The Ultimate Vampire Resource and Directory

So, I was thinking. I just finished re-reading Bram Stoker's Dracula for the umpteenth time. It strikes me as timeless and will always be relevant no matter what age group one belongs to. The symbolism of the vampire runs deep and far.

Dracula "knew" when he re-discovered his True Love. He pursued her instead of lamenting about his situation; especially when he also knew she was unattainable as she belonged to another. I am sure there are many among us who are hopeless romantics.

Love is defined as:

"love
noun
1.
a strong feeling of affection.

2.
a great interest and pleasure in something.

3.
a person or thing that one loves."

Question is: What makes the love of a Vampire different from the dictionary definition of love? Is it all about way and manner a vampire handles his/her emotions?

As we are all on Vampire Rave, I'm assuming we all have some notions of this love that only a Vampire can experience/show.

So... what is a Vampire's Love, to you?

It's painful.As an empath I cannot afford to love.I gave emotions too freely when I was still a teenager,but now I will never love again.Love is much like a toxin,you can take it,you may even need it,but in the end it will hurt you.
Imagine loving a person and you feel,not see that they don't care.They say they love you,they spend time with you,sleep with you,spend an entire night talking,but they do not love you.They are merely in love.But you aren't important to them.I may be young,but I cannot love anymore.I'm empty and trust me better to be empty than to love.It hurts less,because there is no cure for a broken heart

Basically true "vampiric" love so to speak binds you 100% to a person and letting go is more painful than you can possibly imagine

vampric romance can be long and enduring sometimes painful lust situation though vampires never get tired, of lust,

To me, it isn't love at all. It's pure selfishness to gain what one wants at the expense of others.

If the Bible is accurate about love, Dracula (or any such being like him), knows not love.

1 Corinthians 13:4-7
New International Version (NIV)

"4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres."

Many thanks, DeadCityZombie and Sangreas for that point of view. It is interesting to read your take on it.

This is exactly why I pulled in Vampires. Love, as we know it, is a very wide term and covers different kinds of love. However, when it comes to matters of the heart... We lose our heads... And this results in unpleasant consequences for all involved.

Dracula was a blood-thirsty(his thirst for the very essence of a woman), fanged(his choice of weapon) and persistent(perhaps his greatest folly) being. Are these the characteristics that we ought to learn from, from that book? It works on so many levels, if you'd think about it. Dracula was a Master at controlling and reigning in his emotions. He only revealed what he wished to reveal. The Master of Dark Arts. Let's all just put aside our past grievances, hurt and pain. What do you see?

Why is the love of a Vampire considered to be immortal? Does it go right to the very essence of being a Vampire?

I think (in fiction) vampires are written this way because, we all have this hunger for an "immortal," unwavering love. A love that crosses all boundaries and is all encompassing. A love that goes on, even after death.

A love worth killing and or even dying for.

But, it's not always a "lover" that we find this kind of love for/from. As in, a mother/father would easily give their lives for their child. A child might just as easily give their life for their parents. All family members could be included in this. They might not even be blood relation.

"Soul-mates" is another good example of that kind of love. Your soul-mate might not even be someone you have a romantic relationship with.

I have a strong vampyric nature and am quite good at reading emotions and like to investigate and observe

people pick up on my empathic nature subconsciously, often come to trust me quite quickly, feel comfortable confiding in me their deepest and darkest secrets, they let me in their walls, that makes them vulnerable, but it's ok because they trust you, vulnerability and trust are two of the biggest things when connecting with people

I'm used to it, I'll try to help almost anyone who comes to me with problems, but still, those dark, graphic events in life aren't usually something you feel comfortable telling someone right away, mainly I'm there to listen, like a journal that can speak back to say I care and I understand

I can choose whether or not to connect with someone, that's the difference, when we build the connection as a couple the more I'll just know how they are feeling and what's happening with them even when we aren't talking, the stronger and sometimes more painful the pull to the other gets

in general I guess it's just a much deeper level of connection than your average love, it's much harder to break or get rid of so that's why it's liked so much

and soul mates could be an entirely different thread

romantic love in its essence
is a disease and a destructive weapon to oneself and others.
its a weapon in which your worst enemies could only dream of having that kind of power over you.
its rare someone has love for their enemies unless you wish to be some kind of martyr.

