Explicit sexual references are likely to make some people uncomfortable, and should not be used in project names aimed at a general audience. People have highly variable relationships to sexuality, and the reminder is not always pleasant.
Why the hell is it wonderful or should be cherished and lauded?
I say on the contrary, this sounds like some hedonistic bs and it’s shameful and should rejected on the basis that pleasure is not everything and considering it as such has been refuted many times. Look up Experience machine by Robert Nozick.
Some kinks should absolutely be shamed and rejected. When talking about sexuality, people seem to stop at consent as if it’s the only important aspect, where in fact consent is only the start. It’s the most basic of requirements and there’s a lot discussion to be had after establishing that most basic of rules.
For now, I don’t care about what people do themselves or in their own home and such, but don’t rub it in other people’s face. If you’re saying that it should be public and it’s all good, we’re on very different levels and there is no actual middle grounds here.
It's still almost entirely about consent and safety, though. Rubbing it in other peoples' faces violates their consent.
It's really not black and white, it's a spectrum. People have a right to have their sexualities safely, and other people have a right to not be exposed to sex they don't want. The extremes on both sides are unfavorable. On one one side, total suppression of all sexualities in any public place; should you be able to make two men in love not hold hands in public, because it bothers you to be aware of their sexuality? On the other, total sexual freedom, and being forcibly exposed constantly to every expression of anybody's libido.
It's not easy, because the actual middle ground does involve compromise on both sides. Some people don't want to have to be aware of sexualities that aren't their own at all, and it's unreasonable. Some people don't want to be made to hide their unusual kinks in public places and feel that it's wrong for them to not be able to sexually signal wherever they want, which is also unreasonable.
Either way, it still is about consent, and the consent of bystanders counts too.
Interesting that instead of answering my question, you just got defensive.
What is shameful about vore? You really don’t have a good answer do you? Does the mere existence of vore just make you feel yucky? Is that all?
It doesn’t matter. Vore is harmless, by definition, it is a purely fantastical kink, totally harmless and without ethical considerations because it cannot physically be acted upon in real life.
Kink-shaming vore is about as ridiculous as kink-shaming tf porn. it’s not real, it can’t hurt you. “I don’t care what people do in their own homes” dissemble all you like, but if you didn’t care you wouldn’t be whining about it online.
If there’s anyone who should be ashamed here it’s you.
When did we decide to set apart a certain set of behaviours, call them "kink," and deem them morally untouchable?
I'm all for people exploring things safely with trusted partners but more and more often I see people use the mask of "kink" to either ignore the roots of their interests or to co-erce other people into accepting situations that are unsafe or uncomfortable for them.
If someone is into vore then by all means, enjoy it safely. But please also consider if there are underlying causes of your sexual interest in cannibalism that are also impacting other aspects of your life and could be better tackled in therapy than in the bedroom.
Final point on the case in hand: Saying the name is inappropriate for a public project is different than saying the person with that sexual interest should be ashamed. Users may find it distressing.
Some pro-sex communities often forget that "consent" doesn't just apply to participants. Bystanders should also have the right to avoid being exposed to sex acts and concepts that they don't want to see. Call people prudes or "kink-shamers" all you want, but as a very pro-kink person, I find it extremely distasteful and disrespectful to shame people for not wanting other people's kinks in their life.
There was some stupid drama recently over people calling a certain emoji the "bottom face" emoji and then being bewildered when people didn't like the sexual signaling. There were names and accusations thrown around based on nothing more than "I don't want to see sexual things in a programming blog".
Sex makes some people uncomfortable. Sexual trauma is a real thing that should be respected. People should have the right to opt out of seeing sex for the sake of their happiness and comfort. Your sexual freedom still needs to respect bystanders.
Edit: That said, I feel that people should name their projects whatever they want to. I don't have a problem with this being called Vore, I just think it's weird to explicitly celebrate it, and I don't like when people are shamed for saying they don't like seeing sex in places they don't expect it. While we should only change so much to accommodate people's comfort, we should at least respect that they aren't necessarily evil, homophobic, or wrong just for being uncomfortable.
In common speech it's never used alone, but only as, as you said, a root, e.g. carnivore, omnivore. Just vore alone I've only ever heard to mean exactly one thing, and it's the NSFW one.
Different root word (pedi- means foot by way of Latin, and shouldn't be confused with Latin words like pedicare [provocative/aggressive verb meaning 'to buttfuck' (usually bowdlerized as something like 'to bugger')] which are also derived from the Greek pedo-)
Growing up, on the playground, you said, "actually what you just said is a symbol of power of the Roman consuls, so I will take that as a compliment.", didn't you?
Actualized in fantasy usually in the medium of hentai.
There's a bunch of people into vore on one of my discord servers and I haven't noticed them into the idea of actually being eaten themselves, or eating other people. It's not necessarily a cannibalism fetish. Usually it's tied into a monster porn fetish.
It came up when Armie Hammer was "outed" as a "cannibal". If you read what was actually said, he basically has a vore fetish, though from the secondhand accounts alone it didn't seem like his "accusers" had the right context or vocabulary.
Well... I'll spoil that it is most likely not exactly "pregnant". A lot of vore art draws inflated bellies for after the (physically impossible) full-body consumption. Sometimes with a limb or few pushing out against the belly. So I could see how it could easily be mistaken for either pregnant or overweight women.
It is also a common overlap with furries (well- yiff rather) but I guess that makes a bit more sense since animals are more known to eat one another - although it's mostly the anthromorphized ones so idk really.
Also overlaps with the oversized giant women / shrunken male fetishes which I guess makes the act more physically possible if you ignore the impossible sizes of the people involved.
Most vore is "swallowing whole while alive" and not "actually eating", there is often no chewing involved or depicted. If the victim is chewed or killed in the process - that crosses into the less popular guro and snuff categories.
Or perhaps simply scanning the first page of Google image results is not a reliable way to figure out what a weird sex thing on the Internet is actually about.
