FA+
Shop
Why my personal artworks aren't "vore".
4 years ago
This journal is personal and made specifically to be linked under my personal artworks to offer an explanation to a common idea people seem to get from my artwork.
Note: I am not against "vore" all together, I simply don't like it.
TL;DR: this is not vore art, this is not fetish art, my intent as the author is the final say on the matter, do not dare to tell me otherwise.
"Vore" is by definition a "fetish" ("a sexual interest in an object or a part of the body other than the sexual organs" - Source: Cambridge dictionary); UrbanDictonary offers a proper explanation of the term "vore".
That being said, not every scenario with a character inside another character's mouth, ingestion, digestion and so on can be called "vore".
For example, would you label the inhaling ability of Kirby as "vore"?
What about all the levels inside the monster's gut in The Legend of Zelda and the Mario series?
Have you ever seen an episode from Tom & Jerry?
The answer is simple: a scenario by itself doesn't qualify as "vore",
context is key.
The "character eating another character" scenario is a common trope which can and is probably mostly used in non-fetish non-sexual works of fiction.
People are absolutely free to fantasize to themselves about whatever they want, even over a SFW creation, but this is not the creator's design;
this means you can use even the most innocent of images as a starting point for your own sexual fantasies, yet this does not make the image itself sexual in nature, nor that the creator of the image anticipated, shared or endorsed your fantasy or its themes.
Thus, calling someone's work "vore" just because it contains a "character eating another character" scenario is a rather brainless false assumption.
What do you need to tell if something is vore or not?
The intention of the author.
Just like a knife can be used as a useful tool or a dangerous weapon depending on the user's intention, whether or not a piece of content can be defined as fetish material depends on whether the author intends for it to be as such.
An author can even enjoy depicting or concentrate on a specific trope without it necessarily becoming a kink or a fetish.
This is why I am here to tell you that:
- this artwork is not vore.
- this artwork is not meant to be vore.
- this artwork is not fetish material.
- this artwork is not meant to be sexually explicit.
- this artwork is not meant to be sexually arousing.
That's all you need to know.
If you find this artwork to be erotically pleasing to you, sexually arousing or viable for fantasizing about any of your kinks, good for you;
I don't care. I do not need to know. I do not want to know.
I had to write this statement of intent because time and time again my artworks and me as a creator have been involved in varying degrees of confusion about this. For example I've had people trying to tell me what the themes of my own artwork were or all manners of creeps lusting after my characters in the comments.
You might argue that in the past I used the term "vore" to refer to some themes in my artworks: while definitely true, it was a mistake I made due to the long running confusion with the terminology related to these topics.
From its inception the term "vore" has expanded its meaning to several adjacent concepts far outside its original status as shorthand for "vorarephilia". Thus, "vore" has become an umbrella term which most online communities use with reckless abandon to label a large variety of content involving some variation of the "character inside another character" trope.
The issue with this use is that "vore" still maintains a strong sexual and fetish connotation from its origin. It is definitely not a neutral label and thus when applied generally to content outside its original semantic scope it brings with itself several additional connotations which may or may not reflect the author's intentions. Since sexuality and mature content are delicate and personal topics, a too liberal use of the term "vore" such as we see today ends up creating a kind of confusion which is at least a little annoying to the author and at most psychologically harmful.
Before I realized this I too was using the term incorrectly, believing it could be considered neutral enough to label my work.
Now I know it is not.
and I, sharing basically the same opinions on this matter, have been brainstorming for quite a long time now to find a new term to better refer to the use of the "character inside another character" trope in a non-sexual non-fetishized scenario, thus freeing us and all creators in similar positions from having to rely on the inadequate "vore" term.
So far we have not been successful in finding a good sounding term, but we are determined to keep looking.
I, for now, will use "containment" and "mouth-holding" as placeholders.
This hefty but necessary post has been jointly written by and I.
TL;DR: this is not vore art, this is not fetish art, my intent as the author is the final say on the matter, do not dare to tell me otherwise.>>> You can also find me HERE! <<<
──⊹⊱✫⊰⊹──
~If you like my work please consider supporting me~
Ko-Fi | Shinies
COMMISSIONS ARE OPEN!
You can see my artworks at full quality on my Patreon!
DO NOT USE, UPLOAD OR MODIFY ANY OF MY PICTURES, CHARACTERS OR CREATION WITHOUT MY WRITTEN CONSENT. 