a vampires love is indeed never ending.
this is a creature that will wait for hundreds of years
for the reincarnation of their heart
and pursue it with a hell-bent fury unlike anyone could ever imagine.
the so called patient love you read in the bible is for the weak.
no one with common sense should just let your love go and if its meant to be
it will come back
that is such false hope horseshit.
when you really love someone or something
you take on anything and anyone
who gets in your way
when you no longer fight for your heart.
then you no longer care.
which point the love is gone.
that isn't real love
it's what fools and cowards think love is.

love is
pain
sacrifice
and endurance
it last's only as long as your will does.

seeing as vampires are very old creatures
they acquire a iron will over many years of soul searching

its important to them because this is the only warmth
a corpse could possibly feel anymore.

sometimes who and what you love most
will turn against you
becoming a enemy.
it takes a special creature to continue their love after that

some would call it insanity or foolishness.

case and point
most mortals do not have a long while to harp their feelings on someone who doesn't love them back


a vampire generally has a very long time
to figure out a way to win a heart
that would otherwise be considered lost forever

but as a empath
I have tried my hand at love many times.

and with much effort beyond I possibly have words for

it is simply not in the cards for me.
cause I will not live forever

That sounds more like obsession as opposed to love. This was Dracula's downfall. He waited oceans of time to have someone that wasn't his. He killed and destroyed many lives to have what he wanted.

It is pure selfishness to destroy anyone to get what you want.

Love is the ultimate conundrum for the vampire, because we live by taking from others.
Granted, they give willingly, but THEY give because of love.

We take because of need.

Vampires are still quite capable of love, but it does manifest quite differently than the mundane.
Our love is shown through behaviors that others deem co-dependent.
We NEED another, and that whom we need we also protect, often seemingly out of jealous rage.

Dracula is an excellent representation of this. His version of love is easily seen as unhealthy obsession.
But how can one who requires the life force of another display love without it being somewhat dysfunctional?

So that leaves me with the very first reply to this question.

Love is pain for the vampire. Plain and simple.

It is the pain of knowing that we can never truly love without need.

Interesting to note what has been mentioned above. Dracula, to me, was basically a very masculine novel. It seems to always border on dysfunction when it comes to vampires. The "excess" of it all. Even in Dracula, it was said as such: "It seemed as if the whole awful creature were simply gorged with blood; he lay like a filthy leech, exhausted with his replention." How romantic is that! Yes, I think that the very notion of being a Vampire entails some dysfunction as there always has to be that need to feed.

True,but then again in Stoker's time all supernatural beings were considered monstrous

love is indefinable as its connected to the infinate.a true couple will become one person eventually beyond the end of time

Those of you who know my profile and the historical research into Slavic Vampire origins summarized there will hopefully recall that, in actuality, the Slavic Vampire was not only in possession of a deeply romantic nature but, in fact, possessed far superior romantic capacity in all areas than do all other Human males.... which was exactly why the Vampire was so falsely vilified and literally demonized by all such normal ("mundane") males.

As evidenced in many of the entries in this thread alone, normal males frequently misunderstand romantic love due to the great difference between them and females, whose romantic capacities far exceed those of such males. Thus, the two sexes have been at such odds for millennia. The Slavic Vampire, the actual historical bloodline so misrepresented and maligned in Western fictions, represents the more-modern term defining the original bloodline of the descendants of those similarly demonized as the "Fallen Angels," who... like their male descendants... were superior in all aspects of romantic love to their normal male counterparts and, for that reason, attracted women to them and "...took them wives of all they chose" and sired the very children who were originally and correctly praised in Genesis 6:1-4 as "...the mighty men as of old, men of renown." Only later were they slandered as being bloodthirsty gigantic cannibals and then... millennia after that... as blood-sucking "vampires." Only by such tactics were normal men able to justify hunting these descendants down and slaughtering them, as stated in the Bible and other Semitic accounts of that age, just as they later did when Christianity (another religion based on Semitic misogynist philosophy) arrived in Slavic lands.

The historical reality, however, is that wherever and whenever this Watcher-descended male bloodline is found anywhere in history, we find evidence of their superior romantic love in all its aspects, most notably and demonstrably in their sensual and sexual (multiorgasmic) capacity that fully equals that of Human females. This also fully explains why women have always been attracted to them... first, for them empathetic and deeply romantic natures and, secondly, for their equally unlimited sensual/sexual capacities, as well.

