Why is Non-Fatal Vore so much less common than Fatal?

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!

Why is Non-Fatal Vore so much less common than Fatal?

Postby ProudMonsterFucker » Sat Feb 01, 2025 10:39 pm

It's strange. With "normal" smut, Snuff (Fucking someone to death) is considered an outlier and one of the more severe or out-there kinks, but with Vore, the vast majority of stuff I find is Fatal. Maybe because it's less violent compared to Snuff? But at the same time, I find it strange that so many Vore fans prefer Fatal stuff to Non-Fatal. I personally almost only read Non-Fatal stuff, with the rare Fatal story being more about other kinks or with some characters surviving, but I guess I'm just an outlier myself? It genuinely confuses me so much.
User avatar
ProudMonsterFucker
New to the forum
 
Posts: 11
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2020 1:56 am

Re: Why is Non-Fatal Vore so much less common than Fatal?

Postby Humbug » Sat Feb 01, 2025 11:23 pm

Typically when a living being is devoured, that means their death. It's kind of the default, and to deviate requires a further leap.

I'm sure there are other reasons, but that's one of the big ones.
User avatar
Humbug
---
 
Posts: 1873
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2006 12:00 am
Location: Coella

Re: Why is Non-Fatal Vore so much less common than Fatal?

Postby Assimilation » Sun Feb 02, 2025 12:17 am

ProudMonsterFucker wrote:It's strange. With "normal" smut, Snuff (Fucking someone to death) is considered an outlier and one of the more severe or out-there kinks, but with Vore, the vast majority of stuff I find is Fatal. Maybe because it's less violent compared to Snuff? But at the same time, I find it strange that so many Vore fans prefer Fatal stuff to Non-Fatal. I personally almost only read Non-Fatal stuff, with the rare Fatal story being more about other kinks or with some characters surviving, but I guess I'm just an outlier myself? It genuinely confuses me so much.


You are right that the majority of vore art is fatal. Going to the Tag Browsing page of this site, the ratio is about 2.7 to 1 for fatal vs non-fatal (or about 73% fatal for all works tagged with fatal/non-fatal). I don't know if that's as vast a majority as you personally perceived, but any way we cut it, we can safely say that we can find 2-3 fatal images for every non-fatal image that contains vore.

I don't think that's strange, though, compared to snuff. Snuff is "severe" or "out-there" because it's a scary one to the public. Imagine that there are weird people out there who want to watch people die! and only for sexual pleasure! That's wild! It's sick! But that reception doesn't really indicate anything about its actual popularity--maybe it's quite a bit more popular than average, but comparatively few people are willing to even suggest that they're into it, compared to feet, incest, or vore.

I'm guessing vore makes that list because, though vore does often include sexual pleasure at an imagined death, there is a laughably goofy quality to the majority of the vore art corpus online. Same-size is common and has a literal cartoon quality about its physics, and a lot of ordinary people are put off by the fat-belly focus of many of our image galleries. Yes, a character died in this or that artwork, but there's so little edge felt by a non-vorarephile when they see an artwork is a two-panel of a gut shrinking or a single still of a butt with a little gas-effect of a skull and crossbones--they're likely cringing, disgusted, or bewildered at the stuff so many of us beat off to. So maybe that's why people found it easy over the last 15 years to openly post their deviant art on the site once named to welcome exactly that, since it was only just weird and not actually concerning.

I'm also curious to know, OP, whether you approach vore works as a prey or a pred. The majority of vorarephiles are more prey-leaning than pred-leaning, so the perception of snuff is further differentiated in that it's often a focus on people killing for sexual pleasure, versus the majority of vore being more often about *being* killed for sexual pleasure. I myself am pred-only, and I do sometimes enjoy thoughts of snuff devoid of vore, so I'm trying to speak from a majority perspective rather than my personal one.
User avatar
Assimilation
Advanced Vorarephile
 
Posts: 709
Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 11:00 pm

Re: Why is Non-Fatal Vore so much less common than Fatal?

