
“You will therefore be taken to the Dune Sea, and cast into the pit of Carkoon, the nesting place of the all-powerful Sarlaac….in his belly you will find a new definition of pain and suffering as you are slowly digested over a thousand years.”
-C-3PO, translating for Jabba the Hutt
One of the cleverer elements of the original Star Wars trilogy is that the heroes are constantly fighting monsters that are only partially visible: the tentacles in the trash room, the monster on the asteroid that they land inside of, and the Sarlacc, whose mouth alone is visible. It’s an old horror movie trope, and it works well.
In this diorama, some fan has ramped up the vagina dentata motif by adding labia and a clitoris in the sand dunes.
And here’s an extension from vore into cannibalism, where the element being eroticized is not so much the eating as the cooking.
I’ve seen various versions of this image: the woman (never a man) prepped for cooking, or even in the stew-pot. It’s a common theme in one-pane comics about cannibals, right?It always grosses me out. Leaving aside, y’know, cannibalism, who would want to cook an animal with all the guts and stomach contents and whatnot still intact? Blech. This is one of the reasons I don’t eat lobsters.
(Source: raiseshipseerve, via slaveshouse)
This is very Hansel-and-Gretel-looking, though it’s probably a reference to a more specific story that I’m not familiar with.
It is also a bit of a cross-over piece: he’s an animalistic monster, but he’s wearing clothes and he’s going to cook her (with garlic!) before eating her. So now we are veering over towards cannibalism storylines rather than animals devouring people.
But don’t worry, we’ll be back soon.
(Source: olderoticart)
From The Little Prince, 1943:
“After some work with a colored pencil I succeeded in making my first drawing. My Drawing Number One. It looked something like this:

I showed my masterpiece to the grown-ups, and asked them whether the drawing frightened them.
But they answered: “Frighten? Why should any one be frightened by a hat?”
My drawing was not a picture of a hat. It was a picture of a boa constrictor digesting an elephant. But since the grown-ups were not able to understand it, I made another drawing: I drew the inside of a boa constrictor, so that the grown-ups could see it clearly. They always need to have things explained. My Drawing Number Two looked like this:
The grown-ups’ response, this time, was to advise me to lay aside my drawings of boa constrictors, whether from the inside or the outside, and devote myself instead to geography, history, arithmetic, and grammar. That is why, at the age of six, I gave up what might have been a magnificent career as a painter. I had been disheartened by the failure of my Drawing Number One and my Drawing Number Two. Grown-ups never understand anything by themselves, and it is tiresome for children to be always and forever explaining things to them.”
I don’t know how well high-res works on various Tumblrs, but the giant demon girl in the picture has a princess in her mouth, and the hero has ridden up on his white horse.
She: “Help!”
He: “Oh, sorry! Wrong princess”
She: “Wh…What?!”
He: Sorry for the interruption!”
Giant demon lady: [Gulp!] “Not a problem!”
Here’s a fairly typical vore image. Actually, the big snakes are about as close to the Jonah fallacy as you’d get in reality, since they do swallow things whole.
Again the bizarre distancing element: she’s moaning (in pleasure) and sucking her pinky, instead of screaming for help.
There was an old lady who swallowed a fly apron.
The Jonah fallacy is really popular with children, and shows up in fairy tales all the time. This is probably aggravated by stories like the one above, or mothers telling their kids that their upcoming sibling is “in her belly”.
But I could never understand it. I mean, surely it’s obvious that eating involves chewing stuff up?

A great deal of vore eroticism utilizes what we might call the “Jonah fallacy”: that animals eat people by swallowing them whole, into an unpleasant but livable environment, from which they can then be rescued.
So there’s a (potential) happy ending, and there’s also an offsetting “bizarre” element, ‘cause in real life getting eaten by animals is pretty gross and irreversible.
OK, folks, this is, thank god, our last dragon image (for now anyway). It’s by Dolcett.
Most of Dolcett’s work involves women being roasted alive on a spit and then eaten: that’s definitely his big thing. And in those images, as in this one, there’s a motif that I think is common in vore porn and snuff porn more generally: the executioner and/or the victim are inappropriately casual about it.
This fits in with a pattern that I’ve referred to elsewhere as “the bizarre”. A great number of BDSM scripts and imagery emulate conventional violent or abusive narratives, but they typically change a few elements to make the story unrealistic. To wit: in real life domestic violence, the victim gets pinned down and beaten with a fist or foot, in BDSM, s/he gets tied down and beaten with a paddle or riding crop. Or, in this case, the dragon wrangler worries about the dragon getting indigestion…

Untitled, Marc Radon
The punchline to the dragon-sacrifice motif is that the dragon eats the victim and she (or more rarely, he) dies. Sometimes the hero swoops in first to save the day, but the drama is always about getting eaten.
In my own fantasies, and generally in the kinky and infra-kinky versions of erotic peril, this final outcome is subordinated to the atmosphere beforehand. I don’t think there’s anything especially sexy about getting chewed up and digested, but the abstract idea of being tied up and helpless and waiting for the monster come….that’s pretty hot.
In “vore” fetishes, though, being eaten per se is the attraction, and it’s often treated with a kind of equanimity: this girl isn’t struggling at all.
So this is something else to discuss…