Putting logic into vore

[Mecho]

Ahhh, we have all probably meet or seen them. The peeps that tries to apply logic into vore.
It can be art, writing, pred types, environments, situations, proportions, pred or prey dynamics...


I find the funny part is that usually when putting logic into just one thing, you become more un-logic instead.

Like once I did talk with someone mentioning "A can't eat B because the said pred type can't eat to begin with"
The person in this example did like dragons...And if we are about to blend in logic in a fantasy. One could start of by saying "Dragons don't exist. So your statement is invalid"

With this being said: Share the most fun comments you got about logic in vore. Or just comments as a whole or something that has to do with the topic in itself
Please, don't mention any users of point out people here.

[EloquentOrc]

I have heard several times that willing prey isn't realistic, because no one would choose to be eaten.

This presupposes that choosing to painfully kill another person for a single meal is realistic.

And that just seems to devolve into a comparison of real world mentally ill who let themselves be killed vs serial killers.
Both are extreme outliers and it seems like a pointless and depressing discussion to me.

That being said, even if being overly logical in vore is silly, you still have to show consideration of people's suspension of disbelief.

People can believe dragons exist in your story. But if you say the dragon expertly plays a human sized flute, with the size, claws, lipless reptile snout, etc.., it is going to shatter some's suspension.

It isn't terribly logical, but it is important the story at least has an internal consistency, to maintain the audience's immersion.

At least, those are my thoughts on the subject.

[fixated1]

Some of the topics here are like, hold on let me do this thermodynamics equation to see if I can cum to this

[Mecho]

Some of the topics here are like, hold on let me do this thermodynamics equation to see if I can cum to this

This!
Also, thanx for the giggles

[SnaxiTums]

The one that springs to mind is whenever someone says that same-size (or really any kind of stomach distension/deformation) is too unrealistic. If we’re going down that road, then how about the square-cube law? Your giantess is gonna crumple and die under heat exhaustion and your tiny is going to expend too much heat and also die.

[Chameleonette]

Honestly, it's the illogical aspects and how it's strongly a fantasy that makes it appeal to me much more. Personally, I think I would find it a little too uncomfortable for it to be taken very logically, especially to a point where everything has to be explained with logic. I probably wouldn't have as much fun with it or find it to be as creatively inspiring.

[Flubber]

What can I say other than: Is this the real life? Or is this just a fantasy?

[Randomdude5]

In my definitely not humble opinion. It is about willing suspension of disbelief and preferences.

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/ ... fDisbelief

People have different preferences, and they are willing to suspend their disbelief in order for the parts of vore that they like.
For example I like same-size vore, but not micro/macro. If a tiny eats a giant, my mind says "bullshit". Even though I know same-size is also unrealistic, it doesn't bother me, since I like it. (I'm not judging you if you like micro/macro. Have fun.)

I like realism that doesn't detract from what makes vore kinky for me. I understand that other people have different preferences, and mine would be too unrealistic in some areas, and some of the realism in other areas would work against their preferences.

Edit: Here is another example of how I think realism should work in vore. Cold blooded creatures should not have hot stomachs. If someone's kink wants the prey to be in a hot stomach, then the environment should be warm or the pred should move to a warm area.

CHANGE MY MIND!!!!! REEEEE!!!!!!

[Rat_Guy]

Macro/micro is more realistic than same size.
or
Same size is more realisitc than macro/micro.

[coop500]

The many many times I encountered people claiming male preds are not realistic because females are better at it somehow.

[Mecho]

The many many times I encountered people claiming male preds are not realistic because females are better at it somehow.

Did you know that females can be pregnanteee. And being pragnanteee meaning they can eat more because babies goes where the food is going?

Ofc i'm being sarcastic. But seriously. I have heard that argument multiple times in a non ironic way and it still makes me smile.

[voidchow]

How I feel about it definitely depends on if they're someone who is into vore or not. Like, I definitely see a lot of people who are squicked by vore citing it being unrealistic as some kind of gotcha. Which in that case is weird and its like, well a lot of just straight up vanilla-adjacent or common kinks are also pretty unrealistic, so its just a weird hill to die on. Though I also see where people just use 'realistic' as more of a catch-all for being 'graphic' as far as violence-and-gore goes, and I get why people use it that way (though it still doesn't really mean anything when you try to make it a 'rule' that vore should be x or y way).

What I really want to know is how and why people make up BS logic like this:

The many many times I encountered people claiming male preds are not realistic because females are better at it somehow.

and then like, defend it to the death. Like, a total hangup or something. I get people making it part of their 'in universe' horny lore or something like that, but people who try and start fights about it with randos? Kinda weird, maybe insecure.

