Differentiating vore with sexual fetishistic intent versus a SFW one

Hello. I would like to bring up the idea that there should be a difference between sexual fetish vore, which involves (for example) a creature (e.g. a pony) eating another (whether it be same-size or miniature) in a sexual nature, such as:
 

 
and
 

 
and
 

 
and in the context of “ponies being placed inside one another” (nsfw)
 

 
There are many subcategories of vore, but all of them have the same intent: sexual fetishization.  
spoiler]Not that there’s anything wrong with that, I definitely do not have a problem with vore, since I have drawn it a few times [/spoiler]
 
However, tagging on this website seems to classify it as “any living being being placed inside another”, which is too broad and specific. Some quotes from staff (not to call this specific person out ofc) regarding this matter are as follows:
 
~~“if living creature is going into or being pulled into another living creature, then it is Vore.”  
~~“notice all the screencaps of the manticore mouth dive from that episode? they’re all tagged vore and they’re straight from the show”  
~~“sexual intent has nothing to do with it.”  
~~“the tag is simply describing what is happening in the image: one character is going inside of another in some way.”
 
This is an admission that this tag is just too broad, doesn’t take artist intent into account, and is not one-size-fits-all. This is especially true with pictures are not created with sexual intent deriving from the act in the first place being tagged with it anyway, such as:
 

 
And
 

 
and
 
>>p869105p
 
And even this, which was in the show (which is technically for kids, remember) and definitely does not have fetishistic intent, as much as it appealed to people who like vore:  

 
My problem with these pictures, which clearly do not show any sexual intent in that the characters in them are about to be eaten or are being eaten, being tagged as such, is that any people filter the vore tag will have it unfairly hidden from them unintentionally, and as someone that has had that happen to them, it makes me feel like someone is trying to dictate what my intent behind the picture is. Like someone who has the fetish believes they know more about what the picture is about than someone who created it.
 
I respectfully propose there be a distinction between “this person is being eaten/about to be eaten alive for the viewer’s sexual pleasure” and “this person is being eaten/about to be eaten non-sexually for comedic/horror/etc purposes, if that may be possible at all. This distinction can (theoretically) easily be made through artist’s intent while making it (if asked or stated) or by common sense (is it in the show via screencap? Then it aint sexual vore).
 
 
Disclaimer: This isn’t a dig to people who like vore and is not hostile to them.

I do think it can be beneficial to separate the two instances. My main question is what to call it. [i have horrible imagination when it comes to naming things]
 
Also: To head anyone off who will say “just subtract ‘explicit’ from your search, etc”. While that could be possible. It is nicer to only have to use 1 tag as opposed to trying to remove an arbitrary number of tags.

@Zeb  
That’d be a pickle, yeah. “non-sexualized vore” is like saying “the world’s tallest midget”.
 
I’d suggest just plain ol’ untagging the vore tag if its not applicable, but then what are people who just don’t to see ANYTHING getting eaten/about to be eaten in any context supposed to do?

I wholeheartedly agree that our definition of vore is terrible. It also conflicts with our rating tags, because fetish pics should be at least suggestive, yet many pics tagged with vore are safe.
 
Vorarephilia (often shortened to vore) is a paraphilia characterized by the erotic desire to be consumed by, or sometimes to personally consume, another person or creature. –Wikipedia
 
Maybe eaten alive could be repurposed for such non-fetish use, if given a strict definition.

@Datte-Before-Dawn  
@cheezedoodle  
Could we lift the “must be at leat suggestive” rule and tag non-fetishy vore images as safe? Please don’t yell at me for suggesting that.

@cheezedoodle  
That could work, it’s pretty underused and doesn’t strike me as sexual or fetishistic like vore does.
 
Of course, there would be an overlap of vore where the entire person is swallowed whole while alive, but that can be changed to “swallowed whole” or summat?

@Badumsquish  
They already are. That’s the problem. Vore is a fetish, so vore pics should automatically be suggestive+

@cheezedoodle  
S-Stuff those ballots, bby

@Datte-Before-Dawn
 
In the description we’d just state that this tag is not to be used on pics that are not fetishistic in nature, and suggest the vore tag for those.

@Badumsquish  
[Snip]  
Ninja’d while typing
 
 
@cheezedoodle  
“Eaten alive” could work. Like you said, as long as we give it a strict “NOT for the fetish.” description, and do cleanup on it and the vore tags. Might be a good idea.
 
