How would you define non fatal?

[alockwood1]

To me, so long as the prey is alive and well, I'd count it. Things like Regurgitation, Full-Tour, Reformation, and such are merely flavors of it.

My thing is, if the Predator and Prey can both enjoy it at some point in the future - like in two weeks - I count it as Non-Fatal.

[Ыояр]

Archies can't relate? Yes, I agree a 100%! I mean we could divide a genre into two or three subgenres and those subgenres into more subgenres and so on and so forth, but where does us get it? Exactly, right where we are today! It indeed is a very human behavior... And seemingly a quite the obsessive one since the advance of SM! People hide under the curtain of tolerance and consideration, but their actions pretty much show that they merely want to make their work "unique"; apparently, they're compelled by a need to make it appear different from all the other one's, despite it's technically just another (non-)fatal or reformation work... I am in the "fatal-camp" and I don't see the sense in that at all! Why making a yet deeper distinction between all non-fatal stories just because "it may offend certain people" or "doesn't express what the artist wants to say"? We have more than enough tags already to make precise distinctions and clarify the direction of a work with just five or six additional tags! If the work itself can't relay a creator's intentions, do people earnestly think adding a few more tags can? Pfff~ Get real! And wake up, people of the new age! You'll offend someone either way! Especially with the mis- and overuse of tags like it's a common practice today! I, for my part, feel much more offended to read tags on items which shouldn't be there to begin with just to have some click-bait on those items, put on it under the pretense of insecurity or tolerance...

It's like playing dart and barely missing the center, instead of making a clear statement like the people back then, simply agreeing to "25 points!", the newer generations of creators want to be different from anyone who has the same result. To me it seems they just have to be unique and something special no matter what, so they go about tagging the results, like, Nearly 50 points!, Almost 50 points!, Implied 50 points!, Not 50 points!, More than (1...)24 points!, 25 points and less!, or 5x5 points!, etc. pp. ... I could go on like this almost forever but does that sound reasonable? In my eyes certainly not so I can't get around agreeing to Habiba's post! Why that silly comparison, you wonder? Well, the abuse, misuse, and overuse of tags (here on Eka's or striking expressions irl), partially even totally unrelated to the actual meaning of the tag and content of the tagged item, is a big reason that causes rhetoric questions like this to come into existence in the first place! I can't help but picture it, if those generations would be in the far past... Highly likely, they'd be more busy with trying to make distinctions between and reinventing the very same wheel time and time again, spreading only chaos and confusion among them to satisfy their egos rather putting the actual invention to use to improve their life quality, as the forum's state and tagging behavior of users proof...

Come on, guys'n'gals, if you're not pis*ed to the point that your mind had just shutted off entirely, let us make a detour down the road of logic! We'll simply use widely-known and accepted facts in form of established definitions, disregarding entirely how each of you defines that set expression for themselves or if those widely-accepted definitions may hurt someone else's feelings... It's a little tricky and you'll soon see that you can intepret it as you see fit if you stopped at given points before breaking it down entirely, and even then you can still interpret it however you want if you don't agree with what the people before your generations had all agreed upon and established, depending on how you interpret the "vague" meanings of the following definitions: Fatal... What does the word "fatal" actually mean? (Spoiled for overview's sake... and because it might turn set world views upside down if read with an open mind )

Spoiler: show

fatal
adj.
1. causing or capable of causing death; mortal; deadly:

That's might fine, but... What's death?
death
noun
1. the act of dying; the end of life; the total and permanent cessation of all the vital functions of an organism.: Compare brain death.
--> We already learn two intriguing facts at this point! It has to be permanent, and all vital functions must cease!

Now let's go one little step further: What do the "vital functions" encase?
vital function
noun, physiology
1. any function of the body that is essential for life.

Now we could get to the body part and end up with the conclusion that every scenario, whether the prey's mind - or spirit, soul, call it however you want - still remains to exist in whatever form or shape is a fatal scenario as long as its body is destroyed:
body
noun
1. the physical structure and material substance of an animal or plant, living or dead.