I tend to be pretty open for a lot of people's preferences, but I will say, there are some things that I prefer due to just kind of 'making more sense' in my head, so like my brain subconsciously does try to add SOME kind of logic with a lot of my own preferences? But I can acknowledge that as a personal preference and not The Only Way To Vore™️.

[GramzonTheDragon]

In my definitely not humble opinion. It is about willing suspension of disbelief and preferences.

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/ ... fDisbelief

People have different preferences, and they are willing to suspend their disbelief in order for the parts of vore that they like.
For example I like same-size vore, but not micro/macro. If a tiny eat a giant, my mind says "bullshit". Even though I know same-size is also unrealistic, it doesn't bother me, since I like it. (I'm not judging you if you like micro/macro. Have fun.)

I like realism that doesn't detract from what makes vore kinky for me. I understand that other people have different preferences, and mine would be too unrealistic in some areas, and some of the realism in other areas would work against their preferences.

CHANGE MY MIND!!!!! REEEEE!!!!!!

I second this. stuff i don't like i find myself more subconsciously critical of for "realism", and my personal setting is tuned to my preferences. You won't find any humans capable for vore for reasons, and you won't find micros or true macros. at best you'll find a big dragon or dinosaur. But that's just my personal standards for art and roleplay, I'm not gonna go out and say to random people "hey why ain't your character going to the toilet after vore? do you know how a stomach works!????"

thankfully i haven't found too many realistic arguments, but there is one person i've seen around who seem to get pissy when there is dragon prey in a picture depending on the pred. other big monsters are allowed to eat dragons according to them, but they will say x predator would get clawed open by a dragon, or come up with excuses about the dragon prey letting themself get eaten, etc. I always groan seeing them in a comment section.

[KnightleyPaine]

You know what's unrealistic? The things that divert from what I'm into specifically. Why can't people make more sense and keep it to things I'm into? I'm sick and tired of people constantly doing the variation of the kink that I don't like. It just doesn't make sense. Most people would agree that the thing I like is just how it should be, why are these people with niche and aberrant fetishes constantly invading the shared space of my niche and aberrant fetish? Just the other day some artist I liked had to go down the rabbit hole of things I don't like. I just can't stand it when people don't imply that the way I like the aberrant niche thing is the norm, they just have to ruin it by making it not the way I want it. In fact, it's morally reprehensible.

[Winny]

*Snrk.*

The best way to look at stuff like this, is putting logic to fantasy worlds. I mean, magic is something that doesn't exist in our universe but we have tens of thousands of media depicting it. Do these people look at harry potter and go, "hmm no, the snitch shouldn't move like that because its motion defies the laws of physics and the law of thermodynamics." If they do, whew maybe they shouldn't have a vore fetish, because its all about the fantasy aspect of it.

Although it is fun to try and add logic to it, like world building in a vore world. "How would a tax system function when people keep vanishing because of gurgles?" :d

[Voracious Cutie]

How does the government work when I can eat and fucking shit out my state senator with little reprucussions aside from having to wipe

i dunno

it is hot though

[ItsSongxing]

How does the government work when I can eat and fucking shit out my state senator with little reprucussions aside from having to wipe

i dunno

it is hot though

this is why everyone in government is a crusty old white dude, generally considered the least vorable demographic

[Voracious Cutie]

How does the government work when I can eat and fucking shit out my state senator with little reprucussions aside from having to wipe

i dunno

it is hot though

this is why everyone in government is a crusty old white dude, generally considered the least vorable demographic

By god you figured it out, the age minimums are there to make sure that you're in your worst and least attractive years.

[tomsketchit]

My issues tend to be logic relating to things like behavior and psychology and what not. That's not to say I don't like more indulgent things that don't consider all the details, like what drives someone to do such an act, or consequences for taking a life / how someone avoids consequences. But I do prefer works that takes those sort of things into account. I like it when I can read a story, even if it's unrealistic, and think to myself "Okay, that makes sense, I believe that the characters would do this or that this thing happened this way." I like there to be a bit more depth to the vore

I'd never say that anyone has to do it that way, though sometimes I do find stories that particularly defy my sense of how someone should act are too jarring for me. It's all just my preference, and I don't want to push that on anyone. I just like what I like.

[fieldmousse]

this is why everyone in government is a crusty old white dude, generally considered the least vorable demographic

omg, I snorted my coffee. The patriarchy all makes sense now

I agree that the line people draw between creative liberties and realism is sometimes absurd. Personally, I don't have much issue with my suspension of disbelief. Or at least not with physical matters.
Emotional realism is more important to me: "Why would this character do X when they knew they would be eaten?" etc. But people are rarely inclined to apply logic to emotions.

One positive to realism is that it can be a source of creativity. For example, some animals have multiple stomachs or otherwise biologically interesting stomachs and that can make for some interesting/novel vore