The Vore VS C*nnibalism debate?

Keep our community informed! This forum is for discussing and sharing vore-related information. Post any relevant material and/or links here, and engage in conversations!
Forum rules
This is for general discussion, if you found something you want to post, please use one of the upload forum, if you made something and want to share them, please use the work to be shared forum!

The Vore VS C*nnibalism debate?

Postby 157and493 » Sat Jul 11, 2020 4:56 am

I noticed some people discussing this on my previous post and it was kind of derailing the original conversation I was trying to promote so I figured I might was well move the topic over here.

The basic debate from what I understand is: “Is what we call ‘vore’ related to the base idea of cannibalism except we just use a less taboo word? And should it really matter if the ‘cannibalism’ we are talking about is all just over exaggerated fiction anyway?”



I personally will admit that I am a bit split on this issue. On one hand I think that saying vore and cannibalism have absolutely no connection is naive at best and intellectually dishonest at worst, on the other hand I do realized that when the vast majority of us use the word “vore” we are referring to a specific kind of exaggerated and impossible fantasy that is a far cry from what the average person would think of when they hear the word “cannibalism.”
I would like to make it clear that my views and what I have said here are by no means set in stone and I am completely open to constructive conversation and having my mind changed on this issue. Furthermore I would also like to say that I am fully aware that nobody on this site (creator, consumer, or otherwise) condones or supports the act of real life cannibalism and that it is by no means what I am trying to imply or encourage discussion about here.
User avatar
157and493
Participator
 
Posts: 250
Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2016 6:30 pm

Re: The Vore VS C*nnibalism debate?

Postby JackSpades » Sat Jul 11, 2020 5:28 am

Per definition is cannibalism the consumption of members of your own species. In vore terms that means human/human, dragon/dragon, etc.
Also one could exclude all safe and endo from the cannibalism, because it's not really a consumption without the processing of the biomass.
But yeah, cannibalism is part of vore.
But so are endo, vampirism and absorbtion. We use the term "vore" to refer to all of these concepts as a whole.
User avatar
JackSpades
Somewhat familiar
 
Posts: 63
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2016 3:00 pm

Re: The Vore VS C*nnibalism debate?

Postby currant » Sat Jul 11, 2020 5:48 am

I'd say that cannibalism is part of or at the very least overlapping with vore. There definitely is a connection that cannot be denied. But there also are large parts of vore that don't fit with it.
Vore itself is a very vast term that includes much more than it seems with its rather simple definition.
currant
Been posting for a bit
 
Posts: 43
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2018 1:39 pm

Re: The Vore VS C*nnibalism debate?

Postby ItsSongxing » Sat Jul 11, 2020 6:41 am

Vore is the eating of someone, or something. Cannibalism is the consumption of one's own species; i.e. using their bodies for food. In cases where the predator and prey are the same species, and the prey is digested, or the pred intends to digest the prey, then it's cannibalism. If it's safe vore or endo, as JackSpades said, then it is not cannibalism. Also, if the pred and prey are different species, then by definition, it's not cannibalism. We have hard vore and cooking vore under the "vore" umbrella - and that's usually what "cannibalism" entails, at least as far as the tag is used. (Though the definition of "species" can be played very loosely, especially with anthro and anthro/human stuff. But, I guess as long as they can interbreed, they would count as a species.)

So, all cannibalism is vore, but not all vore is cannibalism. Most vore, and the stereotype thereof, is of the soft variety; that is, the prey is swallowed whole and alive. Of course, this doesn't change the fact that vore is ultimately the fetishization of someone being killed for food; soft vore just has a lot of defiance of the laws of physics and biology to do, while the only law broken in cannibalism is an actual legal institution.
User avatar
ItsSongxing
Participator
 
Posts: 225
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 12:14 am

Re: The Vore VS C*nnibalism debate?