Postby IddlerItaler » Sun Feb 02, 2025 2:39 am

Humbug wrote:Typically when a living being is devoured, that means their death. It's kind of the default, and to deviate requires a further leap.

I'm sure there are other reasons, but that's one of the big ones.


That's a pretty sound argument, but then again cock vore and unbirth are a thing, and a whole plethora of reality-defying tropes surrounding vore like stomachs being invincible rubber bags of doom, or sapient preys who are worse at self-defense than horror movie protagonists. Disposal is also a pretty logical consequence of eating, yet the community is very vocally split on that. The surreality of vore being what makes death more cartoony and thus more digestible for its audiences, like Assimilation theorized, makes more sense to me than any appeal to logical consequences (especially since unwilling fatal vore that puts a big emphasis on the prey's suffering is not as common as one that centers on the pred's enjoyment).

Another explanation I saw thrown around is that many are into vore for the domination, and fatal vore is a way to crank the "domming" to the max whereas non-fatal is "holding back" (I saw that brought up specifically in a discussion about why sexual endosoma was so rare compared to both non-sexual endo and sexual fatal. Also a reader once told me they were "blueballed" by my non-fatal stories). For others it's about gluttony or weight gain, and completed digestion pretty much always results in fatality.

Another explanation would be that vore being a niche fetish, it encourages people to share preferences that are more "out there". Or, paradoxically, death is mainstream in vore because death is mainstream in media. People being conditioned to find death a normal (or even required) part of "adult" media may be why nobody ever treats it like a big trigger and people frequently forget to tag fatal. Heck, the whole "I saw people getting eaten in cartoons and that's what gave me an interest in vore" could be said about death - people have had experiences with death, whether real or fictional, since young age.

Another thing is that according to most polls I saw, the majority of fans are into both fatal and non-fatal, but there is a sizable slice of fatal-onlys compared to non-fatal-onlys. It's easy to see how members of the former group will likely stay with vore and encourage artists to put out more fatal content whereas the latter group may end up "pushed off" into endosoma communities and avoid the broader vore cosmos due to the risk of exposure to untagged fatalities.
User avatar
IddlerItaler
Intermediate Vorarephile
 
Posts: 455
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2016 8:16 am

Re: Why is Non-Fatal Vore so much less common than Fatal?

Postby Shortpig » Sun Feb 02, 2025 6:47 am

I'm not sure that this is actually the case, the majority of work is ambiguous, with no shown fate for the prey. If we're talking tags, specifically, there's a lot more stuff that's specifically tagged as fatal than stuff that's tagged as endo/non-fatal, but there's a variety of reasons for that outside of there outright being more content for it. The tagging system itself is likely responsible for a lot of that discrepancy, but I won't go into that unless someone wants to hear this random internet stranger ramble about it.

Chiefly, though, you should consider the fact that Digestion is a specific event that occurs during vore, and thus can be recognized, tagged very easily, and has content specifically catering to it, while Endosoma... kinda isn't? There is inherently going to be a demographic of people that are making content where Digestion happens, or at least tag that it WILL happen even if it's not directly depicted. Endo, on the other hand, is only very rarely a specific and visible event, only in the very rare cases of either permanent entrapment, or regurgitation and aftercare shown in a sequence would I say that it qualifies - which is rare, because sequences take a lot of effort to make, and even then aftercare is rarely a direct focus of someone's kink and thus even less likely to be visibly displayed, with a majority of sequences ending right after swallowing. In single images where the artist's intent is Endosoma, they're mostly just drawing someone with a belly - which, incidentally, will look completely identical to a character with a belly drawn by an artist whose intent is digestion. Unlike pieces with digestion explicitly happening, there's no direct motivation to add the tag for Endo, unless an artist is particularly uncomfortable with the idea of people thinking that someone might be getting hurt in their art.
If you want a more accurate comparison, rather than comparing fatal and non-fatal tags, try negative tags, "-fatal, -digestion", and you'll still get a hundred thousand results, the likes of which you can mostly imagine whatever outcome you prefer.
User avatar
Shortpig
Somewhat familiar
 
Posts: 84
Joined: Fri May 13, 2016 1:24 pm
Location: Good question, where the heck is this?

