the ever growing vampire community

[blauregen]

I would agree with that to a certain extent. Having a tradition with a lot of history behind it is something that feels more emotionally compelling to people. That is why for example when the Christmas tree was introduced to england and the US in the Victorian time it very quickly became thought of as an old tradition(it was just not theirs) because time adds weight to tradition.

As for wicka and such, I really don't understand why people find it emotionally compelling, it does not seem to have a strong individual claiming divine revelation or a long history.

Gardner compensated for the lack of a tradition with a fictional one. While factually untrue the incorporation of older shamanistic traditions and of a few speculations from poor debunked Maggie Murray seems to give it sufficient patina to be compelling. Religious tradition profits more from being a good and emotionally touching story than from factual correctness.

Do we have any Jedi here by the way?

 

[blauregen]

please ignore

 

[blauregen]

please ignore

 

[godless dave]

It is rediculous, all the more so when the grandparents of practicioners might have had a beer with the founder.

How does that make it more ridiculous than any other religion? The very early Christians were born at the right time to have had wine with Jesus or Paul.

I agree that Wicca is ridiculous, but no more ridiculous than Christianity or Zoroastrianism. All religions were new once.

 

[Whiplash]

I wonder what Simon Belmont would do...

Tripple Boomerangs and lots of jumping of course.

 

[Madalch]

It is rediculous, all the more so when the grandparents of practicioners might have had a beer with the founder.

How does that make it more ridiculous than any other religion? The very early Christians were born at the right time to have had wine with Jesus or Paul.

I agree that Wicca is ridiculous, but no more ridiculous than Christianity or Zoroastrianism. All religions were new once.

I think it's a bit easier to believe that Jesus, who died two thousand years ago, was a more holy person than your average guy, than it would be to believe the same about Johnny Smith, who my grandfather beat the tar out of sixty years ago for copping a feel on Great-Aunt Jemima.

 

[Jimbo07]

Stoker started the re-imaginig.

... and in 1897, no less.

Literary critics have examined many themes in the novel, such as the role of women in Victorian culture, conventional and repressed sexuality, immigration, colonialism, postcolonialism and folklore. Although Stoker did not invent the vampire, the novel's influence on the popularity of vampires has been singularly responsible for many theatrical and film interpretations...

and

Though arguably the most famous vampire story, Dracula was not the first. It was preceded and partly inspired by Sheridan Le Fanu's 1871 "Carmilla", about a lesbian vampire who preys on a lonely young woman. The image of a vampire portrayed as an aristocratic man, like the character of Dracula, was created by John Polidori in "The Vampyre" (1819),

 

[godless dave]

I think it's a bit easier to believe that Jesus, who died two thousand years ago, was a more holy person than your average guy, than it would be to believe the same about Johnny Smith, who my grandfather beat the tar out of sixty years ago for copping a feel on Great-Aunt Jemima.

So Christianity was more ridiculous in 90 AD than it is now?

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

How does that make it more ridiculous than any other religion? The very early Christians were born at the right time to have had wine with Jesus or Paul.

I agree that Wicca is ridiculous, but no more ridiculous than Christianity or Zoroastrianism. All religions were new once.

You're taking my comments in a different context, I, currently, think that all religious claims are rediculous, but I find those of more recent advent more rediculous than those whose origins might have been lost to culture and time.

Maladach summed up my position better than me I think...

I think it's a bit easier to believe that Jesus, who died two thousand years ago, was a more holy person than your average guy, than it would be to believe the same about Johnny Smith, who my grandfather beat the tar out of sixty years ago for copping a feel on Great-Aunt Jemima.

Bingo. And I, not to get to far away from my original point about current "vampire culture" since that is the topic of this thread, will reiterate the assertion I made that got this thread on this tangent - religions where the grandparents (or even parents) of practitioners might have had a beer with the founders are simply rediculous and even more so than those, the origins of which are lost to history. The seductive, sensative, sexy vampire is similarly a creation of the 20th Century and not based in actual history or the reality that (some of the vampire arguers seem to be forgetting) that there are no f-ing real vampires!

