Soft VS Hard (how big is the disconnect?)

[Daichi777]

Spoiler: show

Okay I think I know what happened here. After rereading what was said and thinking to myself a bit, I realized that at some of my point my argument got lost in the translation from my brain to the keyboard.

I should correct myself.

Vore is not a cannibalistic fetish but a fetish that has cannibalistic tendencies. Not every voraphile on here likes to see little billy get digested… but a LARGE portion of the community does.
That is part of my point.

Now of course if you are in the endo group and don’t like to see and or read stories about digestion then these posts don’t concern you. Same with those that are preds of a different species of subgroup of the prey they are eating. These posts don’t concern you either because at that point it’s just nature being nature. People who get turned on about that stuff just have a murder or snuff fetish but not a cannibalistic fetish.
But the reason why I commented on your message in the first place is because of the WAY you said it. Which I still believe is hypocritical.

You did say this didn’t you?

Hard vore is often associated with cannibalism, especially to those who don't understand the concept of vore. You mention cannibalism to those of us who love soft vore and we'd tell you not once did we ever think of the word cannibal and it makes us feel incredibly sick.

Well in both instances, hard vore and soft vore can have cannibalism in it. Trying to ignore that and calling it something else is ridiculous.

But I should admit I did assume a bit and presume that you are in the digestion crowd and the human on human crowd. I thought this because not only do you have a bunch of pictures of giant girls on your messages but also the majority of the people here are into digestion. So I am sorry for assuming. That is my bad. You could very well be into the safe endo works and my points could reign meaningless because they are not directed towards you. My apologies if so.
But if you are into digestion and human on human or species on species vore then my points still stand. So I will continue just in case.

In your original point you said that hard vore and soft vore are different cannibalism wise because in hard vore there is gore and in soft vore the person is swallowed whole. The point I am trying to get across is that in both hard and soft vore cannibalism can occur. Although there is endo vore that falls under soft vore, it just being soft vore doesn’t excuse it from cannibalistic imagery and LOTS of people draw, write, or commission human on human digestion vore. I don’t know if you are but if you are one of these people (and this goes for anyone that thinks this) that think it being soft vore instantly makes it not cannibalism because it is soft vore and not hard vore, even though in the soft vore imagery a person is eating and digesting another person of the same species, then that is called cannibalism. If it’s some furry doing the eating to a guy/gal or robot doing it, then this doesn’t apply but from what you said it sounds like you are trying cover up the fact that just because the person is not getting chewed up doesn’t make it cannibalism. If you say that the word or idea of cannibalism grosses you out but still willingly consume or create content that has soft vore based human on human digestion and refuse to acknowledge that it is cannibalism, then that is foolish. That is my point.
It’s hypocritical and trying to call it something that it’s not.

Like I said before, don’t take the cannibal out of cannibalism. Say it as it is, don’t try to call it something else. If a person eats another person and digests them, they are a cannibal. And if that turns you on, then you have a cannibalistic fetish. Simple as that.

Not everyone on here will have that fetish (even though a large majority does) but if you do, that is what it is.

Also, lame tone I’ve taken to those I disagree with?
In my response to you I was just trying to correct your statement (but I made an error and this response is my correction.) There was no “lame tone” in my message.
If you’re talking about TheMysteriousSadSack over there, well that’s because they gave such a poor argument. If it was a better one like yours for example (with the whole soul, nipple, anal, cock and cleavage vore that made me double check and realize I made an mistake in my argument) then I would have had a better tone with it.

I'm not going to go on and derail the thread so I'll get straight to the point as I won't bother reading the reply as it's a total waste of time too.

Essentially what I am curious about is this: “If the vore community ever comes under fire, would most of us stand by vore that does incorporate harder elements, or would the solution be to ‘cut the line’ and disassociate ourselves with them to try and seem more reasonable?”

My first response was in relation to this above specific question. Your first 'lame' tone started with "Okay now, don't kid yourself." then went on about an irrelevant topic about how people should feel it's cannibalism etc. I wrote why people who like soft/nipple vore etc etc would most likely not want to be associated with hard vore, something in the first place that many of us don't even want to think about as cannibalism as the word itself gives a lot of us a flash image of hard vore. That is the point of what I was getting at in the first place, and what the others tried to explain to you.

Also, lame tone I’ve taken to those I disagree with?
In my response to you I was just trying to correct your statement (but I made an error and this response is my correction.) There was no “lame tone” in my message.

I wrote 'lame' to put it kindly.

Imagine coming into a thread, the very first words you post are "Okay now, don't kid yourself", then tell people how they should feel, writing snide remarks like "Thinking they don't is rather silly if you ask me", not accepting someone else's opinion (who was trying to explain to you something) that you post to them: "This is a very weak argument. Own up to it or risk being made fool". The point he was making went right over your head and you went on about what a ridiculous statement it is when he's only explaining how it feels and how once again most soft vore lovers, wish to be disassociated with hard vore/cannibalistic words. Stop trying to talk straight down to technicalities if you can't handle someone just explaining it back to you the same way, use empathy instead of writing like a stuck up bigot next time. Especially when others have simply been trying to explain things to you. You may find people more welcoming to your opinion than trying to force it upon them and acting like everyone else is stupid. You don't have to agree with someone's opinion to accept it exists.