Re: Why is Non-Fatal Vore so much less common than Fatal?

Postby IddlerItaler » Sun Feb 02, 2025 8:12 am

Shortpig wrote:I'm not sure that this is actually the case, the majority of work is ambiguous, with no shown fate for the prey. If we're talking tags, specifically, there's a lot more stuff that's specifically tagged as fatal than stuff that's tagged as endo/non-fatal, but there's a variety of reasons for that outside of there outright being more content for it. The tagging system itself is likely responsible for a lot of that discrepancy, but I won't go into that unless someone wants to hear this random internet stranger ramble about it.


Yes, a significant chunk of vore art is made up of single-panel drawings (e.g., a mawshot, an external belly bulge, an internal shot with an undigested character) which often don't give a lot of context and allow the audience to imagine their preferred outcome by design. Generally though, if you search any tag + fatal, you'll get more hits than if you searched that same tag + non-fatal (or + endosoma).

I think I know what you mean about tagging discrepancy. Fatal literally means "causing death" but people have different standards on what counts as "true death" - some discount any post-death existence (afterlife, sentient fat, etc.) and characters who aren't technically alive like vampires, some interpret fatal as "ENDING in death" so they classify resurrection as non-fatal. An unintended result of that is that even the non-fatal tag ends up containing death scenes pretty often, so people who are triggered by death have to rely on endo... except like you said, someone might not even think to tag endosoma.

Shortpig wrote:Chiefly, though, you should consider the fact that Digestion is a specific event that occurs during vore, and thus can be recognized, tagged very easily, and has content specifically catering to it, while Endosoma... kinda isn't? There is inherently going to be a demographic of people that are making content where Digestion happens, or at least tag that it WILL happen even if it's not directly depicted. Endo, on the other hand, is only very rarely a specific and visible event, only in the very rare cases of either permanent entrapment, or regurgitation and aftercare shown in a sequence would I say that it qualifies - which is rare, because sequences take a lot of effort to make, and even then aftercare is rarely a direct focus of someone's kink and thus even less likely to be visibly displayed, with a majority of sequences ending right after swallowing. In single images where the artist's intent is Endosoma, they're mostly just drawing someone with a belly - which, incidentally, will look completely identical to a character with a belly drawn by an artist whose intent is digestion. Unlike pieces with digestion explicitly happening, there's no direct motivation to add the tag for Endo, unless an artist is particularly uncomfortable with the idea of people thinking that someone might be getting hurt in their art.


So you're saying it is easier to tell "this piece is fatal" than "this piece is non-fatal?" from a single-panel artwork? I agree with that. When the prey is going to die, you usually have tells like a deformed belly bulge, bones, weight gain. Perhaps the prey will get rescued at the last moment, but we usually go with the assumption that if someone is shown digesting, they will digest to the end. By contrast, a piece which the artist intended as safe might get classified as ambiguous fate. On one hand this assumption might showcase a fatal bias to some degree, on the other it might show people being considerate (death is a trigger, so falsely advertising a safe scenario is worse than overcompensating by guessing it might be fatal).

This might not tell the whole story though (pun intended), since vore stories are a thing and even there the popularity of fatal is felt. I can think of many beloved writers who specialize in fatal heavily or exclusively (Ryanshow and Vesari are among my faves), but I've yet to find non-fatal counterparts with similar overall tastes AND a similar amount of engagement. And again on the art side I can think of only one famous endo-only pred, some mixed ones, and several fatal-only ones.

Shortpig wrote:If you want a more accurate comparison, rather than comparing fatal and non-fatal tags, try negative tags, "-fatal, -digestion", and you'll still get a hundred thousand results, the likes of which you can mostly imagine whatever outcome you prefer.