Postby Wolfsage » Sat Jul 11, 2020 9:39 am

ItsSongxing wrote: Of course, this doesn't change the fact that vore is ultimately the fetishization of someone being killed for food;

I think you forget that not all Vore scenarioes involves the prey dying.
The Sage Wolf of the forest.
User avatar
Wolfsage
Advanced Vorarephile
 
Posts: 874
Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2009 6:58 am

Re: The Vore VS C*nnibalism debate?

Postby Borealis » Sat Jul 11, 2020 10:42 am

There is such a huge gap between the common depictions of vore in fantasy and the images that come into peoples heads when they hear the term that it does seem completely different. Absolutely.

But at the end of the day we can't deny the overlap in the official definition of the word and what goes on in fantasy in this community. The most common vore on this site, human on human oral, whether the pred is female, male, macro, same size, hard, soft- it technically is a fantastical form of the dreaded C word, based on pure definition of the term. We don't have to own it, but the link, if only through definition cannot be denied.

As I said in the other topic, we as a community have the right to disassociate ourselves from the term completely, and on the whole we do. It is a loaded term, and it is a scary word and the whole time I've been around, the community has wanted it as far away from ourselves as possible.

Outsiders which don't have the kink might find that odd and rather head-in-sandish though... And I think we need to accept that. Us fans of feral get the same sort of problem with zoophilia being the loaded label that's thrown around, so I empthathise and get it when it comes to this sort of thing trust me.
Voyager of canine interiors...

In my story gallery, macro feral and anthro fun awaits you...
Borealis
---
 
Posts: 1280
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2010 1:20 pm
Location: United Kingdom

Re: The Vore VS C*nnibalism debate?

Postby VoidInVoid » Sat Jul 11, 2020 12:22 pm

Wolfsage wrote:
ItsSongxing wrote: Of course, this doesn't change the fact that vore is ultimately the fetishization of someone being killed for food;

I think you forget that not all Vore scenarioes involves the prey dying.


I think that is the line when it comes to soft vore. In soft vore, if the prey is the same species as the predator and dies as a result of being orally (and one could argue potentially anally as well) ingested, most likely through digestion, then those conditions are to which the term "cannibalism" is most appropriate to apply if one wishes to do so. Hard vore is harder to separate from cannibalism. I doubt a predator is going to take bites out of their prey and swallow down chunks of body parts just to spit those chunks out later, which would be about the only thing I can think of in oral hard vore that would not necessarily constitute an application of "cannibalism". Although, there probably are tags for that kind of situation. Either way, as this fetish is fantasy, I think ultimately the people who do not want cannibalism applied to any sort of vore is because it is a much more real-sounding term than a fantastical one. Also, it does not flow as nicely off the tongue as "vore".
User avatar
VoidInVoid
Been posting for a bit
 
Posts: 57
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2018 11:09 pm

Re: The Vore VS C*nnibalism debate?

Postby Anonno » Sat Jul 11, 2020 2:29 pm

I agree with the sentiment that vore is just a mostly a fantasy, but parts of it do stem into more cannibalistic territory. Swallowing someone whole isn't feasible, so the large squirming bellies are just a fantasy. Giantesses aren't real, even if they were a tiny would be crushed and killed by the esophagus far before they reach the stomach. The parts of this fetish that get extremely close to what we'd normally consider cannibalism are hard-vore, snake vore, and cooking, which I try to avoid. I don't really like media that deviates from soft vore because I, and probably many others, try to keep it as far from reality as possible.
Anonno
Somewhat familiar
 
Posts: 108
Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2017 12:02 am

Re: The Vore VS C*nnibalism debate?

Postby Humbug » Sat Jul 11, 2020 2:56 pm

Why is cannibalism censored in the thread title? This isn't YouTube. XD
User avatar
Humbug
---
 
Posts: 1867
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2006 12:00 am
Location: Coella

Re: The Vore VS C*nnibalism debate?

Postby Artemis » Sat Jul 11, 2020 3:00 pm

We're discussing two amorphous terms here. We all know why vore is amorphous. It means many different things to many different people. Soft Vore. Hard Vore. Endo. Fatal. Same Size. Same Species. Whatever.

