible once, right?

I'm sure there's bacteria that can eat rocks. Yum!

Right on cue, here's a much better example of the debate: Food or gore?

A user got mad this wasn't tagged with gore and added the tag, but again I wonder. Is it gore? There's no violence or active mutilation on the page, but we do see the aftermath. And even though it's "gross" and not typical fare that humans would consume, it's still being presented in this context as food.

sexygriffon said:
Right on cue, here's a much better example of the debate: Food or gore?

A user got mad this wasn't tagged with gore and added the tag, but again I wonder. Is it gore? There's no violence or active mutilation on the page, but we do see the aftermath. And even though it's "gross" and not typical fare that humans would consume, it's still being presented in this context as food.

Not all vore is gore, but I'd leave it alone on the principle that someone got mad enough to say that. XD