What do others think?

@cheezedoodle  
THat’d sound pretty do’able then. It’d make the distinction clear and re-direct those that wanna look / tag sexual vore

@Datte-Before-Dawn  
Slightly off-topic, but I hope you don’t mind that I cleaned up the formatting of images in your post. If you use the >>p shorthand, as in >>1336391p it will respect the filter settings of anyone viewing it, plus it provides a link to the source image. (If you don’t want such large previews, use the >>s thumbnail shorthand.)

@WingbeatPony  
No yeah, go ahead, i suck at formatting.  
Danke

I would have no issue in making a clear distinction, I have no specific idea(s) on how to do it, but I really dislike the idea of show screencaps being tagged with vore.

I wouldn’t complain about having to watch an extra tag to avoid missing the relevant content. Yeah, there’s an absurd amount of variation to it; Its a very broad subject. We currently have at least six different manners of people being enveloped by other people, just going by what tags imply vore and not counting duplicates (like crotchboobs versus regular boobs) or stuff like absorption which varies enough to not imply it, which is why it only took me half a second to go from “well should vore imply ‘eaten whole’ then? Not really, because that’s only vanilla, hard/soft vore, which might be a lot of it but is far from most or all of it.”

@Datte-Before-Dawn  
This please. I’ve been muttering about that for quite some time now.
 
Having to miss out on more darkly humorous images like
 

 
or
 

 
because I do not want to see a fetish has long been an annoyance.
 
If this is discussed further among the mods I would note that both Blissey and Princess Luna should probably be involved since they were both rather adamant on vore being every “living thing goes in mouth of other living thing” as noted in this discussion. They might want a say in this.
 
@WingbeatPony  
I’mma note you made a typo in one of the image links.

So what’s status on the debate?
 
@Solitude  
Here here

@Datte-Before-Dawn  
Can’t speak for others. But for myself: I’m throwing together possible definitions and descriptions for the non-fetish tag in my mind before suggesting any here.  
As well just letting the topic sit for a day or so so that anyone else who wishes to comment on it can have time to see it. Since this topic is one that people can be extremely passionate about.

I complained two years ago about screencaps being considered the same as fetish images and nobody listened. So yes, I support this.

@kleptomage  
Yeah, I complained about it on and off for a few years heh  
Would be nice to see it come to a head

@Solitude  
Probably because they are the two big vore fans on the staff. >.>
 
I’ve pinged the bossman since this is a pretty fundamental change.

@Solitude  
While am I adamant that that image should be tagged vore, it is only because we currently do not have another tag to adequately describe it. I would not have a problem with a new tag being created for non fetishy types of vore.
 
@cheezedoodle  

 
prob a good idea, since he’s the one who originally mandated the “vore=questionable” change, something I was not in favor of when it happened. he really doesn’t like vore

Yeah, it might help to have a separate tag for “stuff getting eaten, but not in a sexual way.” eaten alive isn’t bad. For humor’s sake, I’ll suggest noms.
 
An unfortunate side-effect is that some fans of vore treat all pics of something/someone getting eaten as sexual. That Spike pic in the OP would certainly get a lot of those types of comments. The issue is telling them “it’s not sexual” when, for them, it is.

@Masque Raccoon  
Wait… That Spike pic isn’t supposed to be sexualized vore? With all the detail on the drool and tongue I thought it was. [shrug]
 
Anywho:  
So a proposed tag to be used for non-sexual vore is “eaten alive”. Since it already exists.
 
A slight problem I see with that name is the wording used. Since it wouldn’t automatically give the impression it could be used for any type of “character going fully into another character”. Like the pic that started this thread, featuring a snake comically hiding within Fluttershy’s privates.  
The snake isn’t being “eaten alive”. So the tag doesn’t quite sound like it fits. And the same could be said for other pictures with more of a focus on comedic situations involving parts of the body that aren’t a mouth.
 
Though, admittedly, I don’t know how often a picture comes up with a creature being fully inserted into a butt or vagina that isn’t sexual, so I don’t really know if it’s a common thing that really needs worrying about.
 
Any thoughts?

@Zeb
 
That’s the issue: the only thing sexual about the Spike pic is the implication. There’s no organs shown, no “ahegaeo” (or however that’s spelled), nothing else that strictly implies sex… but the sexual connotation is still somehow there.