Flush vore and Drain vore

[Lolwutname]

The point I was trying to make was that at the moment, this fetish has a relatively small community and what does or does not fall into the classification is nebulous. I was merely proposing that there be a less strict definition than the one which walletguy linked to, along with my opinions as to why it should be less strict. The community will ultimately be the ones determining what they feel is or is not flush vore, while the art produced will, over time, trend toward more or less specific ideas. Everyone is likely to have at least some small difference in opinions and views of what it is, and I was attempting to emphasize that. Rather than have a very specific definition, there should be some sort of broad definition and then let different peoples' presentations of their take on the genre/fetish be more or less specific depending on the individual. So yes, what you've linked to certainly is one interpretation of the fetish. I wasn't looking to claim to be an authority here that is certainly not the case. Likewise, I'm not looking to step on anyone's toes creatively, I'm very interested in seeing what different people come up with as far as how they interpret it. My apologies if my post came off as me attempting to do either of those.

[TheWatcher]

Honestly I think the most consistent trait I've seen through all these stories is the lack of any kind of scatological element, ie. an absence of feces or urine.

I for one would be happy for it to stay that way since it's nothing but a turnoff to me, but I fear that isn't exactly practical considering the themes we're talking about here.

In any case I've already expressed my opinion on the matter so I won't repeat myself, especially since it seems that most of us are on the same page.

[DGTL]

@Lolwutname no need to be embarrassed or upset I was just curious as to your opinion of that interpretation since it somewhat steps away from the established norm for the current ideas of the fetish since the toilet has been greatly exaggerated

@Thewatcher as for most of the stories lacking a "bathroom" I'll warn right now a good bit of mine don't mainly because I use the characters having to "go" as the trigger for them getting pulled down into a watery vortex of doom, which is why I won't link my works unless asked so that I don't offend anyone. Right now though thanks to some brilliant inspiration here I am going to work out a story where the flush is for more sexual reasons

[thatmightystickman]

I too feel the definition there was overly restrictive, espically in excluding everyone that's non-human. Speaking on what would define it, I I feel that the victims going down a toilet as the final consequence as the best description. It doesn't matter much else, sizes, etc I would say the main branch of this would be a normal sized person going down a regular normal sized toilet, everything else branches off that but is still a part of it, as long as the victim getting flushed down is their final fate. They can come back and all, that fits, but they must go down for it to count, (This is NOT flush vore, despite the title https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFkIndeaRRA )

[walletguy]

I too feel the definition there was overly restrictive, espically in excluding everyone that's non-human. Speaking on what would define it, I I feel that the victims going down a toilet as the final consequence as the best description. It doesn't matter much else, sizes, etc I would say the main branch of this would be a normal sized person going down a regular normal sized toilet, everything else branches off that but is still a part of it, as long as the victim getting flushed down is their final fate. They can come back and all, that fits, but they must go down for it to count, (This is NOT flush vore, despite the title https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFkIndeaRRA )

I'll agree that my link was certainly very restrictive with the exception of the first part. I personally prefer it to be a normal sized individual and to exclude any sort of bathroom bodily fluids. The art that started this thread is quite literally the perfect interpretation for me. Your link I'd say is flush vore, if not a bit of an additional take on it.

[thatmightystickman]

I too feel the definition there was overly restrictive, espically in excluding everyone that's non-human. Speaking on what would define it, I I feel that the victims going down a toilet as the final consequence as the best description. It doesn't matter much else, sizes, etc I would say the main branch of this would be a normal sized person going down a regular normal sized toilet, everything else branches off that but is still a part of it, as long as the victim getting flushed down is their final fate. They can come back and all, that fits, but they must go down for it to count, (This is NOT flush vore, despite the title https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFkIndeaRRA )

I'll agree that my link was certainly very restrictive with the exception of the first part. I personally prefer it to be a normal sized individual and to exclude any sort of bathroom bodily fluids. The art that started this thread is quite literally the perfect interpretation for me. Your link I'd say is flush vore, if not a bit of an additional take on it.