Fair enough about tag exclusion, didn't even know it was a thing. Another thing that muddles the waters is how exactly one should count things. To me all endosoma is non-fatal but not all non-fatal is endosoma, and non-fatal vs fatal is the broadest distinction regarding outcome. However, quite a few times I've come across untagged endosoma pieces, I suggested as tags "endosoma, non-fatal", then endosoma got accepted but non-fatal got voted out. Do people think "There's no point in putting an extra tag, endosoma already covers it"? Or do they see them as entirely different things? Either way it's not clear if one should tally fatal pieces vs non-fatal pieces, or fatal pieces vs non-fatal + endosoma pieces. Similar confusion with people not tagging fatal because "digestion is enough."

I recently discovered an excellent artist, Itsuune, who's done lots of "prey successfully struggles out" sequences. It was like a treasure trove. Sadly, nobody ever added any non-fatal tag to their pieces, making the gallery hard to find for a target audience.
User avatar
IddlerItaler
Intermediate Vorarephile
 
Posts: 455
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2016 8:16 am

Re: Why is Non-Fatal Vore so much less common than Fatal?

Postby chewchulainn » Sun Feb 02, 2025 12:23 pm

It's interesting because when I started out with vore, I was pretty strictly into non fatal, soft vore, no digestion, basically just endosoma, with the prey specifically being spat out after each session, or digestion being an offscreen implication that would never actually be addressed... and even when I did finally start dabbling with digestion, it was always under the context of reformation happening. But I've found with vore that over time my tastes have gotten more and more 'hard', and at this point I have found I'm less interested in stuff if it isn't fatal haha.

For myself at least, the appeal of fatal vore is the absolute sense of control the pred has over the prey's life, and the absolute sense of powerlessness for the prey. The objectification and dehumanization of the prey. For me it's a mix of domination and objectification being pushed to the absolute extreme, I think. The prey being seen as literally nothing more than an object to satisfy the pred, whether that be a sexual gratification or just as a meal (or both). Their life is trivial in the fact of the pred's enjoyment. When looked at through a realistic lens, it's definitely dark, and ofc I can understand why it's not appealing to plenty of people, since I myself was there at one point. But I think in my case it gradually became just getting bored of the same sorts of scenarios and wanting to explore further, and this is just where that exploration led me with time.

I've seen a lot of people talk about the overlap of vore and bdsm in terms of what they enjoy about it, so I imagine it's similar for some people, though ofc not all. But I think that if you enjoy the rougher side of vore, then fatal tends to crop us as a natural conclusion, at least with any sort of vore where you end up in the stomach. Obviously vore is a fantasy, so it doesn't take mch to stretch the suspension of disbelief to remove digestion from the equation, but again, if you enjoy the idea of the prey struggling or the humiliation of the prey being treated as food, then I think in that context it makes sense for digestion to be involved, and digestion generally leads to fatality ^^'
User avatar
chewchulainn
Somewhat familiar
 
Posts: 85
Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2015 12:31 am

Re: Why is Non-Fatal Vore so much less common than Fatal?

Postby pbysteria » Sun Feb 02, 2025 1:43 pm

A big draw for me and plenty of others into vore is the concept of growth and how a pred utilizes the resources given to them by a prey. In non-fatal this step is (generally) absent, so that's a huge physical point of appeal that is missing.
User avatar
pbysteria
New to the forum
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri Dec 22, 2017 4:19 am

Re: Why is Non-Fatal Vore so much less common than Fatal?

Postby rugaeton » Sun Feb 02, 2025 2:58 pm

cuz we're freaks
doesn't actually like reggaeton all that much. but does like tons of rugae.
User avatar
rugaeton
Been posting for a bit
 
Posts: 43
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2021 10:46 pm
Location: hell

Re: Why is Non-Fatal Vore so much less common than Fatal?

Postby MrUnnamed » Sun Feb 02, 2025 3:14 pm

Honestly i think it's because Vore it's cartoonish, i mean the preds with their big and round bellies, the bulges, the "gulp", etc. It is not visualized in a serious matter in most cases. in fact it's a really big turn off for me if some piece of vore art ends up being way too serious, like preys begging for their lives or graphgic digestion. I really prefer the digestion or the prey "dying" being treated like some sort of dark humor joke, like a character on a series dying and magically appearing alive on the next episode.
User avatar
MrUnnamed
New to the forum
 
Posts: 13
Joined: Sat Aug 01, 2015 2:52 pm

Re: Why is Non-Fatal Vore so much less common than Fatal?