Let's talk about why the term cannibalism is amorphous, though.

If a human eats a human, that's cannibalism.
If a wolf eats a human, that's not.
But if an anthro wolf eats a human, that tends to get a lot of mixed reactions.
Likewise, if an elf eats a human, most people are going to be inclined to if not call that cannibalism, compare it strongly to cannibalism. But strictly speaking, it's not.

The colloquial definition of cannibalism, when taken into a fantasy space with non-human creatures that can talk just like us, tends to change very quickly. The only reason we have a much simpler definition in the real world is that such creatures do not actually exist. If a tiger eats a deer, not a soul cares. If a tiger eats a person, we hunt it down and kill it. But if that deer in the first example was what we understand to be a person--say a human in a deer's body--we would think of that in the same severity we would think of the second example. There would be no debate. If every animal was capable of communicating with us, and we still treated them the way we do today, that would shake our society to its core.

So given the context of how we enjoy vore, vore is always cannibalism in the colloquial sense yes.

...Except for one small detail. Endo. Endo usually only exists as pregnancy in the real world. By most standards, if you don't chew someone and you don't digest someone, comparison to cannibalism falls apart almost entirely. You could call endo cannibalism, but that would be disingenuous.

So to lay this all out in a clearer, more concise fashion:

Hard Vore is literally just cannibalism more or less as it exists in the real world, except fetishized.
As you distance yourself from hard vore, so too do you distance yourself from cannibalism.
Once you get into endo, the relationship to cannibalism is simply gone.

But endo is not a subfetish of vore. It's a separate fetish that kinda synergizes with vore really well. So it would be accurate to say that vore is fundamentally predicated upon cannibalism, but that endo is not. And that the ease with which many of us can enjoy both, sometimes in tandem, as well as the fact that many people just use vore as a catch-all term for endo without even knowing the diference, complicates the question. It's really a question that you have to ask yourself, rather than something I can make a concrete statement about. Do you enjoy fatility/digestion? If you do, are you specifically attracted to the idea of digesting another person, or are there other reasons you enjoy that? It's not something I can answer in broad strokes.
User avatar
Artemis
Advanced Vorarephile
 
Posts: 732
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2011 6:36 pm

Re: The Vore VS C*nnibalism debate?

Postby blessedwasthechild » Sat Jul 11, 2020 3:13 pm

Yeah the overlap is there for concept's sakes, eating a member of your own species is definitely the definition and a lot of people do same/species vore.

However... if we *really* ever meant it that way, it wouldn't be called *vore* now would it? Same species vore would be readily called cannibalism, and yet we don't. If cannibalism is specific, then I might compare it to an incest kink with twins, and yet, there is still the broader category of incest in which many different pairings are possible.

But a lot of us tend to *not* do this with the word cannibalism. We're fine with shrugging and going "Eehhhh? I gueess? Sure but, that's now I *feel* about it." It is this *feeling* that is the difference maker, for me anyway, if other people don't want to include widely shared vibes that's fair!

But while twincest falling under incest doesn't surprise anyone, the fact we even have to *think* about if cannibalism falls under vore, for even a second, really shows the difference.

If you're not into same-species hardvore, the comparison to cannibalism probably doesn't even occur to you very often... its like a shower-thought or fridge-logic, its something you contemplate when bored but it isn't what a lot of us go for. This isn't to kink-shame someone into say, a human cooking and eating another human or hardvoring them, I've met someone who *prefers* the vore to feel "cannibalistic". But I think a lot of us don't get turned on from seeing animals eat each other in nature, its still somehow more mundane until we enter some different place of mind where "vore exists", separating it from the mundane, banal world of things eating each other.

And again, that's not for everyone, some people prefer their vore as realistic as possible, but a lot of us just straight up DON'T? We want something more fantastic, perhaps something "higher" or more symbolic, something not quite mundane, something not quite banal.