But we also still have the "essential to life" part and that brings us to a fundamental question: What's "life" anyway?
life
noun
1. the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally.
...
4. a corresponding state, existence, or principle of existence conceived of as belonging to the soul
...
7. the period of existence, activity, or effectiveness of something inanimate, as a machine, lease, or play

Now this is an interesting tidbit, isn't it? We have three whole different meanings and a closer look shows that the seventh definition is clearly contradicting the first. If we take just the first definition we'll arrive at the conclusion that a scenario in which the prey becomes a ghost is definitely fatal whereas a scenario in which the prey's spirit becomes sentient fat is undeniably non-fatal. In the latter one the prey is definitely a part of the pred's metabolism thus it still counts as alive = non-fatal. If we take the seventh definition. Both will indoubtedly count as non-fatal since, even as a ghost, it's still a period of existence of something inanimate... Riding on the "existence" doesn't seem to get us anywhere since we'll be trapped in a loop of "life" and "existence"...

UwU... My head... Now, we do have another intriguing thing brought into play with the fourth definition; the "soul"! As scientific as I am, we won't get around leaving the dry world of science behind if we want to take a look because, basically, everything that can't be proven doesn't officially exist in our scientific understanding until it's existence can be verified...
soul
noun
1. the principle of life, feeling, thought, and action in humans, regarded as a distinct entity separate from the body, and commonly held to be separable in existence from the body; the spiritual part of humans as distinct from the physical part.

2. the spiritual part of humans regarded in its moral aspect, or as believed to survive death and be subject to happiness or misery in a life to come

3. the disembodied spirit of a deceased person

4. the emotional part of human nature; the seat of the feelings or sentiments.
...
7. the animating principle; the essential element or part of something.

Ufff... Another one of those one in all words... But if we look at the first four parts and look up the definition of "mind", we'll see astonishing similarities:
mind
noun
1. (in a human or other conscious being) the element, part, substance, or process that reasons, thinks, feels, wills, perceives, judges, etc.

Call me a heretic but to me the "mind" is just the part of the "soul" that shapes it and defines how the "seat of emotions or sentiments" looks like! Especially with the "soul"'s seventh definition I can safely reason that my mind is an essential element of my existence and the very principle that animates my body to move in the first place, thus we can break it down in something much simpler and easier to understand! We have just established a fact, per definitions how the majority of people perceives and has established those things: The soul, albeit slightly different since it includes a tad more, is our mind. I mean, if you imagine a ghost of a deceased person you imagine it's the mind at best, or just the "seat of feelings or sentiments" at worst, staying in existence in a different form, no? At least every religious concept looks at our souls like that! Didcha notice? No? Well, I don't wanna brag but I just invented two whole new subgenres of the very same thing; the fatal tag: Spiritually fatal and physically fatal! Yay! Go me~ But wait, why should I even make a difference if it's both fatal? Oh right! I could offend someone if I didn't tag my work "properly"... And yay again! I can even make all my stories even more unique by using synonyms for spiritually and physically and make even further distinctions! Lucky me~...

So, I'm done applying some logic there and that very logic tells us another questionable conclusion: If one gets into an accident and their brain is irreparably damaged, the doctors pluck them into a machine and keep them alive. Hooray! What a luck, it was a non-fatal accident! I mean, they'll never be able to form a thought again or move a muscle anymore, but at least they're still "alive", right? We can go even further: It was their mind, their soul, before, which animated their body but now that a machine is doing that part, does that mean the machine became their soul? I get the "seat of sentiments" is probably still elsewhere, but right now "the animated principle" of their body is that very machine and the only thing keeping them "alive"... Dunno about you guys'n'gals, and I get why people are so convinced that the soul and the body are seperate instances since the wish and longing for immortality always was a thing among humans, but to me, personally, I doubt I'd feel very alive if "the element, part, substance, or process that reasons, thinks, feels, wills, perceives, judges, etc." was gone despite my "vital functions" of "the physical structure and material substance of" my being are still there and working... You can call the accident non-fatal all you want, but I have little doubt it would feel pretty fatal me - oh no, it wouldn't because I couldn't feel anything anymore with my brain ceasing all functions... And I point out again this scenario, a scenario in which I would never be able to think or act in any way again, is inarguably non-fatal, per the literal definitions of the words, since not all of my vital functions have ceased permanently yet...