It's fine, I probably would have linked it too, it is the only one I knew of beforehand too anyway.

[DGTL]

I too feel the definition there was overly restrictive, espically in excluding everyone that's non-human. Speaking on what would define it, I I feel that the victims going down a toilet as the final consequence as the best description. It doesn't matter much else, sizes, etc I would say the main branch of this would be a normal sized person going down a regular normal sized toilet, everything else branches off that but is still a part of it, as long as the victim getting flushed down is their final fate. They can come back and all, that fits, but they must go down for it to count, (This is NOT flush vore, despite the title https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFkIndeaRRA )

I think it counts since the person is technically getting flushed since they pulled the lever/flusher but the ending is something quite unexpected, I don't think there's really a true way to define it other than the victim getting sent down the toilet or drain in some fashion what happens to lead up to it or going down is up to the creator or readers depending the vagueness of the scenario

[thatmightystickman]

But then it's not flush vore is it? It's just them going down then into another creatures stomach, that isn't the point of this subject and if people start classifying this as flush vore, we'lll be getting nowhere in making a cutoff point. It could have even sucked someone in using a hole in the ground, or the bottom end of a bin. Would we then call that ground vore, bin vore? It just doesn't work. A giantess sucked them down in that scenario, and I know that the use of monsters might be a distant branch of this subject, but if the monster was the toilet that flushed them, that would count as flush vore. We just can't start going saying something is vore as it was used as a gateway, that is just too much.

Flush vore is also a horrible name for the subject, it implies the toilet's eaten them, and basically in a coming back story, this kinda also falls apart too. Fatal Flush, basically implies gone forever, we don't hear about them after the flush. That fits the expression of vore more but it isn't really vore. The coming back kind is more likely to be referred to as being a fancy waterslide. If a character went the coming back route but then met ally the aligator and got swallowed to be his lunch, that will end up as aligator vore and the whole gateway thing I mentioned kinda falls flat there. Thus, this subject needs more thought put into it.

I believe with the use of monsters in the going down part, for it to count as flush vore, there should be no other involvement of creatures and stuff in the way the victim goes down. There cannot be any other involvement, unless the toilet is the monster itself.

[DGTL]

But then it's not flush vore is it? It's just them going down then into another creatures stomach, that isn't the point of this subject and if people start classifying this as flush vore, we'lll be getting nowhere in making a cutoff point. It could have even sucked someone in using a hole in the ground, or the bottom end of a bin. Would we then call that ground vore, bin vore? It just doesn't work. A giantess sucked them down in that scenario, and I know that the use of monsters might be a distant branch of this subject, but if the monster was the toilet that flushed them, that would count as flush vore. We just can't start going saying something is vore as it was used as a gateway, that is just too much.

Flush vore is also a horrible name for the subject, it implies the toilet's eaten them, and basically in a coming back story, this kinda also falls apart too. Fatal Flush, basically implies gone forever, we don't hear about them after the flush. That fits the expression of vore more but it isn't really vore. The coming back kind is more likely to be referred to as being a fancy waterslide. If a character went the coming back route but then met ally the aligator and got swallowed to be his lunch, that will end up as aligator vore and the whole gateway thing I mentioned kinda falls flat there. Thus, this subject needs more thought put into it.

I believe with the use of monsters in the going down part, for it to count as flush vore, there should be no other involvement of creatures and stuff in the way the victim goes down. There cannot be any other involvement, unless the toilet is the monster itself.

You bring up a good point but we never really get the since she's there sucking on the pipe (lol not the most pleasant phrasing) but we do see the victim push down the lever before she's sucked in. It's really hard to judge something like that with out context and mentioning how you said that it's not technically vore since the toilet is not eating the victim it does resemble it.