That's just my opinion of course, but, my perspective is that... cannibalism is "fallen" or of the banal, and vore is somehow "higher" and is more meaningful, having a place outside of the causal world where things happen for a reason but there might not be any *meaning* behind it... but I think more of us want vore to be "meaningful" in some way, a way that cannibalism and natural predation just doesn't quite capture.
User avatar
blessedwasthechild
Participator
 
Posts: 184
Joined: Sat Nov 17, 2012 6:38 pm

Re: The Vore VS C*nnibalism debate?

Postby Tanookicatoon » Sat Jul 11, 2020 7:47 pm

Back in the day, before vore even had a name, people called it a cannibalism fetish.
But people knew they weren't into it because of he "human eat human" aspect of it,
it was the fact that something was being kept alive in the stomach.

Things REALLY changed when furries started showing up in "cannibal" fiction
and things started to just CLICK into place,
and you started getting words like pred, prey, and eventually Carnivore/Herbivore was just shortened to Vore.

SO yes, while there are people into cannibalism, vore is the proper umbrella term for the whole experience.
User avatar
Tanookicatoon
Been posting for a bit
 
Posts: 27
Joined: Tue Jun 09, 2009 4:00 pm

Re: The Vore VS C*nnibalism debate?

Postby calin22 » Sun Jul 12, 2020 3:39 pm

Tanookicatoon wrote:Back in the day, before vore even had a name, people called it a cannibalism fetish.
But people knew they weren't into it because of he "human eat human" aspect of it,
it was the fact that something was being kept alive in the stomach.

Things REALLY changed when furries started showing up in "cannibal" fiction
and things started to just CLICK into place,
and you started getting words like pred, prey, and eventually Carnivore/Herbivore was just shortened to Vore.

SO yes, while there are people into cannibalism, vore is the proper umbrella term for the whole experience.

I think you highlight a pretty significant point. Sexual Cannibalism (as a fetish) is a thing, and can probably fall under vorarephilia. Hell, maybe things like sexual autophagy (consuming your own flesh) can potentially also be a subset of vore, but I digress...
in regards to sexual cannibalism, the main turn on is consuming your own species. And although this can be a comorbidity in regards to vore, you would probably find other aspects of the fetish equally and/or more attractive.
In summary, if you are solely turned on by the thought of consuming the same species = sexual cannibal (for lack of better term?). If you do (or do not), but have additional interests found within the “vore-sphere” you’re a vorarephile.

Trust me, I’m an internet stranger...
EAT ME, FIGHT ME, GIVE ME A HUG!!!
User avatar
calin22
Somewhat familiar
 
Posts: 119
Joined: Mon Apr 09, 2012 9:03 am
Location: someplace Tight and Humid...

Re: The Vore VS C*nnibalism debate?

Postby JackSpades » Mon Jul 13, 2020 3:00 pm

I do trust you, dear internet stranger, but the wise guy in me has a formal objection.

The term "voraphilia" is a godless abomination which we should purge from our vocabulary. It's constructed out of "vorare" (latin; to devour, to consume) and philia (greek; love, love of). You can see that the languages don't add up. The scientifically correct term would be "phagophilia".

Wise guy out *micdrop*
User avatar
JackSpades
Somewhat familiar
 
Posts: 63
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2016 3:00 pm

Re: The Vore VS C*nnibalism debate?

Postby VoidInVoid » Mon Jul 13, 2020 3:24 pm

JackSpades wrote:I do trust you, dear internet stranger, but the wise guy in me has a formal objection.

The term "voraphilia" is a godless abomination which we should purge from our vocabulary. It's constructed out of "vorare" (latin; to devour, to consume) and philia (greek; love, love of). You can see that the languages don't add up. The scientifically correct term would be "phagophilia".

Wise guy out *micdrop*


Counterpoint: We should create more words by mashing different languages together. And if you really don't like that kind of thing, you should probably scrape off that adverbial suffix of Germanic origin sticking to the end of that very Latin "scientifical".
User avatar
VoidInVoid
Been posting for a bit
 
Posts: 57
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2018 11:09 pm

Re: The Vore VS C*nnibalism debate?