We all love different parts of vore, and like giantess etc there's different sub categories of it. You can't chuck it all into the same boat. If someone into macro likes safe full tour, then I guess both people will just have to feel it's cannibalism too. There is a massive stigma with people who love macrophilia that Vore is cannibalism to them and we get a lot of shit for it on other sites because they don't understand it. While those into soft macrophilia vore, not once do they think of cannibalism because they associate it with hard vore/gore etc.

Keep the original topic on track.

[Aickavon12]

I think we lost the main topic here but I'll have to throw in my hat here and say... that vore is too complicated to be labeled a simple matter. Some vore can be defined as cannibalistic. Some vore cannot be defined as cannibalistic. Some vore has cannibalistic tropes. Some vore doesn't have any or very slight. In the end, cannibalism itself is also a (though less) complex topic that I hope to never understand. And here in lies the question. Why does the label 'cannibalism' matter. Humans invented language, it only means things if the majority can agree on it. If I say that this bridge is named Hefelheim Bridge but my entire city says 'no it is the Befelheim bridge' no matter how historically it was once Hefelheim Bridge, it is now the Befelheim bridge because that is what we humans recognize it as in conversation. To identify what words are chosen to mean things.

Which is why technicalities don't work in language. If you were to discuss say... soft vore, human on human, as cannibalism to me. There would be a failure of communication. You would say cannibalism and I would think hard vore. We would lose the most important part of language. Relaying correct information. Even though this is technically the correct definition and not wrong, I would fail to interpret it as thus.

Basically. Language is a democracy. It's REALLY cool to study and learn.

[VoidInVoid]

Basically. Language is a democracy. It's REALLY cool to study and learn.

I feel like democracy involves conscious thought whereas no one and no group ever really proclaims that a word has a new meaning. Except for those boring people like four centuries ago who decided they wanted to standardize the English language. I can, and I will start "enough" with a "y", darn you! In any case, gradualness is core to language change - language acceptance at least. Language is really cool, but it's more your friends and yourself developing similar habits rather than the school board workshopping ways to dull schools further. This paragraph has nothing to do with cannibalism, but I always like talking language.

[Artemis]

So, here's the issue with what Patreon did.

You should not treat a fictional crime featuring fictional characters the same way you treat real crimes featuring real people. Or even the same way you treat fictional crimes featuring real people. To do so is irrational.

You also should not take a moral stance against things that don't hurt people. That is also irrational.

The reality of what Patreon did is not based on any rational thought. It is simply a capitulation to emotional disgust. I can't speak on whether it's a good business move, I have zero interest in Patreon's financial success right now, but it's bad politics.

And when it comes down to the type of people that would argue that vore is somehow harmful to our society, we're all in the same boat. Soft Vore. Hard Vore. Those people will not care, so neither should we. We are for the most part united by a recognition that our fantasies don't hurt anyone, so they're okay.

[KnightleyPaine]

I was wondering how big the disconnect is between people who like hard vore and people who like soft vore.

I am asking this question because the current climate is unsettling to me. I do not know how many people on here were aware of this, but a while back a popular vore artist named “Karbo” got into some trouble with Patreon because his vore art “sexualized depictions of suffering” or something along those lines. And recently I have seen some NSFW artists decide to stop drawing sexual things altogether due to fear of being associated with sexual deviants.

A large amount of even soft vore involves unwilling prey or fatal elements, so it could easily be classified as “dangerous” by people who, in my opinion, are overly concerned with regulating and censoring fictional material.

Essentially what I am curious about is this: “If the vore community ever comes under fire, would most of us stand by vore that does incorporate harder elements, or would the solution be to ‘cut the line’ and disassociate ourselves with them to try and seem more reasonable?”

Or maybe I am just being a paranoid lunatic, that is very possible.

This censorship idea the dumbest shit I've heard all day but okay. This is a niche community and niche communities will just withdraw to their circles if it's not welcome in the public. But what happens here is victimless. I mean, as long as some psycho doesn't go off to try cannibalism, but last I checked we don't accept these people.

But also, Karbo draws neither HV nor sex, at least not to my knowledge.

Also the way you framed the question sounds like this is somehow between Soft and Hard vore. This has nothing to do between soft and hard vore preferences. But to answer that question separately, there's a disconnect in the same way niche and weird kinks disconnect, the line between want and eye bleach is often very thin because while you can have weird kinks in one aspect your normie tastes are often intact everywhere else. I've yet to find two people who like to be spanked the exact level of severity. If you like soft, you like soft. If you like hard, you like hard, and probably can stand soft in theory.