Not surprisingly, this also fully explains why normal males have hated this unique male bloodline for all these millennia and why certain key religions have sought to demonize any and all such sensual/sexual superiority as females naturally possess (beginning with the Garden of Eden account onward) and has so successfully demonized females as a gender for possessing this same unlimited sensual/sexual capacity, as well.

This is the single most identifiable characteristic of the actual Slavic "Vampire" and why he has been so demonized by Christianity ... so as to excuse their destruction while, hopefully, scaring females away from him at the same time. And... this campaign of demonization and terror has worked so well that who and what the Slavic Vampire actually was and still is has all but disappeared from modern definitions.

...Beautiful thread. The Love of a Vampire is unconditional. The Feelings and emotions are always deep within the Heart, the Soul and The mind. We always look for that soul-mate, who will be inducted into our clan, to be part for an eternity.

I'm developing a taste in energy and someone with the energy I like doesn't always have a personality to match, like I know my mate has a mixture of brown and red in their aura, my ex has a mixture very similar, I hate almost everything about her but I still love her

personally I'm drawn to the good feed and can't help but become attached to that person and confusing lust and love, whether it's just the feed and desire for sex that draws me in or if I actually like that person for who they are

interesting what you say about males and their sexual abilities as vampires, unless they have some damn good endurance or awesome energy I'll pass and take their sister instead

there is also the empathy that draws people in and allows for a blind trust

today a random internet stranger I met through a facebook page who's only spoken to me once through facebook comments chose to confide in me about his best friend committing suicide, yesterday it was another random stranger, we met the same way, she confided in me of all people about breaking up with her ex who she thought was going to kill himself

they have other friends, the first one even has a girlfriend, but they chose me of all people

KurlyQ... I agree. Given how limited males are emotionally, spiritually and sexually, as well as how violent males have always been... and with so much of that violence directed against females... were I female I, too, would be a lesbian. Frankly, it astounds me more females aren't lesbians.

Only actual Vampires... as described in the original Slavic accounts... are males fully equal in all with females.

As much as I hate to admit it,Upir is right.Almost every male and especially younger ones are just not there.We take and cannot give(both emotionally and sexually).I think that when a woman leaves you,it's not because of you in particular,it's just because men really are childish.We refuse to embrace the female part of us,the giving,joyful and sensous part.Instead most of us behave in our own self interests.An associate of mine who is older than me by about 5 years has a daughter,but he loves her because she's his.
Her mother seems irrelevant in his point of view.He's not sexist,just a very rooted person and well he's the perfect example of why males and females can't really understand one another

men on average are buzz kills for me unless I've trained them to go for hours or they've had lots of sex

I couldn't care less what body part someone has below their belt but in general I'm attracted to those with out the bulge, it's their emotional complex that I works much better with me, women are generally more expressive and romantic, and who else knows what a woman wants but another woman?

I lasted about 10 months at a distance with a girl that I spent a week with at camp, at my age that's pretty damn impressive and I don't think it would have lasted nearly as long with a guy

we also still talk once in a while, she's the one on my profile

In order to love or be loved you have to love yourself. Love is give and take and not trying to change someone to whom you want. Love is a want not a need a person in your life. If you love yourself and that other person loves you for who you are that is the person you want in your life. Love is not agruing but discussing things, love is not calling each other names or flirting with someone else.

Love is not afraid to show it to others without fear of causing drama to those who dislike the other person.

Love for vampire mates.

1.Respect as to what they are.

2.unconditional love.

3.The bonding of the spirit or of energies.
Possibly in some species,bonding threw blood.

4.Knowing ones pains,sorrow,fears,and emotions
that had bounded them from being very much
alone.

5.Lust. There is ALOT of it between each-other,
more then any human lust.It even lurks and burn
within your dreams,and inside of your mind and
threw the blood.

6.Any aggressiveness the other or both have will
Turn right away,into territorial rights over there
sex and love.And will have a feeling to KILL anyone
who gets in that way of it.

7.Hunting and feeding togeather,
becomes a game,and the feeling of respect and love
makes it more enjoyable...then ever doing it
alone.

8.The best part,is knowing how to please each other.
Like a male bird,to display its color or feathers,
to strut around and bare gifts.
The mates will do the same in what they can do,
and what they know what turn each other on.
even if it's just to impress,then to mate.

