To me, so long as the prey is alive and well, I'd count it. Things like Regurgitation, Full-Tour, Reformation, and such are merely flavors of it.
My thing is, if the Predator and Prey can both enjoy it at some point in the future - like in two weeks - I count it as Non-Fatal.
How would you define non fatal?
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!
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!
46 posts
• Page 3 of 3 • 1, 2, 3
-
alockwood1 - Intermediate Vorarephile
- Posts: 371
- Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2022 8:41 pm
- Location: Western New York
Re: How would you define non fatal?
Archies can't relate? Yes, I agree a 100%! I mean we could divide a genre into two or three subgenres and those subgenres into more subgenres and so on and so forth, but where does us get it? Exactly, right where we are today! It indeed is a very human behavior... And seemingly a quite the obsessive one since the advance of SM! People hide under the curtain of tolerance and consideration, but their actions pretty much show that they merely want to make their work "unique"; apparently, they're compelled by a need to make it appear different from all the other one's, despite it's technically just another (non-)fatal or reformation work... I am in the "fatal-camp" and I don't see the sense in that at all! Why making a yet deeper distinction between all non-fatal stories just because "it may offend certain people" or "doesn't express what the artist wants to say"? We have more than enough tags already to make precise distinctions and clarify the direction of a work with just five or six additional tags! If the work itself can't relay a creator's intentions, do people earnestly think adding a few more tags can? Pfff~ Get real! And wake up, people of the new age! You'll offend someone either way! Especially with the mis- and overuse of tags like it's a common practice today! I, for my part, feel much more offended to read tags on items which shouldn't be there to begin with just to have some click-bait on those items, put on it under the pretense of insecurity or tolerance...
It's like playing dart and barely missing the center, instead of making a clear statement like the people back then, simply agreeing to "25 points!", the newer generations of creators want to be different from anyone who has the same result. To me it seems they just have to be unique and something special no matter what, so they go about tagging the results, like, Nearly 50 points!, Almost 50 points!, Implied 50 points!, Not 50 points!, More than (1...)24 points!, 25 points and less!, or 5x5 points!, etc. pp. ... I could go on like this almost forever but does that sound reasonable? In my eyes certainly not so I can't get around agreeing to Habiba's post! Why that silly comparison, you wonder? Well, the abuse, misuse, and overuse of tags (here on Eka's or striking expressions irl), partially even totally unrelated to the actual meaning of the tag and content of the tagged item, is a big reason that causes rhetoric questions like this to come into existence in the first place! I can't help but picture it, if those generations would be in the far past... Highly likely, they'd be more busy with trying to make distinctions between and reinventing the very same wheel time and time again, spreading only chaos and confusion among them to satisfy their egos rather putting the actual invention to use to improve their life quality, as the forum's state and tagging behavior of users proof...
Come on, guys'n'gals, if you're not pis*ed to the point that your mind had just shutted off entirely, let us make a detour down the road of logic! We'll simply use widely-known and accepted facts in form of established definitions, disregarding entirely how each of you defines that set expression for themselves or if those widely-accepted definitions may hurt someone else's feelings... It's a little tricky and you'll soon see that you can intepret it as you see fit if you stopped at given points before breaking it down entirely, and even then you can still interpret it however you want if you don't agree with what the people before your generations had all agreed upon and established, depending on how you interpret the "vague" meanings of the following definitions: Fatal... What does the word "fatal" actually mean? (Spoiled for overview's sake... and because it might turn set world views upside down if read with an open mind )
Now, as many before pointed out correctly, we've made a third distinction! People kept arguing about fatal and non-fatal back in the day, bit*hing at each other about what the "better" and "only true" form of vore is and they couldn't find an answer to the eternal question where non-fatal ends and where fatal starts. That mainly religious argument has led to a bright mind inventing said third distinction: The Reformation tag... Reformation regards to everything that isn't really considered fatal by the faties, since the prey survives in whatever form, or non-fatal by the endos since fatality very-well does happen! - Let me say at this point that this tag, too, is a wrongful use of the original and still existing meaning of this word, since it's either relating to theology or to "the act of changing to a better state or character, way of operating, lifestyle, etc.; the correction of abuses and bad habits or practices"! Whether that change is an actual improvement or not is entirely subject to the work and the beliefs of the reader... xp - Nevertheless, vorarephiles of the old have agreed on those things: If the prey's essence somehow survives in any shape or state, it's reformation. If the prey's body and consciousness are gone entirely, it's fatal. And if the prey isn't suffering lethal injuries, it's non-fatal. If it's all happy-go lucky sunshine and rainbow-y non-fatal vore it was called safe vore or endo. Now I, as a fatal vore and digestion lover, could certainly argue that reformation can't be fatal in the truest sense of the word only the most literal one, we've - and I emphasize: - all agreed that it's a whole different genre somewhere between fatal and non-fatal since it can be interpreted and reasoned as being both...
