A vorish philosophical question

[FaceInCrowd42]

If one giantess eats another, and there are no "micro" people involved, are they really giants?

[Revx_Z]

They might be giants compared to the plants in the background!

[Sitharc]

Yes, if they are called/referred to as giantesses, they are still giants compared to us or whoever the perspective is from.

It's just giantess same size, where get the best of both worlds, a giant woman... with a giant same size belly.

[blessedwasthechild]

They might be giants compared to the plants in the background!

They might be giants compared to the band They Might Be Giants

[Shugoki]

I mean, are the women big, or is the rest of the world small? Actual human women would be giantesses relative to a termite. Without other humanoids for scale, it's just a "tree falls in the forest" question.

[FaceInCrowd42]

I mean, are the women big, or is the rest of the world small? Actual human women would be giantesses relative to a termite. Without other humanoids for scale, it's just a "tree falls in the forest" question.

See, the tree falls in the forest question was the point I was trying to make, actually. That's what makes it a philosophical question, lol.

[sweetladyamy]

What makes someone/-thing 'giant', or 'tiny'?

I just answered the question with another question because I haven't an answer.

[DiDen]

Well, I remember reading a thread about the anatomy of giants/giantesses that was quite detailed and interesting. The people there talked about some major differences in their biology : their bones would have to be denser (if I remember correctly), and their muscles a lot stronger. With that, I think they had calculated that they would need bigger hearts compared to the size of their bodies than we do, and they'd eat a lot more (then again, compared to their own size).

So I guess yeah, if you'd look at their bone density, and other variables that change in a non-linear fashion with respect to the size, you could determine those people are giants and giantesses, not some regular people.

[Cowrie]

Well, I remember reading a thread about the anatomy of giants/giantesses that was quite detailed and interesting. The people there talked about some major differences in their biology : their bones would have to be denser (if I remember correctly), and their muscles a lot stronger. With that, I think they had calculated that they would need bigger hearts compared to the size of their bodies than we do, and they'd eat a lot more (then again, compared to their own size).

So I guess yeah, if you'd look at their bone density, and other variables that change in a non-linear fashion with respect to the size, you could determine those people are giants and giantesses, not some regular people.

Generally, larger creatures eat proportionally less relative to their body size, at least if going by mass. All other things being equal, weight scales to the cube of linear scale, while energy needs (i.e., food requirements) scale to the square of linear scale.

Back on the topic of the thread, I say, yes, they're still giantesses. And that is the only kind of vore with giantess preds that I care for, though I'm partial to normal sized people as bystanders or something in such a scenario as opposed to what this question proposes.

[sevensix]

A humanoid biped can be considered a giant or giantess if they exceed 2^117 Planck lengths in height.

[Miridium]

All a matter of perspective really.

[empatheticapathy]

I'm inclined to say no. You're only big if you're bigger than something else.

[nicktaken]

Giant as a noun is derived from an adjective which signifies something being on a larger scale than similar counterparts. To call something "giant" you first need to set something that is considered "normal" and then compare their sizes. If everything is "giant", then "giant" is just the "normal" and thus calling it giant would be inaccurate.

[sevensix]

In Greek and Roman Mythology [...] were a race of great strength and aggression, though not necessarily of great size