I know I'm new here but opinion is that as love but it's always hard to watch the things you love die around you. So vampiric love is lonely and very one sided.. But the vampires have that lonely image that makes others relate and feel like mybe they don't have to be alone and they could ease the vampires suffering. So that's what I've seen of vampire romance and read of it.

Wow, I can't believe how sexist this is. Some of us have been fighting for the equality of men and women all our lives, and I find that males everywhere think that debasing their gender, is some sort of apology. Men are violent to women, men are rapists, men are agressors; these are not masculine traits, they are traits of foulness of the spirit. Males and females need to stop perpetuating this stereotype if they want to progress. Women who assume these behaviors to seek equality are misguided. How can love exist in this condition?

In my opinion, love is the ability to perceive with clarity. In the light of pure love the first truth is seen, we are all perfect. The story of adam and eve is an illustration of the loss of love through knowledge, their enhanced peception overwhelmed the simple truth, and it is a mighty hard thing to regain.

The pureness of falling in love, when everything another does is perfection to you, is love... that annoying feature, is the fruit of the tree of knowledge.

Kg... Frankly, your entry so well illustrates what I stated earlier: men's emotional capacities are limited, far below that of females. You define love as "...The pureness of falling in love, when everything another does is perfection..." And blame knowledge as the destroyer of that "pureness of love," attempting to use the Adam and Eve story as example of this.

What you fail to realize is that what you are describing is not love, at all. What you are describing is... infatuation.

Were you a teenager, this would be called a "crush," and is the initial an immature emotional fixation that develops when someone is initially drawn to another person and, as a result, finds their body and mind awash in sexual attraction hormones and their corresponding surface-level "romantic" emotions... while completely lacking any real knowledge of that person, the object of their affection. A similar reaction is what one finds experienced by celebrity stalkers who similarly delude themselves into thinking that, despite their ignorance of who and what the focus of their fixation really is, creates the fiction that they KNOW that person and love the person... right up to the point they prove they do by reacting violently and/or killing that "loved" one (also so often seen in male reactions to the women they claim they "love").

For you, as per your words, Love is all about "falling in love" in which what the other person does seems "perfection." This is the textbook example of a fixation based on infatuation. This is not ... Love.

Love is knowledge of who and what that person is... the good, the bad and the "ugly," and loving that person because of, and in some cases despite, those imperfections. The reality is that no one is perfect. Thus, to view anyone and their appearance, their actions, etc., as "perfection" implies delusion as no such exists in reality.

It is particularly telling that in your rant, you further proved my point by failing completely to mention the deeper stages of a relationship when KNOWLEDGE supersedes and actually replaces that initial fantasy of perfection... which is when REAL Love begins... and childish fantasy and infatuation ends. Yet for you, apparently, this deeper stage never occurs because, as per you, such knowledge (as in your Adam and Eve example) destroys that infatuation that you have falsely equated with "love." This is entirely the opposite of what Love does and is.

The point is... these common male misunderstandings actually serve to prove my point of the very near-universal male emotional inadequacies and inferiorities of which I spoke. Your very words mirror the age-old "love-'em-and-leave-'em" attitude seen in most males where, after that infatuation has run its course and, usually, the male has fulfilled his biological mandate of having sex with the female... he finds his "love" (i.e., infatuation) has faded away along with his sexual desire and need for sexual conquest... and he moves on to some other object of his "love"... some new female to whom he finds himself attracted and to whom he again declares his "love" so as to repeat this procedure yet again... until that "love" (infatuation) is either fulfilled or, if the woman is smart, rebuffed... and he's off to another female again declaring new "eternal" love (infatuation)... and on and on and on it goes.

And to then further state that... "Women who assume these behaviors to seek equality are misguided" reveals an astounding lack of understanding of what women seek. The LAST thing women want is to be "equal" with men in such limited understandings of life and love; quite the opposite, in fact.

No, I was describing agape. Overcoming bias should have been self evident after the innocence stage. Love is the ability to see without judgement. You see that a person has a crooked nose, or a tendancy toward polyamoury, and you do not judge them by your ethics, nor even by theirs.

I concidered tbis initial stage of falling in love to be infatuation at first, and realized that it is not, although it is easily converted to such if a person is self centered, oblivious, inexperienced or fantasizing.

