Definition of Endosomatophilia

[KawaiiXaii (mention)]

I realize a reoccuring situation is that there's two interpretations of the word Endosomatophilia. One is the more internal exploration side, and another is softvore with maybe one or two internal shots.

Both sides have a point, since the definition is a bit vague on the wiki, and even notes overlap. So there's no clear line.

https://aryion.com/content/endosomatophilia

What if we make Endosomatophilia have the requirement of body exploration, in some form? Whether intentional or not. Prey simply being in a stomach is not endo on its own; There needs to be an aspect of navigating or traversing the body, not just landing.

I think softvore already covers "safe vore" plenty well. A lot of softvore would show prey in a stomach shot not getting digested.

By making the definition more specific to be about exploring/navigating inside a host's body, that may help to clear up confusion. Thoughts?

[bighead (mention)]

Soft vore just means the prey was swallowed whole, you can have soft vore with digestion.

[ihateu91 (mention)]

I realize a reoccuring situation is that there's two interpretations of the word Endosomatophilia. One is the more internal exploration side, and another is softvore with maybe one or two internal shots.

Both sides have a point, since the definition is a bit vague on the wiki, and even notes overlap. So there's no clear line.

https://aryion.com/content/endosomatophilia

What if we make Endosomatophilia have the requirement of body exploration, in some form? Whether intentional or not. Prey simply being in a stomach is not endo on its own; There needs to be an aspect of navigating or traversing the body, not just landing.

I think softvore already covers "safe vore" plenty well. A lot of softvore would show prey in a stomach shot not getting digested.

By making the definition more specific to be about exploring/navigating inside a host's body, that may help to clear up confusion. Thoughts?
Link to post

Agreed.

There was kind of an agreement that this part of the forum was for micro, fantastic voyage, body exploration type stuff.

Not being kept full size in someone's belly for a bit.

Whenever these new threads pop up about more general vore scenarios like that, it dilutes our little niche even further into obscurity. To see the endo forum has been updated only to find it's something that probably belongs in the general vore discussion is always disappointing, given how rare finds tend to be these days.

[nominom (mention)]

I agree that the idea that "endo" just means "vore with no digestion" is bogus and that the endo and safe vore subforums need to be more clearly separated (especially since the latter is barely used).
I don't think it necessarily needs to be micro only, but the endo subfourm should be for stuff where internals/the inside of the body is the focus.


Kind of a tangent, but I think it would make the most sense if people used "endo" to mean the focus is on the "being inside" aspect specifically rather than predator/prey or submission/dominance dynamics. That's pretty abstract and subjective though so the community seems to have settled on endo = safe vore.

I mean if you think about what the pieces of the words mean it's much clearer:
"vorarephilia" = devour + attraction (an attraction to devouring / being devoured)
"endosomatophilia" = inside + body + attraction (an attraction to the inside of the body)

[GutGorsuch (mention)]

I go by a simple definition of endosoma that looks at the material state of the prey.
Alive and intact prey the whole scenario? It’s endosoma. Pred body cant be the danger, the Pred can be a flesh mecha capable of nuking cities and you’ll still be safer in its guts than anywhere else on the planet. I believe the prey being intact along with alive to be materially important because intactness is needed for internal body play in the way Endo does it. Internal massaging, crawling around tight guts, grinding flesh walls and such need intact prey.
I believe that dom/sub isn’t exclusionary of endosoma as the body as a prison/storage/place to get lost in is still endosoma. In some ways endosoma allows for pretty strong kinds of dominance from the pred. An immortal micro is still helpless to the involuntary activities of the guts squeezing them deeper into the system. But it is more like swallowing an object than eating food. (That’s not a bad thing I love object swallowing)

[KawaiiXaii (mention)]

Another point to bring up; Doesn't the tag Nonfatal cover no-digestion pretty well?

I see Nominom's and ihateu's point; Nonfatal has a clearly searchable tag. A pretty big one too, at 30k entries in the gallery, for that specific topic.

But if you try searching internal exploration, the concept quickly becomes lost. "Internal View" really isn't the same thing, since that could be a one-panel landing in the stomach, and the comic ends. Nothing is really being traversed. The tag "Internal only" would exclude host interaction, which people on the Endosomatophilia forums generally like.

I totally get that nonfatal folks are used to using the terms interchangeably. But if there's multiple words for one niche, and only one haven for the other niche, it's understandable why the internal exploration group feels a bit encroached on.

I don't even know what tag you could use besides Endosomatophilia, to describe the content in the Endo in Women thread. It very heavily focuses on body traversal and exploration. Vore in general tends to lean toward a quick gulp and done. Nothing against that; It's just they're very different lengths and experiences. So it's hard to group both interpretations of Endo as identical, when they're not.

1.png (1.28 KiB) Viewed 842 times

2.png (7.44 KiB) Viewed 842 times

[GutGorsuch (mention)]

It doesn’t get covered by nonfatal because digestion can be done nonfatally while endosoma doesn’t have the prey melt to begin with. Prey Intactness within the body is materially important in endosoma. The prey still can navigate and interact around inside the Pred’s body (please do). The intact and alive definition appears to be the most agreed one, more than internal play or even “absence of digestion” definitions. Additionally,,nonfatal visually isn’t that different usually. While you’re seeking the internal body exploration aspects to be dev led into more.

[KawaiiXaii (mention)]

Those are fair points! And admittedly, I am biased towards the internal exploration side.

I do just want to add some clarifications.

Safe vore and nonfatal together seem to cover what you're describing. If there was melting in a work tagged Safe Vore, people should be objecting. Melting really stretches the term Safe.