Postby Speedyblupi » Mon Jul 13, 2020 3:29 pm

It's extremely simple. Vorarephilia is defined as sexual arousal relating to things eating each other. Cannibalism is defined as things from the same species eating each other (especially, but not exclusively, humans). There is some overlap, but they're not the same thing.

In practice, cannibalism tends to imply being eaten (and implicitly or explicitly digested) in a realistic way (i.e. orally, by the prey being cut into pieces, and often cooked - hardvore) while vorarephilia also includes more abstract or absurd types of eating/ingestion and digestion (cock vore and digestion into semen, breast vore and digestion into milk, soul vore, non-fatal endosomatophilia, etc).

Cannibalism fetish is a subset of vore - sexualised cannibalism is vore, but not all vore is sexualised cannibalism. Any same-species vore is -technically- cannibalism, but within the vore community "cannibalism" is generally understood to refer more specifically to human or anthro same-species hardvore.
Speedyblupi
Participator
 
Posts: 253
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2015 7:45 am

Re: The Vore VS C*nnibalism debate?

Postby Speedyblupi » Mon Jul 13, 2020 4:05 pm

Borealis wrote:There is such a huge gap between the common depictions of vore in fantasy and the images that come into peoples heads when they hear the term that it does seem completely different. Absolutely.

But at the end of the day we can't deny the overlap in the official definition of the word and what goes on in fantasy in this community. The most common vore on this site, human on human oral, whether the pred is female, male, macro, same size, hard, soft- it technically is a fantastical form of the dreaded C word, based on pure definition of the term. We don't have to own it, but the link, if only through definition cannot be denied.

As I said in the other topic, we as a community have the right to disassociate ourselves from the term completely, and on the whole we do. It is a loaded term, and it is a scary word and the whole time I've been around, the community has wanted it as far away from ourselves as possible.

Outsiders which don't have the kink might find that odd and rather head-in-sandish though... And I think we need to accept that. Us fans of feral get the same sort of problem with zoophilia being the loaded label that's thrown around, so I empthathise and get it when it comes to this sort of thing trust me.


I don't agree with this. Most vore isn't what people normally understand by "cannibalism", but plenty of people here like actual cannibalism art, so you can't really claim that the community wants to to separate itself from cannibalism unless you'd advocate for removing this art from Eka's portal - which would annoy me and a ton of other people, for one thing. The vore community is not a hive mind: we're tens of thousands of different people with different interests, held together by similarities in those interests which are often very vague or superficial (what does a woman pushing her friends up her vagina have in common with a dragon who sucks a wolf's soul out, for instance? Both involve one character putting other characters into their body, and that's about it. That's what vore is).

The majority of people on Eka's portal might not be interested in cannibalism, but I don't think most are interested in feral vore either, and I'd be pretty concerned if the rest of the community suddently decided to distance themselves from people who did just to avoid any connection with zoophiles. If anyone makes any incorrect assumption about you based on your interests, you can correct them, but it doesn't mean you have to dissociate yourself from either the definition of a word, or from the parts of the community that you're a member of that don't share all of your interests. This community can't dissociate itself from cannibalism fetish, because it includes hundreds of people with a cannibalism fetish (as well as zoophilia, scat, slob, feet, and tons of others).
Speedyblupi
Participator
 
Posts: 253
Joined: Mon Oct 05, 2015 7:45 am

Re: The Vore VS C*nnibalism debate?

Postby Birichino » Tue Jul 14, 2020 12:37 pm

My personal parameters (and I think the textbook definition) mandate both pred and prey being "alive" for it to count as vore. That would mean that hard vore is the absolute limit, with cannibalism and object swallowing (unless the object is somehow animate) falling outside of the domain.

That being said, all same-species vore with digestion is technically also cannibalism; just not what people think of when they hear "cannibalism".
User avatar
Birichino
Advanced Vorarephile
 
Posts: 797
Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 1:01 am
Location: Mostly another plane of existence, sometimes Canada

Re: The Vore VS C*nnibalism debate?