With that being said, giving any reformation styled vore also the fatal or non-fatal is plain wrong and an unneccessary click-blait, resulting purely from the selfish and irrational beliefs of the tagger! It's both and neither; it's as fatal as non-fatal; it's simply something else entirely! A lotta unnecessary text to throw in my own two cents but I gotta admit that it was indeed a curious and valuable excursion for me! :3 To give a straight, summed-up answer:
In my eyes, as soon as one brings supernatural stuff like a soul or a higher plain of existence into play it stops being fatal or non-fatal vore entirely! If either, the prey's body or its spiritual being, is being destroyed and/or rebuild in the process, it's reformation. If both are destroyed for good, it's fatal. And if none of that is being destroyed(, no matter how scarred both get), it's non-fatal!
It's like playing dart and barely missing the center, instead of making a clear statement like the people back then, simply agreeing to "25 points!", the newer generations of creators want to be different from anyone who has the same result. To me it seems they just have to be unique and something special no matter what, so they go about tagging the results, like, Nearly 50 points!, Almost 50 points!, Implied 50 points!, Not 50 points!, More than (1...)24 points!, 25 points and less!, or 5x5 points!, etc. pp. ... I could go on like this almost forever but does that sound reasonable? In my eyes certainly not so I can't get around agreeing to Habiba's post! Why that silly comparison, you wonder? Well, the abuse, misuse, and overuse of tags (here on Eka's or striking expressions irl), partially even totally unrelated to the actual meaning of the tag and content of the tagged item, is a big reason that causes rhetoric questions like this to come into existence in the first place! I can't help but picture it, if those generations would be in the far past... Highly likely, they'd be more busy with trying to make distinctions between and reinventing the very same wheel time and time again, spreading only chaos and confusion among them to satisfy their egos rather putting the actual invention to use to improve their life quality, as the forum's state and tagging behavior of users proof...
Come on, guys'n'gals, if you're not pis*ed to the point that your mind had just shutted off entirely, let us make a detour down the road of logic! We'll simply use widely-known and accepted facts in form of established definitions, disregarding entirely how each of you defines that set expression for themselves or if those widely-accepted definitions may hurt someone else's feelings... It's a little tricky and you'll soon see that you can intepret it as you see fit if you stopped at given points before breaking it down entirely, and even then you can still interpret it however you want if you don't agree with what the people before your generations had all agreed upon and established, depending on how you interpret the "vague" meanings of the following definitions: Fatal... What does the word "fatal" actually mean? (Spoiled for overview's sake... and because it might turn set world views upside down if read with an open mind )
Spoiler: show
Now, as many before pointed out correctly, we've made a third distinction! People kept arguing about fatal and non-fatal back in the day, bit*hing at each other about what the "better" and "only true" form of vore is and they couldn't find an answer to the eternal question where non-fatal ends and where fatal starts. That mainly religious argument has led to a bright mind inventing said third distinction: The Reformation tag... Reformation regards to everything that isn't really considered fatal by the faties, since the prey survives in whatever form, or non-fatal by the endos since fatality very-well does happen! - Let me say at this point that this tag, too, is a wrongful use of the original and still existing meaning of this word, since it's either relating to theology or to "the act of changing to a better state or character, way of operating, lifestyle, etc.; the correction of abuses and bad habits or practices"! Whether that change is an actual improvement or not is entirely subject to the work and the beliefs of the reader... xp - Nevertheless, vorarephiles of the old have agreed on those things: If the prey's essence somehow survives in any shape or state, it's reformation. If the prey's body and consciousness are gone entirely, it's fatal. And if the prey isn't suffering lethal injuries, it's non-fatal. If it's all happy-go lucky sunshine and rainbow-y non-fatal vore it was called safe vore or endo. Now I, as a fatal vore and digestion lover, could certainly argue that reformation can't be fatal in the truest sense of the word only the most literal one, we've - and I emphasize: - all agreed that it's a whole different genre somewhere between fatal and non-fatal since it can be interpreted and reasoned as being both...