So Christianity was more ridiculous in 90 AD than it is now?

Maybe. Maybe not. I do know it had a cultural context within the Roman occupation of Palestine for some Jews that contemporary Wicca/Vampire goth role-playing simply does not.

Let's leave that aside for a moment and cut to brass tacks. Do you think Wiccans who believe thier Book of Shadows gives them Majick or "Vampires" who think dressing goth and claiming they "need blood" makes them sexy, intuitive and sensual or not?

Actually leave aside Wicca and let's just address whether the "sexy, sensual, intuitive Vampire" existed as a sub-culture before, say, the 1960s.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

The thing is that vampire is not a unified concept at all. Why would you so seperate a Succubi from a vampire? Is a being that requires to kill other and feed off their life energy a vampire or is it just those with the blood?

Ummm, because the vampire is pretty much defined up until very recently (psychic vampires, see my "maybe they're just boring comment above) as being undead who literally sucked the blood of the living. Again, see Vlad Dracul, Elizabeth Bathoray or Stoker prior to the 20th Century before trying to conflate lure to doom entities like the Will O' Wisp or Sirens, baby stealers like Lamia, or soul stealers like Succubi/Incubi.

And focusing on the nature that many of them where repulsive as they where decomposing corpses.

Now you're just trying to obfuscate. We're talking about historical models here, not real beings... unless you believe that vampires really exist and they must/might be attractive.

In an ironic twist, last night George Noory on Coast to Coast AM has a special line open for "evil" callers. In the first hour he'd had the still sexy in her 50s Cassandra Peterson aka Elvira on. One of the first callers on the "evil" line claimed he was a vampire and he'd had some sexy encounter with Elvira (he even had an a capella song about it). George asked him about Nosferatu and the supposed vampire had no idea what he was talking about. Whatever sort of kooky crap was going on in the callers mind, he had no idea that the archetype of vampires for the vast majority of mythological history was that they were ugly ghoulish creatures, not intuitive, sensual sexy beasts.

How about instead of just saying "no" you provide me with cinematic or literary examples of vampires not being hideous revenants apart from Stoker?

 

[four elevener]

Vampires suck! No, really...

 

[Madalch]

So Christianity was more ridiculous in 90 AD than it is now?

If there were people around in 90 AD that could honestly claim to have seen Jesus doing not-so-holy things, then that makes the religion ridiculous. Since those witnesses are now gone, the witnessed facts can no longer get in the way of a good story.

 

[Madalch]

Now you're just trying to obfuscate. We're talking about historical models here, not real beings... unless you believe that vampires really exist and they must/might be attractive.

The vampire legends, as far as I know, are generally thought to be based on people who were accidentally buried alive, and were later found partially escaped but now rotting. So it's accurate to say that vampire were rotting corpses, but they didn't actually get out much.

 

[Miss Whiplash]

The vampire legends, as far as I know, are generally thought to be based on people who were accidentally buried alive, and were later found partially escaped but now rotting. So it's accurate to say that vampire were rotting corpses, but they didn't actually get out much.

It had more to do with not understanding the process of decomposition more than premature burials, though premature burials did make some contribution to the legend.

Vampires Folklore Explained By Science

 

[ponderingturtle]

Ummm, because the vampire is pretty much defined up until very recently (psychic vampires, see my "maybe they're just boring comment above) as being undead who literally sucked the blood of the living. Again, see Vlad Dracul, Elizabeth Bathoray or Stoker prior to the 20th Century before trying to conflate lure to doom entities like the Will O' Wisp or Sirens, baby stealers like Lamia, or soul stealers like Succubi/Incubi.

Well Lamia did not just steal them but drank their blood.