[horror93]

So I found this on DA.

http://chocoreaper.deviantart.com/art/F ... -143246471

By the way, love the stories guys, very creative and well written.

[thatmightystickman]

But then it's not flush vore is it? It's just them going down then into another creatures stomach, that isn't the point of this subject and if people start classifying this as flush vore, we'lll be getting nowhere in making a cutoff point. It could have even sucked someone in using a hole in the ground, or the bottom end of a bin. Would we then call that ground vore, bin vore? It just doesn't work. A giantess sucked them down in that scenario, and I know that the use of monsters might be a distant branch of this subject, but if the monster was the toilet that flushed them, that would count as flush vore. We just can't start going saying something is vore as it was used as a gateway, that is just too much.

Flush vore is also a horrible name for the subject, it implies the toilet's eaten them, and basically in a coming back story, this kinda also falls apart too. Fatal Flush, basically implies gone forever, we don't hear about them after the flush. That fits the expression of vore more but it isn't really vore. The coming back kind is more likely to be referred to as being a fancy waterslide. If a character went the coming back route but then met ally the aligator and got swallowed to be his lunch, that will end up as aligator vore and the whole gateway thing I mentioned kinda falls flat there. Thus, this subject needs more thought put into it.

I believe with the use of monsters in the going down part, for it to count as flush vore, there should be no other involvement of creatures and stuff in the way the victim goes down. There cannot be any other involvement, unless the toilet is the monster itself.

You bring up a good point but we never really get the since she's there sucking on the pipe (lol not the most pleasant phrasing) but we do see the victim push down the lever before she's sucked in. It's really hard to judge something like that with out context and mentioning how you said that it's not technically vore since the toilet is not eating the victim it does resemble it.

No matter if she pushes the handle here, the toilet isn't responsible for her going down (As in this case, it's acting as a gateway for a third party), hence it wouldn't qualify in my opinion. If the handle must go down, we are again restricting ourselves and we don't want that. That handle is an extra but nothing more. Remember, even if she hadn't pushed it down, she still would have been sucked in possibly. I won't critique the animation itself, but the handle, the flush, is nothing more than an extra here. It is not a requirement.

[TheWatcher]

9Flush vore is also a horrible name for the subject, it implies the toilet's eaten them, and basically in a coming back story, this kinda also falls apart too. Fatal Flush, basically implies gone forever, we don't hear about them after the flush. That fits the expression of vore more but it isn't really vore. The coming back kind is more likely to be referred to as being a fancy waterslide. If a character went the coming back route but then met ally the aligator and got swallowed to be his lunch, that will end up as aligator vore and the whole gateway thing I mentioned kinda falls flat there. Thus, this subject needs more thought put into it.

I believe with the use of monsters in the going down part, for it to count as flush vore, there should be no other involvement of creatures and stuff in the way the victim goes down. There cannot be any other involvement, unless the toilet is the monster itself.

I think we're getting into semantics here. Flush vore was the chosen name because it's the most suitable and easiest to understand, I don't see how it's a "horrible" name at all.

Also, your definition of vore isn't exactly universal. Vore isn't defined as being fatal, so it should have no bearing in the matter. There exist MANY non-fatal depictions of vore, full-tour and otherwise, often done for the gratification of both parties, both predator and prey.

I think the problem is that we're trying to place definitive criteria on the subject when we don't even see eye-to-eye on what flush vore actually is, and if that's the case then I think we should avoid doing that altogether to avoid alienating anyone.

I don't have a problem with the name Flush Vore, because it directly implies what the reader/viewer is in for. Wouldn't you agree?

[DGTL]

I agree with the watcher lets stop trying to discuss the base elements and parts of this odd but fun fetish and just enjoy it overall and keep an open mind on the countless variations.