Postby N-Mario » Sun Feb 02, 2025 7:33 pm

While true in most 'normal' cases, vore means certain death for the prey.
However, there are scenarios that I usually like that don't end up in death. These scenarios are where the predator hold the prey prisoner, or they take them for a ride inside themselves. These are the ones I enjoy most because they are fun. That's why I tend to find robot predators fascinating more than other type of predators. :)
There is also the story of Jonah, where he gets thrown into the sea, then carried off into a giant fish/whale creatures' belly for 3 days/nights.
Interestingly, I have been a big fan of giant fish vore anyway. :gulp:
Image
I'm a dolphin that prefers devouring my best buddy.
He loves to be eaten by me. I don't mind that at all.
User avatar
N-Mario
---
 
Posts: 1490
Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2009 9:05 pm
Location: My House

Re: Why is Non-Fatal Vore so much less common than Fatal?

Postby zoidian1 » Sun Feb 02, 2025 10:21 pm

Part of it, in my opinion, is "world building". If you've got a one-off story just for the fun of it, reformation isn't important. The characters won't be back again.

But when building a world of stories, or a series based on some concept, you want characters that you don't have to replace. In my longer-running series, there's usually reformation (although in some, reformation is optional). Without the reformation, the writer is left having to create more and more characters to fill the gaps - and with only preds surviving, there's not as much character development.
User avatar
zoidian1
Participator
 
Posts: 307
Joined: Wed May 29, 2013 6:02 pm

Re: Why is Non-Fatal Vore so much less common than Fatal?

Postby Humbug » Sun Feb 02, 2025 11:41 pm

IddlerItaler wrote:
Humbug wrote:Typically when a living being is devoured, that means their death. It's kind of the default, and to deviate requires a further leap.

I'm sure there are other reasons, but that's one of the big ones.


That's a pretty sound argument, but then again cock vore and unbirth are a thing, and a whole plethora of reality-defying tropes surrounding vore like stomachs being invincible rubber bags of doom, or sapient preys who are worse at self-defense than horror movie protagonists. Disposal is also a pretty logical consequence of eating, yet the community is very vocally split on that. The surreality of vore being what makes death more cartoony and thus more digestible for its audiences, like Assimilation theorized, makes more sense to me than any appeal to logical consequences (especially since unwilling fatal vore that puts a big emphasis on the prey's suffering is not as common as one that centers on the pred's enjoyment).

Another explanation I saw thrown around is that many are into vore for the domination, and fatal vore is a way to crank the "domming" to the max whereas non-fatal is "holding back" (I saw that brought up specifically in a discussion about why sexual endosoma was so rare compared to both non-sexual endo and sexual fatal. Also a reader once told me they were "blueballed" by my non-fatal stories). For others it's about gluttony or weight gain, and completed digestion pretty much always results in fatality.

Another explanation would be that vore being a niche fetish, it encourages people to share preferences that are more "out there". Or, paradoxically, death is mainstream in vore because death is mainstream in media. People being conditioned to find death a normal (or even required) part of "adult" media may be why nobody ever treats it like a big trigger and people frequently forget to tag fatal. Heck, the whole "I saw people getting eaten in cartoons and that's what gave me an interest in vore" could be said about death - people have had experiences with death, whether real or fictional, since young age.

Another thing is that according to most polls I saw, the majority of fans are into both fatal and non-fatal, but there is a sizable slice of fatal-onlys compared to non-fatal-onlys. It's easy to see how members of the former group will likely stay with vore and encourage artists to put out more fatal content whereas the latter group may end up "pushed off" into endosoma communities and avoid the broader vore cosmos due to the risk of exposure to untagged fatalities.