You seem to be creating by your definitions to a sort of No True Vampire.

So Sekhmet seems to have had a strong taste for blood, and was associated with

How about instead of just saying "no" you provide me with cinematic or literary examples of vampires not being hideous revenants apart from Stoker?

Well as you are going for a no true vampire fallacy.

 

[fuelair]

Ummm, because the vampire is pretty much defined up until very recently (psychic vampires, see my "maybe they're just boring comment above) as being undead who literally sucked the blood of the living. Again, see Vlad Dracul, Elizabeth Bathoray or Stoker prior to the 20th Century before trying to conflate lure to doom entities like the Will O' Wisp or Sirens, baby stealers like Lamia, or soul stealers like Succubi/Incubi.



Now you're just trying to obfuscate. We're talking about historical models here, not real beings... unless you believe that vampires really exist and they must/might be attractive.

George asked him about Nosferatu and the supposed vampire had no idea what he was talking about. Whatever sort of kooky crap was going on in the callers mind, he had no idea that the archetype of vampires for the vast majority of mythological history was that they were ugly ghoulish creatures, not intuitive, sensual sexy beasts.

How about instead of just saying "no" you provide me with cinematic or literary examples of vampires not being hideous revenants apart from Stoker?

Just to be clear, and responsive to this statement, are you not limiting the time frame for literary and cinmatic evidence, or do you mean only things prior to the publication of Stoker's Dracula?

 

[Cactus Wren]

Just about ten years ago, someone posting under the name "burt" started a thread on alt.folklore.urban with the subject line "Do Vampires Exist?" This person claimed to be "an Inheritor, Class 2" vampire, included a link to a page on "Vampiric Studies", and described some of the traits allegedly attributed to modern-day "real" vampires:

A vampire DOES:
- Feed on human/animal blood.
- Live for a very long time.
- have emotions. We love, we hate, we laugh, we cry...

A vampire does NOT:
- Sleep in a coffin... well, most don't.
- Kill, if he/she can help it.
- Melt/burn in sunlight
- shrink away from crosses/holy water

A vampire IS:
- a LIVING, BREATHING person.
- able to eat regular food.
- able to handle sunlight, etc.

A vampire is NOT:
- "Undead"... that is a word made up by the authors.
- Human... well... Not ENTIRELY Human, at least.

And so on and on, much more in the same (sorry) vein.

I mention this because the ensuing snark was entertaining, worthy of JREF:

> Now, most people don't believe in vampires, and that is the core of this
> entire post. Do Vampires exist?
> Well, first, I am an Inheritor, Class 2.

You misplte "a very sad person with no real friends, who has joined this
fictional group, with its codes, laws, rules and secrets, to gain a
sense of belonging and community; a failure in most things, who has
imagined great powers and attributes to compensate; someone with great
difficulty separating fantasy from reality."

It's not even your fantasy - you stole it from trading card games and
those books by Anne Rice. You're sad, you're mad and you're not even
doing it well.

I knew a scary boy once who claimed to be a vamp - pointy fingernails,
stringy hair, you know the drill. He said he lived off souls. If he asked
for your soul and you agreed, he would write your name down on a peice of
paper, thus 'owning' you. He claimed if you gave him your soul, he would
bring you riches and fame.

Smacks of ancient Egyptian religion, tossed around with Rice, Lackey and
total lameness. 2 questions: would that make him a 'symbiotic' or a 'psi'
and why, if he had the power to bring riches and fame, was he a total loser
who lived in his car and couldn't afford cigarettes?

Oh. That's right, vampires don't exist.

: - Most Vampires can and do eat regular human food as well: Many are Gourmands,
: that is, people who eat gourmet foods. They have cultivated a taste for fine
: dining over several centuries of life.

A gourmand is a person who is excessively fond of food and drink. In other
words, a glutton. Apparently, vampires can be driven away with dictionaries.

