Which would be worse? Quick digestion or slow digestion

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!

Which do you find worse?

Quick Digestion - pain increases quickly but lasts for a shorter time
12
22%
Slow Digestion - pain increases slowly but lasts a lot longer
35
65%
Somewhere in the middle (e.g. omnivores)
7
13%
 
Total votes : 54

Which would be worse? Quick digestion or slow digestion

Postby justinrpg » Mon Jan 13, 2020 10:52 pm

When it comes to being digested by a pred, which would be worse? Quick digestion (such as in birds) where the pain can skyrocket quickly as more and more of your flesh quickly dissolves but is less time before you are dead. Or slower digestion (such as in herbivores like Xerneas) where there is less pain to start (but still painful) but lasts an extended period of time as your flesh dissolves at a slower rate until you are dead.

In any case, pain would increase over time while you are in the stomach, but which do you find worse? Quick digestion where pain increases quickly but lasts for a shorter time, or slow digestion where pain increases slowly but you feel pain for a longer period of time?

I always imagined:

birds (30 minutes)
Carnivores (45 minutes)
Omnivores (1 hour)
herbivores (3 hours)

You can use that as a guide, but you do not have to.

I opted with the quicker option as how I view birds as lethal predators (because of their digestive system)
Image
She frantically searches for her human husband, unaware that he is in her stomach.
User avatar
justinrpg
Advanced Vorarephile
 
Posts: 706
Joined: Thu Apr 17, 2008 11:00 pm
Location: Inside my own wife's stomach

Re: Which would be worse? Quick digestion or slow digestion

Postby ArcaneSigil » Mon Jan 13, 2020 11:26 pm

Opinion: Slow digestion would be more painful because it's the equivalent, if not worse, of Hydrochloric Acid, the same stuff that can melt through bone in minutes. Being dunked in a fleshy pouch that slowly filled with that same substance, or worse, would be excruciating because you would SLOWLY feel your skin burning away, followed by your muscles. Your nerves would constantly be on fire, excruciating pain would be radiating through your entire body, and death would be slow. It would either be caused by suffocation from lack of breathable air, your flesh and bones being melted off, or your insides being melted away, but it wouldn't be quick. It would be slow and painful.

Opinion 2: Quick digestion would be just that. Quick and painless. Into the belly, melted, gone. No slow, agonizing melt of acids, just gone.
Just a wolf lookin' for some fun. I like all sorts. Just... don't eat me.
User avatar
ArcaneSigil
Advanced Vorarephile
 
Posts: 900
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2011 2:17 pm

Re: Which would be worse? Quick digestion or slow digestion

Postby sweetladyamy » Tue Jan 14, 2020 6:37 pm

I said quick, because honestly, I'm a digestion slut; quick would be boring.
Amyrakunejo, Heiress of Purity

Philosophical Pagan Anarchist Femme Fair Gamer Lesbian Metalhead Chick
User avatar
sweetladyamy
---
 
Posts: 1259
Joined: Wed May 22, 2013 4:14 pm
Location: Eleven inches down her gullet, digesting... ♥

Re: Which would be worse? Quick digestion or slow digestion

Postby largerarge » Wed Jan 15, 2020 8:45 am

slow digestion is the worst way to go.

think about the creature from star was return of the jedi, the sarlacc. 1000 years of very slow digestion, nope.
User avatar
largerarge
New to the forum
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2017 4:17 pm

Re: Which would be worse? Quick digestion or slow digestion

Postby IvesBentonEaton » Wed Jan 15, 2020 9:44 am

Yeah, that whole Sarlacc thing about "digestion over a thousand years" smacks of (a) way overblown villain boasting by Jabba, or (b) writer incompetence. A typical human body replaces a good part of itself faster than that; it wouldn't even notice digestion over a thousand years. It would dehydrate, starve, or simply die of old age first. Digestion would be the least of its worries.

All the explanations made after that about the Sarlacc's digestion process sounds like made-up nonsense to try and justify the stupid line after the fact.

Star Wars can be fun and all that, but it's more space-opera lightly-science-flavored fantasy than anything to take seriously.
Come and hear the Tales of a Visceral Voyager
If you don’t, Zōēā’s poor snake will go hungry.
You wouldn’t want that, would you? :(
User avatar
IvesBentonEaton
Intermediate Vorarephile
 
Posts: 382
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2017 9:26 pm
Location: The world of Āen. My world—and welcome to it…

Re: Which would be worse? Quick digestion or slow digestion

Postby sweetladyamy » Wed Jan 15, 2020 9:34 pm

IvesBentonEaton wrote:Star Wars can be fun and all that, but it's more space-opera lightly-science-flavored fantasy than anything to take seriously.


It's just a really sad story.
Amyrakunejo, Heiress of Purity

Philosophical Pagan Anarchist Femme Fair Gamer Lesbian Metalhead Chick
User avatar
sweetladyamy
---
 
Posts: 1259
Joined: Wed May 22, 2013 4:14 pm
Location: Eleven inches down her gullet, digesting... ♥

Re: Which would be worse? Quick digestion or slow digestion

Postby Nerdrarg » Thu Jan 16, 2020 3:11 pm

IvesBentonEaton wrote:Yeah, that whole Sarlacc thing about "digestion over a thousand years" smacks of (a) way overblown villain boasting by Jabba, or (b) writer incompetence. A typical human body replaces a good part of itself faster than that; it wouldn't even notice digestion over a thousand years. It would dehydrate, starve, or simply die of old age first. Digestion would be the least of its worries.

All the explanations made after that about the Sarlacc's digestion process sounds like made-up nonsense to try and justify the stupid line after the fact.

Star Wars can be fun and all that, but it's more space-opera lightly-science-flavored fantasy than anything to take seriously.


An author of an Expanded Universe supplement actually detailed the anatomy of the Sarlacc and how it sustains the prey.

Basically it’s multiple stomachs, being injected with neural toxins to keep you still, being sustained intravenously, all while being accosted mentally.

Just look up anatomy of a sarlacc if ur curious about it.

But likely when the scene was first written, it was just a line meant to be crazy and horrifying and unthinkable, and TBH, I think the anatomical descriptions I’ve read do a pretty decent job of explaining those horrors.
Nerdrarg
Been posting for a bit
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2017 1:41 pm

Re: Which would be worse? Quick digestion or slow digestion

Postby IvesBentonEaton » Thu Jan 16, 2020 5:07 pm

Yeah, I remember reading something about that. So my statement stands.
Come and hear the Tales of a Visceral Voyager
If you don’t, Zōēā’s poor snake will go hungry.
You wouldn’t want that, would you? :(
User avatar
IvesBentonEaton
Intermediate Vorarephile
 
Posts: 382
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2017 9:26 pm
Location: The world of Āen. My world—and welcome to it…

Re: Which would be worse? Quick digestion or slow digestion

Postby Scrumptious » Thu Jan 16, 2020 6:01 pm

This question is being asked of the wrong forum. Surely the correct question is:

Which would be better?

:D
User avatar
Scrumptious
Intermediate Vorarephile
 
Posts: 459
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2011 2:05 pm

Re: Which would be worse? Quick digestion or slow digestion

Postby NyaatoShiroi » Fri Apr 24, 2020 6:50 am

Slow, because its painful, but i am like pain, lel :D
ImageImage
I am Durer & Guildias from Enzai fan!
User avatar
NyaatoShiroi
Participator
 
Posts: 166
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 11:34 pm
Location: Safe in someone's stomach~


Return to General Vore Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Eka, Fallen, Google [Bot], Hoboman, Konkak, MrVore1990, suppertroll00, zikade