Also, I can't find the survey you showed. But it says Endosoma rather than spelling out the full Endosomatophilia, and the word change can influence people.

There's also a difference between what people who only sometimes think of the word define it as, compared to frequent users of this forum. If you put a link in the Endo in Women thread, for example, the results would lean very different.

Though maybe you're right that there's no need to change one way or another. There is a case to be made for both sides, and forcing a binary may inevitably cause trouble for one or the other. Keeping the definition open to interpretation may be for the best.

Same with the definition of vore itself, really. Making it strictly about eating would exclude types like Unbirth and Vaccum vore, which should be part of the vore umbrella.

You're probably right, that keeping flexibility with the term is the best course for everyone.

[GutGorsuch (mention)]

Endosoma edgecase survey thread has the report.

I like to say endosoma since endosomatophilia is the technical name, it would be like saying vorerarephilia all the time.
Safe vore is a term I just don’t like. Sounds like saying safe sex.

[Retry (mention)]

I agree - it's not really binary, but more of a sliding scale. For classification purposes for creators to try to tag stuff for the correct audiences though, I think nominom kind of hit the nail on the head - stuff approved as endo seems to lean more toward treating inside the body as a place more than it actually being that person. There can be interactions with the host, and existing inside can be dangerous, but there's a degree of seperation between the consumer and the fact that this place is actually them.

For example - in straight vore, you're eaten and then you're in Katie's stomach. Fall into her stomach acid, and she'll digest you.

In endo specifically, you were swallowed and are in a stomach (which happens to belong to Katie). The stomach acid will dissolve you if you fall in (But that's just what stomach acid does, kind of like lava in a volcano.).

So, I guess in terms of literary structure, the majority of Vore is Man VS Man, but to be considered Endo specifically, it's framed as more Man VS Nature in most cases.

[GutGorsuch (mention)]

Endosoma is not used that way by most people. It very much is a type that is concerned with the prey being kept alive and intact in the body. Internal body exploration usually is a separate question because that can get peril/fatal at times. The external world can be hell but the inside of the pred still would be safe/secured/imprisoned in adherence to endosoma's alive+intact prey expectation. At most there is some draining or mutation, but they never melt at any point.

[Retry (mention)]

I think the concept of endo being tied to the potential mortality of the prey might not quite be the case any more - there's a fair number of stories about civilizations existing inside the guts of massive creatures that are tagged as "endo" here on Eka's. The majority of stuff shared in the "Endosomatopila in Woman/Men" threads is also educational content or more fantastic-journey style plots, many of which have the characters remark on the danger of stomach acid, or are chased by the host's immune system.

Granted, the only case of something I would call endo that actually results in a death is Innerspace, but I agree with KawaiiXaii that the "Safe Vore" tag probably covers that specific definition nowadays, and "endo" is still something that often overlaps, but is still distinct enough to have its own category. Which, I'm promoting is actually less of a specific physical attribute of the work (lack of digestion), and more of a general framing of what the body is (a place you could be in rather than "somebody"), but that could also be off-base.

[KawaiiXaii (mention)]

Endosoma is not used that way by most people.
Link to post

The other side has tried to meet you halfway, but now you've tried pushing the Bandwagon Fallacy twice, saying you know what most people think.

I questioned the survey (slanted terminology, possible population mismatch) and you brushed my concerns aside out of convenience. I'm not convinced you can say the survey proves anything.

And even if it is what "most people think", that runs the risk of the Bandwagon Fallacy. Choosing the popular answer could very well cover the voices of the internal exploration group, who are a small but very active niche. In fact, using bandwagoning twice makes me more concerned.

Safe vore is a term I just don’t like. Sounds like saying safe sex.

By your own admission, you are picking a term based on what you like and don't like. But the other side is raising concerns about erasure of their niche.

For example - in straight vore, you're eaten and then you're in Katie's stomach. Fall into her stomach acid, and she'll digest you.

In endo specifically, you were swallowed and are in a stomach (which happens to belong to Katie). The stomach acid will dissolve you if you fall in (But that's just what stomach acid does, kind of like lava in a volcano.).

I think you hit the nail on the head, Retry. And I agree, it's a slider. It doesn't need to have a ton of it, it can range from little-to-a lot. But Endosomatophilia is the only living space for the body becoming an environment.

We don't need to exclude works with little-to-no exploration. But it would be good to acknowledge this is the only living space for more-exploration, and protect that sanctuary.

(Also, I want to see the lava stomach acid now )

[GutGorsuch (mention)]

If the prey is not alive and not intact, they aren't inside the body. For it to be endosoma, prey being alive and intact works best. Dangers from fantastic voyage situations and gut spelunking I still can at times see as endosoma provided it isn't steered into said failure mode because the author is just into fatal still and that's what it focuses on because they're still fetishizing devouring/consumption. (Ex. White blood cells giving chase as a danger and emphasizing that tension is different from emphasizing the detailing agonizing death someone getting slowly The Blob'd by it. Bring the right proteins to identify yourself, okay?)

Internal body exploration is a huge deal of it for me as well and I do not like how a lot of endosoma doesn't really seem to do that either, so I get why you want it to be important to the definition and that survey shows there is a split on people who see it as internal exploration / play and kept alive+intact. If it is people from safe simply co-opting the term, unclear. I think the internal bodily aspect is a separate question from the prey state because I see a lot of internal heavy stuff that is very fatal as well.

I am overall leaning on wanting to go with the inner world environment definition despite that, I just think being alive in the body and intact to be able to explore and maneuver around in it (among other activities) to also be important to the concept.