Um, considering that the very /word/ vampire means a reainimated corpse that
rises at night to suck the blood of the living or an extortionist or a woman
who uses sex to exploit men or a bat (courtesy of American Heritage
Dictionary) - all of which you very strenuously claim not to be/do - I
suggest you redefine your exsistance, such as it is. Perhaps 'pathetic
sociopath with a compulsion to drink blood' would do.

| I do not
| kill, it goes against everything I've ever been taught. But I am still a
| killer, and I constantly battle that dark side of myself.

I have no trouble believing that, but I think it's immature (and immaturity

is my expertise) to boast about your seratonin problems and treat it like
it makes you something special and label yourself with a term many people
find unpleasant and pretend they're aberrant.
You don't need blood, you need Zoloft [ ... ]

: I have read your posts, and while I do accept your opinions and beliefs as
: your own, is it not true that I also have a right to mine?

Absolutely. I don't think any of us has a problem with your believing
you're a vampire, a transmogrified hippo or the fifty fourth reincarnation
of Miss Piggy, honestly, as long as you air your beliefs somewhere other
than alt.folklore.urban. I've no idea what newsgroup might fit your
particular afflic^Wdelus^Winterests. If all else fails, you could try
newgrouping alt.I.am.too.a.vampire.

: My very existence should prove to you that, as a group and in all levels of
: society, vampires can (and do) lead normal lives.

Logic, syntax, logic, syntax... Where to begin? Oh, never mind. Just go
away, there's a dear thing.

 

[Lynx2174]

Sorry, but that's still not nearly as creepy as furries.

Meh, I'd rather deal with most furries. After all, Meffy seemed like a perfectly reasonable anthropomorphic skunk thingy, before she buggered off. Knowing the internet, there's bound to be a few more on here too, obvious or not. A good portion of 'em seem pretty credulous, but, well, what can you expect?

It isn't the core idea that creeps me out about most of 'em, it's the fact that there aren't all that many of 'em, and yet they manage to include within their fold just about every other sexual fetish imaginable.

but after a while on the internet, it just doesn't seem to matter anymore. I'm sure some (most?) of their original or fanfiction writers have crimes against humanity, biology, and the english language to answer for, though.

Really, it's the people who are attracted to being the "victims" of these "vampires" that creep me out more than the vampires themselves. But again, what's a little blood? I can't imagine it causes more than a trifling few unnecessary infections and deaths. And hey- it's not like they couldn't see that coming. There's not much harm if it's just for kicks, but if they think it's for real, they need a little medical knowledge slapped into 'em. If they claim to be out for psychic energy, well, all's well then. If they believe it, they're strange, and if they're doing it for kicks, they're insufferably boring.

I never did like otherkin in general. Faeries, dragons, vampires, vampyres fairys, animal types, etc. It's like the more deluded end of the furry spectrum mixed with more made up critters than usual. I'm sure plenty of 'em are nice people; I don't meet 'em in real life, so I wouldn't know. I just wish they'd decide on certain spellings for the names of their respective critters. Some words were simply never meant to have "y"s or "ae"s jammed into 'em. it's almost as insufferable as furries jamming the word "fur" into unsuspecting words (or highlighting it in words that have it there already.).

 

[Marc L]

Vampires are apparently a subgroup (probably the largest, I'd imagine) of people who call themselves "Otherkin." That's people who think they are either: a vampire, a werewolf, a dragon, a fairy, an angel, an elf, or a witch.

I went to that site and looked at the FAQ's. One of the few questions that seems to have been consistently answered for all of the "otherkin" (most of the FAQs are mostly blank) is "Does <fitb> really exist?" Answer: Yes.

Well, that convinces me!

Marc

 

[Madalch]

http://www.mcall.com/news/local/all-b1_1vampire-r.6262824feb09,0,1248644.story

A teenager convinces a 15-year-old girl that he's half-vampire, half-werewolf in order to seduce her.

Ick.