Like all things, you have an innocent stage, a corrupt stage, and a purified stage.

The term "Agape" is the Greek word for brotherly love (not romantic), which term became the Christian model of unconditional love between Christians as found in the scripture, "love thy neighbor as thyself." This is not romantic love, the topic of this thread, and has absolutely nothing to do with falling in love or the stages of love, beyond that. Thus... no... this is not at all what you were describing then or now.


a·ga·pe 2 (ä-gä′pā, ä′gə-pā′)
n.
1. Christianity Love as revealed in Jesus, seen as spiritual and selfless and a model for humanity.
2. Love that is spiritual, not sexual, in its nature.
3. Christianity In the early Christian Church, the love feast accompanied by Eucharistic celebration.
[Greek agapē, love.]

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/agape

I hope I am not barging in on anything here.

Agape has an altruistic connotation: to have a certain affection for all. However, Romantic Love is "dirtier". Especially from a Vampire's perspective. Emotions, rationalisation, straight-thinking all fly out the window. The only thing that remains is the one objective to attain that love; be it male or female. It.is that undeniable need. Learned Upir, you speak of the vast capacities of the traditional Vampire, and I get what you are trying to say. Being beyond mortal, that kind of Vampire would reasonably be expected to exhibit beyond-mortal capabilities, usually when it involves the sexes. To me, a Vampire is a very mellow creature. It should revel in the dark Emotions, but escape unscathed. Where does this Romantic Love fit into the picture, is the question.

Well, I quite disagree that love should be cheapened to the act of lust, or we would not have the word to differentate the two. Lust is the base physical form of attraction, which in it's purest form could use the exact same definition as gravity: the attraction of two physical bodies. Agape is the purest form of love, with its lowest form being innocent love as I was describing.
Lust, in it's lowest form shows no concideration for the object of attraction, and is rape, or at least covetous.
Romance, is the act of lust and love, so if there is no concideration for the partner, it cannot be called love or romance, except in the delusion of the mind.
Passionate is a synonym with covetous, it is self gratifying even in the pretense of satisfying the partner. It is an attachment.

Passion epitomizes the vampire, but lets not mistake it for love.

Love has the character, that when detached is pure, like agape. Lust, when detached is villainy. Passion is attachment and can be ascribed to both, but is not the perfect blend of them.

Obviously, I'm an idealist; either that or I am looking for a way of justifying my lust.

If I recall correctly, Upir's vampires are neither traditional nor immortal. Usually he means that they are the origin of the myth, the kernel of it. They were sexually equal or superior to women, and had insatiable capacity or stamina. It's been three years since I was last on vr, but I think that is the gist. I notice he doesn't "rant" a about it anymore, but simply refers people to his page.

Rereading agape, I notice that agape is one of four greek words for love. The greeks did not have a word for love that meant brotherly. Agape is unconditional love; eros is sexual; storge, is affection for family; and philia which is mental love like that aquired through stress bonds.

cs lewis appropriated the word and uses it to discribe how Christians should love.

Unconditional love is, I think what most of us mean, or want to mean, when anyone says, " I love you."

Thank you for your entry, Lordess... and you emphasize my point re: "Agape," exactly. It refers to the unconditional love that Christianity enfranchised as the "brotherly love" they felt was epitomized by Jesus... not the romantic and/or erotic love that is the focus of your topic, here.

Kg is correct, however, in stating that my research has revealed that the actual Slavic Vampire of history, unlike the fictions upon which the "traditional" vampire as commonly viewed today, was/is a quite-mortal race of unique males who were/are emotionally, spiritually... and last but hardly least... sexually equal with females.

However, from there the differences between his and my points of view head off in opposite directions. Well... at least they did until his latest entries here that has his position revised by quite a bit.

The romantic nature of the real Vampire... the actual documented Slavic Vampire of history... has nothing whatsoever to do with predatory natures, with blood-drinking, with immortality, with viewing their love interests as "prey"... or any other of the fictional depictions created as based on the false demonizations of that real Vampire.

As well documented at my profile with the primary-source evidences and hyperlinks to almost all such provided there (you are wrong here as well, Kg... I have never changed my views here as the evidences have only continued to verify those conclusions), the real Slavic Vampire was indeed a "sexually insatiable" male being capable of the same degree of unlimited orgasmic capacity as possessed by females. Thus, this is the source of the fascination women have always had for them... as well as the source of the hatred against them by all men and the Church they created to demonize sexuality and ... by that extension ... women, as well.