The more I think about it, the more I get the impression I have to conclude that the soul, being basically the mind in my eyes, and the body are two sides of the same coin... One can't really exist without the other, albeit the common belief is that the soul can keep existing without a body... Now with the facts established above, we simply have to admit that each and every scenario in which the physical body of a prey is destroyed is definitely a fatal scenario, concluding in return that any scenario in which the physical body of a prey isn't destroyed entirely is a non-fatal scenario, regardless of its soul or mind or whatever being destroyed as long as the body itself keeps functioning... Would you agree? Definitions leave no room for argument so the facts are clear... but I'd still argue about these definitions of fatal and non-fatal vore! Just an example: If I write a story about an evil scientist putting another person's soul into an existent person's body this would indoubtedly be a non-fatal scenario, despite the fact that the original body owner will die in the process and there's a completely new person in its former body now. Quite the contradiction, no? A person just died for good but the scenario itself remains non-fatal and everyone looking for a non-fatal scenario is likely to disagree with that tag because, effectively, a person has just died in the story...

That leads me to the thought that the soul or mind is very-well a "function of the body that is essential for life" - yeayea, not for life in general but most certainly for the life of this specific human - since it's "the principle of life, feeling, thought, and action in (that) humans", thus must be included in the "vital function"s, despite being defined as something else entirely! At least if you earneslty take that into consideration, you won't get around admitting this "new" person in an "old" body will have whole different principles and sentiments! If you look at a brain death, without that part a human becomes just an inanimate substance of organic, living matter. Sure, they're still breathing and twitching, but can they do anything like you and me? Can they still form thoughts and feel emotions? It's possible, sure, so I warmly invite anyone who wants to believe that to feel free to do that, but science says no! Why? It can't be proven yet; easy as that... So if the spirtual part is still kind of vital for a human to exist for real, with every facet that accompanies that, despite being viewed as two seperate things, how can it be considered a fatal scenario if the undying soul of the prey remains? Its body may have whithered away, but its existence in general still remains in whatever form you choose! No, sir, if you make this distinction between soul and body, not all vital functions cease if just the body disintegrates, and it's not defined as death, which means the scenario isn't related to death or mortality, thus being non-fatal. Sure the matter is gone permanently, but the soul will be permanently existing. In my eyes it's a fatally non-fatal scenario in that case at best.

Now, as many before pointed out correctly, we've made a third distinction! People kept arguing about fatal and non-fatal back in the day, bit*hing at each other about what the "better" and "only true" form of vore is and they couldn't find an answer to the eternal question where non-fatal ends and where fatal starts. That mainly religious argument has led to a bright mind inventing said third distinction: The Reformation tag... Reformation regards to everything that isn't really considered fatal by the faties, since the prey survives in whatever form, or non-fatal by the endos since fatality very-well does happen! - Let me say at this point that this tag, too, is a wrongful use of the original and still existing meaning of this word, since it's either relating to theology or to "the act of changing to a better state or character, way of operating, lifestyle, etc.; the correction of abuses and bad habits or practices"! Whether that change is an actual improvement or not is entirely subject to the work and the beliefs of the reader... xp - Nevertheless, vorarephiles of the old have agreed on those things: If the prey's essence somehow survives in any shape or state, it's reformation. If the prey's body and consciousness are gone entirely, it's fatal. And if the prey isn't suffering lethal injuries, it's non-fatal. If it's all happy-go lucky sunshine and rainbow-y non-fatal vore it was called safe vore or endo. Now I, as a fatal vore and digestion lover, could certainly argue that reformation can't be fatal in the truest sense of the word only the most literal one, we've - and I emphasize: - all agreed that it's a whole different genre somewhere between fatal and non-fatal since it can be interpreted and reasoned as being both...