Oh yeah, I should clarify that it being "logical" isn't important. There's plenty of suspension of disbelief everywhere. What I was getting at was more that there's more work to do to get to non-fatal from our default experiences, so fewer people are going to take that step. It's kinda the logic to locking up your bike: Even if you have a shitty lock, you've nullified a fair number of would-be bike thieves because it requires just that little bit more extra work than just taking it from the rack. If that makes sense.
User avatar
Humbug
---
 
Posts: 1873
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2006 12:00 am
Location: Coella

Re: Why is Non-Fatal Vore so much less common than Fatal?

Postby IddlerItaler » Mon Feb 03, 2025 7:33 am

Humbug wrote:Oh yeah, I should clarify that it being "logical" isn't important. There's plenty of suspension of disbelief everywhere. What I was getting at was more that there's more work to do to get to non-fatal from our default experiences, so fewer people are going to take that step. It's kinda the logic to locking up your bike: Even if you have a shitty lock, you've nullified a fair number of would-be bike thieves because it requires just that little bit more extra work than just taking it from the rack. If that makes sense.


Okay, I get that point, but I think to that to a degree this is the result of inertia and the popularity of fatal vore being self-sustaining. After all, it also takes a break from normalcy to see a predator swallow a creature their size whole compared to chewing them, yet hard vore is very niche compared to soft vore, which is so commonplace and "canonized" that most vore fans think nothing of it. It's not extra mental work because through sheer critical mass it's become the new routine, the new rails. For an extreme example, take the coconut effect - horses galloping "feels wrong" if you use their real sound instead of clapping coconuts like films usually do, and films that try to be accurate are met with resistance, so sometimes it's the art that sets what's expected, rather than expectations setting the art.

In my opinion the situation is not that different from when human preds were nearly unheard of in vore, and people went "a human pred would just feel too unnatural compared to a furry one." Eventually human and humanoid preds made their way in, post after post, and acquired a sizable base - though not everybody enjoys them and anthro preds remain a huge chunk of vore (and it's completely fine like that), fans of humanoid preds now have many creators to choose from who benefit from plenty of encouragement and commissions.

zoidian1 wrote:Part of it, in my opinion, is "world building". If you've got a one-off story just for the fun of it, reformation isn't important. The characters won't be back again.

But when building a world of stories, or a series based on some concept, you want characters that you don't have to replace. In my longer-running series, there's usually reformation (although in some, reformation is optional). Without the reformation, the writer is left having to create more and more characters to fill the gaps - and with only preds surviving, there's not as much character development.


A recurring character might also be badass enough to escape out of a stomach if eaten, versus a narratively-doomed victim of the week. Prey who escape are underrated, though I wonder if that's also because it takes "more effort" compared to letting the pred choose the prey's fate. The main options on people's radars (Endo, reformation, no reformation) align with spare, kill and respawn, kill off permanently, mostly depending on what the pred chooses / is capable of. Though this also leads to the dreaded issue of "a prey has nothing to do once eaten" in roleplaying scenarios.
User avatar
IddlerItaler
Intermediate Vorarephile
 
Posts: 455
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2016 8:16 am

Re: Why is Non-Fatal Vore so much less common than Fatal?

Postby Dudeincamoshorts » Mon Feb 03, 2025 9:27 am

I am with you on this and its been really what kept me from being interactive in the vore sphere. I am much more into AV and UB so I can see how people more interested in oral lean fatal but not something I am interested in. That's why I do support Starcross and other creators who prefer non-fatal work. My favorite creators are non-fatal or they at least don't emphasis it and seeing them has inspired me to join and now I make Non fatal stories. (if you want to check it out on my profile I think its pretty good :lol: )

If there are any other major Non fatal artists on here shout them out so I can check them out.
Dudeincamoshorts
New to the forum
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2024 7:39 pm

Re: Why is Non-Fatal Vore so much less common than Fatal?

Postby Trajan » Mon Feb 03, 2025 12:30 pm

The basic outcome of eating something is its destruction. It's only natural to see that fatal is more prevalent, as it will be associated more with eating. Besides, vore works on a lot of cartoon physics (preys dying because of the acids and not asphyxiation) but also "cartoon morals" very often, were the point of view is either and afterthought or not taken into account because we see the scene from the emotional pov of the pred ("yeah no shit I'm killing you, that's how hunting works, now get in my belly tasty little snack"). Often, the prey also takes pleasure (even if sometimes reluctant) in the act. And there are a lot of pics were getting eaten is treated as a minor inconvenience.