But since we haven't gotten a visual story for a while I thought I'd share one of my old collaborations that show you can easily have a subtle"bathroom" element but at it's core be a flush story http://sta.sh/2gl4ntohuch?edit=1

[thatmightystickman]

Well I just lost my whole message. In short, forget what we are defining it as and focus on what it isn't. I can never agree that giantess thing is flush vore, it'll make this subject very very flimsy. We need to get a strong definition on what it isn't so that we at least will have something to stick with when conversation arrises with it. People having something that's so broadly defined with cause confusion and will not look good overall.

I've already said why I don't believe that giantess thing, or anything similar, to be flush/toilet vore so I will present another case.
Say for example we had a giant eating people. That would be giant vore, no way to say otherwise. However, if the giant got a straw and used that to suck people up, by the logic on saying that video with the giantess and the toilet, we'd be calling that straw vore. If he instead used a block of french cheese but like the girl who pushed the handle down, there's a way to reseal the hole in the cheese. Some person accidently dislodges it, and then the giant sucked them through it. Would we call that cheese vore when the cheese didn't eat the person, the giant did? You see what I am getting at here?

Toilet's don't normall work with suction. It's the use of gravity with the water flowing into the bowl, pushing the excess out down the pipe. The water is to stop any smell coming back up the pipe, it's a one way thing. The giantess could just suck the girl down, she doesn't need to flush at all. The handle went down, so what? That would not stop the giantess just sucking the water and the girl down at once. The flush was just for effect on the video. I am over analysing something so flimsy but we need a solid definition on what isn't flush vore so that we can then tell those who ask, so they don't go unanswered and make this subject seem totally throwaway. We need a foundation before we build on it or we will lose it to the seas.

[horror93]

Great story DGTL, really well done. I like how she went butt first down the toilet.

[Lolwutname]

Nicely done DGTL, short but(t lol) sweet. I'd love to see more like it.

Also I agree with TheWatcher here, you're getting too bogged down (pun not intended in this case) in semantics at this point thatmightystickman. Object vore is a thing that's (relatively) well recognized in the vore community by now. This fetish is simply an extension of that. While I can certainly understand why one would think that flush vore is a somewhat imprecise name, it seems like the best terminology that anyone has come up with at this point and I personally think that it fits well, for the same reasons that TheWatcher has mentioned. People could argue back and forth forever on what does and does not fall into the classification, but the reality is that language is fluid and a big part of art is the interpretation of certain themes both by the creator(s) of the art and the viewer(s). Trying to force it to be viewed one way or the other is basically shooting oneself in the foot. Just as everyone is an individual with their own ideas/opinions/beliefs, definitions themselves have myriad possible interpretations. Not to mention, as TheWatcher said, that at this point it's likely that the continued discussion/argument over semantics is having the effect of alienating people reading the thread as well as people who were posting more regularly and were some of the top contributors, and I don't think anyone wants or can afford to have that happen here.

That's why I posted about having a broader definition before, because ultimately it will be up to the individual viewing/reading/whathaveyou the art to decide how they feel about it. When I explained flush and drain vore to a friend recently I simply defined them as, "Vore about full sized people being flushed down toilets, or being sucked down drains" and that was all my friend needed to get it conceptually. Nothing overly complicated or exclusionary, just a clear definition of the kinds of themes that are presented in it.

But I've rambled on far too long, this discussion is counterproductive at this point as it's basically divisive in a situation where we should be working together and focusing on the main goal: working or collaborating on creating, sharing, and spreading more flush/drain vore.

[thatmightystickman]

Alright, well I still stick to my point of something like that video not fitting the subject. We'll just move on now. So what's up with everyone recently?

[DGTL]

I've been slowly working on releasing the next chapter of Flush Time and doodling a mini comic sequel to a stand alone flush picture

[thatmightystickman]

I've been slowly working on releasing the next chapter of Flush Time and doodling a mini comic sequel to a stand alone flush picture

Sweet, so how is that going?

[DGTL]

Hit a slight snag do to school but I'm trying to get back on track