Postby NotTadpole » Tue Jul 14, 2020 4:02 pm

Personally, I always saw human-on-human fatal vore as less of wanting to feed your hunger by eating someone else, and more as wanting to kill someone in a painful/humiliating way that wouldn't leave much of a body behind. Mostly because I have a hard time imagining human skin and hair as being particularly palatable - and we humans have too much bone in our bodies to be nutritious. But that's just the nitpicker in me wanting to be annoying and different from others xD

Still, even disregarding that, I don't personally consider Soft Vore to be cannibalism, as it's kind of too abstract and fantastical to be considered such. Maybe it's technically considered cannibalism, but personally I can't see it as anything else other than either an unorthodox form of murder (if fatal), or an extension of bondage play (if non-fatal). But the harder/more gruesome it gets, the more it blurs the lines. Hard Vore (and Cooking Vore, imo) heavily blurs the lines between vore and cannibalism, in my opinion. But I personally don't really care about it even if it's my thing; cannibalism or not, I don't have a problem with Hard Vore and Cooking Vore fans, so long as they (obviously) keep it solely to fiction/fantasy, and are also mindful of others' preferences. I'm a very "live and let live" person, I guess.

Artemis wrote:...Except for one small detail. Endo. Endo usually only exists as pregnancy in the real world. By most standards, if you don't chew someone and you don't digest someone, comparison to cannibalism falls apart almost entirely. You could call endo cannibalism, but that would be disingenuous.

Actually, Endo does exist outside of pregnancy. There is a large group of animals (mostly fish) called Mouthbrooders, because they incubate their eggs/embryos and protect their young children inside of the parent's mouth. That's pretty Endo-ish, at least in my opinion. There's also a currently-extinct frog genus that incubated their young inside their mother's stomach. Not in an uterus compartment, but the stomach itself - with gastric acids and everything. They'd hatch and swim inside the mother's stomach and everything, completely unharmed by her acids. The mother would eventually vomit them outside when they grew big enough. I'm still bitter that this species is extinct, it sounds incredibly fascinating.

Artemis wrote:But endo is not a subfetish of vore. It's a separate fetish that kinda synergizes with vore really well. So it would be accurate to say that vore is fundamentally predicated upon cannibalism, but that endo is not. And that the ease with which many of us can enjoy both, sometimes in tandem, as well as the fact that many people just use vore as a catch-all term for endo without even knowing the diference, complicates the question. It's really a question that you have to ask yourself, rather than something I can make a concrete statement about. Do you enjoy fatility/digestion? If you do, are you specifically attracted to the idea of digesting another person, or are there other reasons you enjoy that? It's not something I can answer in broad strokes.

I disagree. Endo is very much a part of the Vore umbrella, since it still often involves the act of being eaten by someone else and strongly revolves around the act of being inside the body of another living being. I don't think Vore should only revolve around including digestion and fatality; that kind of comes off like gatekeeping the community, and it'd likely just lead to more animosity between the two groups. (Plus, it's not like outside observers would particularly care about it; they'd still view Endo as Vore and treat it as such. Which would only make everything a lot more confusing.)
User avatar
NotTadpole
Somewhat familiar
 
Posts: 136
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2019 4:28 pm

Re: The Vore VS C*nnibalism debate?

Postby Twister88 » Thu Jul 16, 2020 8:23 pm

Cannibalism certainly is part of vore, albeit a very niche part of the community. The main issue is that cannibalism can come across as far too realistic to alot of people, even if it's discussed within a fantasty setting. Which in turn can make it very off-putting. I happen to find both vorarephilia and cannibalism erotic, since they both have to do with consumption. But obviously i understand why certain people feel queasy about it. Like alot of people i think the realism of it, is what sets it apart from regular vore and makes it it's own genre.

Basically it would be like equating BDSM with having a fetish for actual rape. Sure there are parallels, but you're still talking about two very different preferences.
User avatar
Twister88
Somewhat familiar
 
Posts: 86
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2016 6:48 pm

Next

Return to General Vore Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: dinomoon, maomix, randomguy15