With that being said, giving any reformation styled vore also the fatal or non-fatal is plain wrong and an unneccessary click-blait, resulting purely from the selfish and irrational beliefs of the tagger! It's both and neither; it's as fatal as non-fatal; it's simply something else entirely! A lotta unnecessary text to throw in my own two cents but I gotta admit that it was indeed a curious and valuable excursion for me! :3 To give a straight, summed-up answer:
In my eyes, as soon as one brings supernatural stuff like a soul or a higher plain of existence into play it stops being fatal or non-fatal vore entirely! If either, the prey's body or its spiritual being, is being destroyed and/or rebuild in the process, it's reformation. If both are destroyed for good, it's fatal. And if none of that is being destroyed(, no matter how scarred both get), it's non-fatal!
- Ыояр
- New to the forum
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Sat Dec 25, 2021 6:50 am
Re: How would you define non fatal?
This is an endless discussion because all the scenarios happen in a fantasy realm with different laws, rules, or morals.
It is fun to interact, but you will never get everyone to agree because they all have their preference on how their fantasy realm works... So don't try too hard on bringing real-world definition or value into this, cause what happens in real life is irrelevant to a fantasy world that doesn't exist.
It is fun to interact, but you will never get everyone to agree because they all have their preference on how their fantasy realm works... So don't try too hard on bringing real-world definition or value into this, cause what happens in real life is irrelevant to a fantasy world that doesn't exist.
-
Eka - Administrator
- Posts: 4499
- Joined: Fri May 13, 2005 10:59 pm
- Location: Canada
Re: How would you define non fatal?
IMO, fatal means death is/was included. What happens afterward doesn't cancel out the fact that the character still died in the scene, so unless it's done without the character dying/leaving their body (remaining conscious while being processed and then reverting to their normal form), reformation typically includes fatal. Considering how a lot of folks who don't like fatal vore avoid reformation specifically for that reason, I think it's fair to stay on the safe side and tag scenes where a character dies as fatal regardless of whether or not they'll come back afterward. Returning from the dead wouldn't be considered non-fatal in any other context, so I see no reason to make an exception for vore.
On a related note, non-fatal doesn't necessarily have to mean endosoma, either. There are a lot of ways vore can be portrayed that don't involve a character actually dying, including unwilling scenes, prey escaping, and some more brutal stuff like partial digestion, etc. Non-fatal isn't necessarily synonymous with safe or harmless, which the endo tag usually implies. It just means that the character survives... and they wouldn't need to reform (with few exceptions) if they survived in the first place.
On a related note, non-fatal doesn't necessarily have to mean endosoma, either. There are a lot of ways vore can be portrayed that don't involve a character actually dying, including unwilling scenes, prey escaping, and some more brutal stuff like partial digestion, etc. Non-fatal isn't necessarily synonymous with safe or harmless, which the endo tag usually implies. It just means that the character survives... and they wouldn't need to reform (with few exceptions) if they survived in the first place.
-
Ghrelin - Intermediate Vorarephile
- Posts: 526
- Joined: Fri Dec 25, 2015 6:56 pm
Re: How would you define non fatal?
Ghrelin wrote:On a related note, non-fatal doesn't necessarily have to mean endosoma, either. There are a lot of ways vore can be portrayed that don't involve a character actually dying, including unwilling scenes, prey escaping, and some more brutal stuff like partial digestion, etc. Non-fatal isn't necessarily synonymous with safe or harmless, which the endo tag usually implies. It just means that the character survives... and they wouldn't need to reform (with few exceptions) if they survived in the first place.
I am a sucker for vore scenarios which are neither fatal nor entirely safe. There's just something about the thrill, ups and downs, the uncertainty and turntables.
A favourite of mine is when a pred devours someone with the intention to digest them but then changes their mind, gets to know them, and possibly results in enemies to lovers later down the line. Or a pred devours a prey with the intention to capture them, and threatens digestion if they struggle too much or get too snarky.
-
IddlerItaler - Somewhat familiar
- Posts: 142
- Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2016 8:16 am
Re: How would you define non fatal?
IddlerItaler wrote:I am a sucker for vore scenarios which are neither fatal nor entirely safe. There's just something about the thrill, ups and downs, the uncertainty and turntables.
A favourite of mine is when a pred devours someone with the intention to digest them but then changes their mind, gets to know them, and possibly results in enemies to lovers later down the line. Or a pred devours a prey with the intention to capture them, and threatens digestion if they struggle too much or get too snarky.
Oh, same. Having the threat of digestion can make for some exciting scenarios. I am also a sucker for prey changing their pred's mind from the inside. I can see why some folks don't find escape stories as gratifying, but when they're good, they're great.
-
Ghrelin - Intermediate Vorarephile
- Posts: 526
- Joined: Fri Dec 25, 2015 6:56 pm
46 posts
• Page 3 of 3 • 1, 2, 3