With that being said, giving any reformation styled vore also the fatal or non-fatal is plain wrong and an unneccessary click-blait, resulting purely from the selfish and irrational beliefs of the tagger! It's both and neither; it's as fatal as non-fatal; it's simply something else entirely! A lotta unnecessary text to throw in my own two cents but I gotta admit that it was indeed a curious and valuable excursion for me! :3 To give a straight, summed-up answer:

In my eyes, as soon as one brings supernatural stuff like a soul or a higher plain of existence into play it stops being fatal or non-fatal vore entirely! If either, the prey's body or its spiritual being, is being destroyed and/or rebuild in the process, it's reformation. If both are destroyed for good, it's fatal. And if none of that is being destroyed(, no matter how scarred both get), it's non-fatal!

[Eka]

This is an endless discussion because all the scenarios happen in a fantasy realm with different laws, rules, or morals.

It is fun to interact, but you will never get everyone to agree because they all have their preference on how their fantasy realm works... So don't try too hard on bringing real-world definition or value into this, cause what happens in real life is irrelevant to a fantasy world that doesn't exist.

[Ghrelin]

IMO, fatal means death is/was included. What happens afterward doesn't cancel out the fact that the character still died in the scene, so unless it's done without the character dying/leaving their body (remaining conscious while being processed and then reverting to their normal form), reformation typically includes fatal. Considering how a lot of folks who don't like fatal vore avoid reformation specifically for that reason, I think it's fair to stay on the safe side and tag scenes where a character dies as fatal regardless of whether or not they'll come back afterward. Returning from the dead wouldn't be considered non-fatal in any other context, so I see no reason to make an exception for vore.

On a related note, non-fatal doesn't necessarily have to mean endosoma, either. There are a lot of ways vore can be portrayed that don't involve a character actually dying, including unwilling scenes, prey escaping, and some more brutal stuff like partial digestion, etc. Non-fatal isn't necessarily synonymous with safe or harmless, which the endo tag usually implies. It just means that the character survives... and they wouldn't need to reform (with few exceptions) if they survived in the first place.

[IddlerItaler]

On a related note, non-fatal doesn't necessarily have to mean endosoma, either. There are a lot of ways vore can be portrayed that don't involve a character actually dying, including unwilling scenes, prey escaping, and some more brutal stuff like partial digestion, etc. Non-fatal isn't necessarily synonymous with safe or harmless, which the endo tag usually implies. It just means that the character survives... and they wouldn't need to reform (with few exceptions) if they survived in the first place.

I am a sucker for vore scenarios which are neither fatal nor entirely safe. There's just something about the thrill, ups and downs, the uncertainty and turntables.

A favourite of mine is when a pred devours someone with the intention to digest them but then changes their mind, gets to know them, and possibly results in enemies to lovers later down the line. Or a pred devours a prey with the intention to capture them, and threatens digestion if they struggle too much or get too snarky.

[Ghrelin]

I am a sucker for vore scenarios which are neither fatal nor entirely safe. There's just something about the thrill, ups and downs, the uncertainty and turntables.

A favourite of mine is when a pred devours someone with the intention to digest them but then changes their mind, gets to know them, and possibly results in enemies to lovers later down the line. Or a pred devours a prey with the intention to capture them, and threatens digestion if they struggle too much or get too snarky.

Oh, same. Having the threat of digestion can make for some exciting scenarios. I am also a sucker for prey changing their pred's mind from the inside. I can see why some folks don't find escape stories as gratifying, but when they're good, they're great.