There are definitly a lot of pics were the prey pov is taken seriously and up-front though. But I think both are interesting cases.

Also, people deconnect it from reality easily, because vore is impossible to do irl and vore scenarios are often very detached from reality themselves ("oh no, I've eaten 138 persons by accident in a public space, surely this will be a disaster for my clothes").

For an extreme example, take the coconut effect - horses galloping "feels wrong" if you use their real sound instead of clapping coconuts like films usually do, and films that try to be accurate are met with resistance, so sometimes it's the art that sets what's expected, rather than expectations setting the art.

There is a definitly a lot to be said about people's expectation about something vs what that something actually is in reality, but that's a vast and complex topic. A guy named Farya Faraji made a lot of vids about this on his channel. It's mostly focused on music, but a great watch nonetheless.

Also there is a very well-made documentary about medieval england where they treat about the usage of clapping coconuts as a mean of transportation. They also talk about theimpact of rabbits on knights and the cordial relations between the French and the English. Can't remember the name though...
Ausgustus might have been the best emperor, but damn Basil II was the coolest one.
If you want to talk about anything, feel free to pm, I'll be glad to respond.
User avatar
Trajan
Participator
 
Posts: 191
Joined: Tue Jun 11, 2024 9:42 am
Location: Lutetia Parisiorum, Gallia Lugdunensis

Re: Why is Non-Fatal Vore so much less common than Fatal?

Postby IddlerItaler » Mon Feb 03, 2025 1:50 pm

Trajan wrote:The basic outcome of eating something is its destruction. It's only natural to see that fatal is more prevalent, as it will be associated more with eating. Besides, vore works on a lot of cartoon physics (preys dying because of the acids and not asphyxiation) but also "cartoon morals" very often, were the point of view is either and afterthought or not taken into account because we see the scene from the emotional pov of the pred ("yeah no shit I'm killing you, that's how hunting works, now get in my belly tasty little snack"). Often, the prey also takes pleasure (even if sometimes reluctant) in the act. And there are a lot of pics were getting eaten is treated as a minor inconvenience.


I like to call them "GTA morals". It doesn't matter how many pedestrians the protagonist mows down, we are still rooting for the ruthless protag to get vengeance on those who wronged him and get a happy ending. Cartoon physics certainly are a big inspiration for vore (if they weren't, hard vore would be a hella lot more common), albeit when a cartoon or videogame character gets eaten they usually manage to escape and survive, whereas a vore pred's belly is typically a death sentence, so one might have to wonder why that part didn't make the cut. A possible theory is that whoever does the eating is seen as the "dom" and thus it's cool / arousing to see them get their way, which usually means succeeding at digesting whoever they ate instead of them escaping.

Trajan wrote:There is a definitly a lot to be said about people's expectation about something vs what that something actually is in reality, but that's a vast and complex topic. A guy named Farya Faraji made a lot of vids about this on his channel. It's mostly focused on music, but a great watch nonetheless.

Also there is a very well-made documentary about medieval england where they treat about the usage of clapping coconuts as a mean of transportation. They also talk about theimpact of rabbits on knights and the cordial relations between the French and the English. Can't remember the name though...


Oh, I think I've seen that video on music. Arabian and Persian musical tradition are a lot different from what movies usually play when there's a scene set in a middle-eastern country.

I think the documentary's name had something to do with anacondas? Or was it pythons? Ah, those killer rabbits who will shred a grown man in a suit of armor and leave nothing behind but a pile of half-eaten bones. A frightening thing for Medieval kingdoms. I wonder if anybody ever made vore art based on them.
User avatar
IddlerItaler
Intermediate Vorarephile
 
Posts: 455
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2016 8:16 am

Re: Why is Non-Fatal Vore so much less common than Fatal?