However, the romantic nature of the Vampire is NOT primarily erotic any more than a multiorgasmic woman's romantic nature is based primarily on her unlimited orgasmic capacity.

As with females... the real Slavic Vampire is just as deeply and emotionally/spiritually romantic by nature as are females. Thus, the real Vampire's romantic capacity in the emotional and spiritual MATCHES his erotic capacity... just as all such do, also, in females. Vampires are DEEPLY romantic and devoted to their wives (rarely does a Vampire wish anything other than a lifelong relationship because of his highly elevated romantic nature). This is why women adored the Slavic Vampire while Christian men hated them, just as they hated female sexuality, as well, and condemned women for possessing such, too... and for the same reason in both cases.

This deeply romantic and sexual nature, matching both possessed in females as well, was first documented in Genesis 6:1-4 in which we read of the original male race of those similarly demonized as "Fallen Angels" descended from the skies and married Human females, their true equals, by whom they raised families... until they were later demonized and their descendants similarly hunted to near extinction just as their far-later descendants called "Vampires" were hunted in Slavic lands... and for the exact same reasons.

This is a very very deep topic and one especially dear to my heart for very personal reasons. Hopefully, this provides a basic overview of the topic as regards the real Slavic Vampire of History.

Simply, Vampyre Love is to consume all that one is until you both become the same.

Man i gotta tell this to you Upir.
When I first met you I misjudged you. I thought you were a smug sanctimonious blowhard and you are, but I left out thoughtful, highly intelligent, diligent and you can almost make condescending sound like you care.

I kid.

You have earned my respect. I never said anything bad, but I thought it and I owe you an apology.

You are truly the man and the more i research this the more you are right on the money.
I actually think I was a bit worried your were smarter than me.

i don't usually talk a lot, but I want you to know that.
you don't get enough credit for your work you put in here.

Thanks.

I apologize, YTM, if I have given the initial impression you mentioned. I am aware from others' previous comments both public and private that such a view of me is not uncommon here. I don't resort to profanity or ad hominem attacks but will most certainly point out perceived errors as they occur and appreciate it if the same is done of my errors when such occur. Only in that attitude, the same as enshrined in the Scientific Method, can truth ultimately triumph over belief and vanity... which because of the latter two, so seldom gets the chance! I try to speak not of myself but of the issues at hand, I don't socialize much here and I tend to use more academic language so as to speak more clearly and succinctly on the topic... which is an important trait learned in technical and scientific writing, which background I possess. And, somehow, this seems to offend many here and causes them to view me as... "a smug sanctimonious blowhard." I know you were kinda kidding when you said that, but it's not far from how some here have come to view me.

So thank you so much for all you said, thereafter. I'm glad at least a few there are who DO get me and appreciate the now-two decades' research I have conducted on this topic... many of the more recent discoveries my wife has sworn me to not reveal but to save for the book I'm preparing. So while I skirt some of these deeper topics in my journal, that's a far as I will get here.


Returning to the topic of Vampire Romance, however, there is an apparent continuing misunderstanding obliquely (and sometimes more directly) mentioned by a few in this thread as regards what I have discovered to be the singular sexual uniqueness exhibited by the actual Slavic Vampire of history I wish to try to better express and that bears directly and specifically to this topic: That misconception being that the Vampire of history is strictly defined ONLY by his natural near-limitless multiorgasmic capacity.

As emotional and spiritual depth, wisdom and capacity cannot be empirically evidenced, measured or otherwise documented... then to define the Vampire by such nebulous terms and entirely unobservable claimed characteristics would make impossible such a task. So much of the above would also correctly be viewed as entirely subjective, which is correct, of course; such assessment of the emotional and spiritual IS entirely subjective! And so it would have been anciently, as well.

However, not so with a uniquely superior sexual capacity.

It was in the story of Adam and Eve that we first saw the woman subjected to a degree of vilification, marking with the same brush ALL of Eve's gender as inferior due to her (as representative of all females) supposed inability to resist temptation for the "forbidden fruit" (a long-acknowledged euphemistic metaphor for sex) due to the female's naturally unlimited orgasmic capacity that marks her as unique from males in that manner so specifically depicted in the Garden of Eden story. Forgotten and unmentioned is the female's emotional and spiritual superiority, as this cannot be so easily observed and identified.

And the same with the unique male bloodline of the BeneHaElohim (Genesis 6:2) who descended from the skies, married Human females and by them raised loving families. Their uniquely insatiable sexuality was what caused them, like Eve, to be considered cursed and evil. Though unlike Eve, they could be slaughtered and their children with them without endangering the Human race originally here. Obviously, were all women likewise targeted and slaughtered, the Human species would quickly become extinct. So women were considered a necessity, though one that must be subjugated and ruled over... and that is exactly as the Bible depicts them. However, the descendants of the BeneHaElohim (Sons of God) were viewed as an entirely expendable "evil," and that is how they were demonized and portrayed then... and still are today.

The last such to be slaughtered... though he was a first-generation Son of God rather than a distant descendant as were others... was Jesus (Yeshua), himself... whose emotional and spiritual superiority were clearly evidenced in his lifetime as also was his championing of women as equals, which they were... as he also was with them. And his uniquely female-equal sexual capacity is also historically evidenced as found in the anti-Gnostic Gospels of Thomas and Philip.

And it is in those anti-Gnostic Gospels that you will find the historical evidence of the True Romance of the Historical Vampire exemplified in what the historical Jesus called "The Sacrament of the Bridal Chamber" and that matches exactly the King-making male (and female) multiorgasmic "Hieros Gamos" Rite of ancient Sumer.

The point of this post, however, is to try to point out that while the physical sexual characteristic unique to the actual Slavic Vampire of history that identifies him as an actual bloodline descendant of the original "Sons of God" (Genesis 6:1-4) is his natural limitless multiorgasmic capacity... yet it is his equally limitless emotional and spiritual capacity (as exemplified by Jesus in his teachings... and not the bastardized version of same found later in those claiming to have started a religion based on such) for which he is just as specifically defined.

In fact... perhaps it is that limitless emotional and spiritual depth that is the actual CAUSE of and REASON for his natural multiorgasmic capacity... as also it might be for females, as well.

Perhaps... just perhaps... THIS is what Jesus attempted to teach "mundane" males, as all of his teachings were geared ENTIRELY to males, not females. And for this... he was murdered.

As I said before... this is a very very deep topic!

I'd buy your book if it was made available, or as a kickstarter.

romance review 1.0

romance is something I feel as a trait. you either have it or you don't, however, I also feel romance can be self taught. it just takes communication with your partner, or seeing some scenes in a movie or book just put your spin on it to give it your signature. I wonder could romance be as universal as love?

I feel as though I love harder and more unconditionally then others because being so different it is harder for us to have people love us in return. I hope others understand what I am saying here.. or trying to say here LOL!

Rephrasing Upir`s idea(please forgive me if I have in any way changed it)

The ability to relate and give as much as you get emotionally is the true characteristic of a ``true vampiric male``
Women are all born with this ability,but men must learn it

Sangreas... you're certainly headed in the right direction. :)

Ordinarily I would leave it at that. However as you appeared to be attempting to summarize my position, I wish to amend your summation by stating that the actual Vampire is born equal with females in all such areas (sexually [multiorgasmically]/emotionally/spiritually); it is not learned. It is this foundational difference at the genetic level that separates him so fundamentally from other males and also makes it so easy for his uniqueness to be isolated from other males, identified for what he is, and then targeted for slaughter as all of the Rephaim bloodline have been throughout history.

True... if my theory is correct then there was at least one such male who attempted to teach males this equality (i.e., the historical Jesus), yet it did no good at all and it only permitted him to be more easily identified for who he was and likewise targeted for slaughter. Thus, I doubt the degree to which normal males can somehow "learn" what might simply be beyond them. I hope I'm wrong... but Human history argues pretty strongly, otherwise.

Thanks for your entry ... and I hope you are right.

I probably shouldn't do this... but to provide a bit more information into Jesus' actual sexuality, I shall share one of the verses found in the aforementioned anti-Gnostic Gospel of Thomas.