Postby Trajan » Mon Feb 03, 2025 2:41 pm

IddlerItaler wrote:
Trajan wrote:The basic outcome of eating something is its destruction. It's only natural to see that fatal is more prevalent, as it will be associated more with eating. Besides, vore works on a lot of cartoon physics (preys dying because of the acids and not asphyxiation) but also "cartoon morals" very often, were the point of view is either and afterthought or not taken into account because we see the scene from the emotional pov of the pred ("yeah no shit I'm killing you, that's how hunting works, now get in my belly tasty little snack"). Often, the prey also takes pleasure (even if sometimes reluctant) in the act. And there are a lot of pics were getting eaten is treated as a minor inconvenience.


I like to call them "GTA morals". It doesn't matter how many pedestrians the protagonist mows down, we are still rooting for the ruthless protag to get vengeance on those who wronged him and get a happy ending. Cartoon physics certainly are a big inspiration for vore (if they weren't, hard vore would be a hella lot more common), albeit when a cartoon or videogame character gets eaten they usually manage to escape and survive, whereas a vore pred's belly is typically a death sentence, so one might have to wonder why that part didn't make the cut. A possible theory is that whoever does the eating is seen as the "dom" and thus it's cool / arousing to see them get their way, which usually means succeeding at digesting whoever they ate instead of them escaping.

Trajan wrote:There is a definitly a lot to be said about people's expectation about something vs what that something actually is in reality, but that's a vast and complex topic. A guy named Farya Faraji made a lot of vids about this on his channel. It's mostly focused on music, but a great watch nonetheless.

Also there is a very well-made documentary about medieval england where they treat about the usage of clapping coconuts as a mean of transportation. They also talk about theimpact of rabbits on knights and the cordial relations between the French and the English. Can't remember the name though...


Oh, I think I've seen that video on music. Arabian and Persian musical tradition are a lot different from what movies usually play when there's a scene set in a middle-eastern country.

I think the documentary's name had something to do with anacondas? Or was it pythons? Ah, those killer rabbits who will shred a grown man in a suit of armor and leave nothing behind but a pile of half-eaten bones. A frightening thing for Medieval kingdoms. I wonder if anybody ever made vore art based on them.

Tbh, I think that this kind of twisted morals is pretty interesting from a story-telling standpoint, though they will often take some finesse to be executed at their full potential without just being an excuse for an easy porn plot (which tbh is fine, but different).

Farya's entire channel is a banger. Great musician, and there is not just his essay on middle-eastern music and the western world, I also strongly advise his vid on "viking music".
Ausgustus might have been the best emperor, but damn Basil II was the coolest one.
If you want to talk about anything, feel free to pm, I'll be glad to respond.
User avatar
Trajan
Participator
 
Posts: 191
Joined: Tue Jun 11, 2024 9:42 am
Location: Lutetia Parisiorum, Gallia Lugdunensis

Re: Why is Non-Fatal Vore so much less common than Fatal?

Postby IddlerItaler » Mon Feb 03, 2025 2:54 pm

Trajan wrote:Tbh, I think that this kind of twisted morals is pretty interesting from a story-telling standpoint, though they will often take some finesse to be executed at their full potential without just being an excuse for an easy porn plot (which tbh is fine, but different).


I think one of the best executions of this is Breaking Bad. The audience slowly awakens to how awful Walter White is (and has always been to some degree) as the plot reaches its gut-wrenching climax. Another good show featuring protagonists with warped morals is Succession (best exemplified in the "No real person involved" speech). I snuck a reference to Logan Roy in one of my picture descriptions.
User avatar
IddlerItaler
Intermediate Vorarephile
 
Posts: 455
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2016 8:16 am

Re: Why is Non-Fatal Vore so much less common than Fatal?

Postby shikidixi » Mon Feb 03, 2025 6:13 pm

hot power fantasy <3 being in control of the fate of another, hearing them scream and beg and squirm and just not caring... tho i do also like fatal digestion with an unwilling pred. something about the horror is very sexy!
User avatar
shikidixi
Been posting for a bit
 
Posts: 25
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2023 2:14 pm

Next

Return to General Vore Discussion