Let's examine one of the most controversial verses from that Gospel, which Gospel actually predates the earliest New Testament Gospel of Mark:

Verse 61b:

"Salome says: Who art thou, man? As if (sent) by someone, thou laid upon my bed and thou ate of my table. Yeshua (Jesus) says to her: I-Am he who is from equality. To me have been given the things of my Father. || (Salome says:) I am thy Disciple."

http://www.metalog.org/files/thomas.html


This is controversial because here we have a pre-Mark account of Jesus (Yeshua) as apparently sexually active with one of the women mentioned in the Biblical Gospels as having been at his crucifixion and was one of his original disciples, Salome. While Christians have tried to minimize this verse by claiming that the word "bed" used refers instead to a common Roman eating divan/sofa, yet the word is exactly as stated: the bed you sleep on and, yes, would have sex in (http://www.metalog.org/files/thomas.html#Bed). This specifically excludes this term from meaning a divan or sofa or bench, as Christians have attempted to allege.

Thus... Salome is stating here that Jesus laid on her bed (actually, the verb used here is "mounted" and, therefore, further distances the meaning away from him merely sleeping, therein). Additionally, it was her own bed and not a guest bed. The implied meaning here is as obvious and undeniable as it would have been at the time it was written.

And for Christians, this is as far as the controversy goes. However in hyper-focusing on the "shocking" view of Jesus as a fully sexual being, they surprisingly have overlooked and ignored the far-more intriguing aspect of this verse... which is this: Why was Salome so apparently surprised after having sex with Jesus that she would ask, as though in some amazement, who Jesus actually is. Didn't she know who he was? And yet, this verse begins with describing her amazement at him: "Who art thou? As if sent by someone."

While this alone does not reveal the cause of her apparent amazement and/or confusion... yet his answer gives us the key clue: "I am he who is from equality, I have been given the things of my Father." And this answer was sufficient to fully answer her question, explain her amazement and, further, cause her to become entirely devoted to him from that time forward: "I am thy disciple," she replies.

What is going on here?! What caused her strange question and what was meant by his response that he is "from equality" due to what he had received of his Father? Notice that he didn't claim to be the Messiah or a prophet or any such religious or regal title.

While it might seem it would be impossible to unravel this mystery, yet we can isolate certain elements as revealed by the text, itself. First off... we know that Salome's question occurred to her only after having had sex with Jesus, not before. This strongly implies that something about Jesus during her sexual communion with him was what provoked the question in the first place. And the question, itself ("Who art thou?"), further implies that there was something about Jesus' sexuality with her that was... unexpected thus causing her to question who he really was and, further, due to that uniqueness, he must have been sent there by someone.

If this is accurate, then Jesus' reply makes perfect sense... "I am he who is from equality..." He was fully equal with Salome, with all females, as he had exhibited with her during their sexual communion in Salome's bed. And that sexual/emotional/spiritual equality... he had received from his Father. This revealed to her as only such a sexual demonstration could... exactly who and what he REALLY was: a direct descendant of the Rephaim, the bloodline of the Sons of God. That he had received that equality direct from his own Father further revealed to her that he was a literal begotten (first generation) son of one of the actual Sons of God (Genesis 6:2).

This, then, was what prompted her full devotion to him and had her reply as she did: "I am thy disciple."


I have been talking from the very beginning that it is this full equality with females that made the original Sons of God and their descendants so very special and so very unique and so very loved by females, their true equals in all... and prompted the jealousy and hatred that motivated normal men to so bloodthirstily seek their lives and those of their descendants ever after. And here we find Jesus, himself, after sexual communion with a woman so apparently amazed by what that communion revealed that she has to ask who Jesus really is ... stating to her that he is from that equality, given to him by his Father (not learned but as a result of that paternal bloodline).

And finally and lastly... permit me to point out something else somewhat hidden in this same verse: After stating that Jesus had "mounted" her bed, she then says something that at first seems rather strange and anti-climactic (no pun): she says that he "...ate from/of her 'table.'" This seems rather a strange thing to follow the statement on their sexual communion. It is as common anciently as today, when listing things that have happened in the context of the amazement she was evidently experiencing, to list things in order of their importance... from least importance to greatest. Thus, it seems unusual she should start by recounting Jesus having shared her bed... then talk about him eating at her table (?). If it was just a meal, why mention it at all? How does having a meal with her have anything whatsoever to do with her question of who he really was?

As this seems strange, I studied the actual Coptic used here and found something rather amazing. The word for "table" here is the Greek word "trapeza," which means table... yet also means something else and has a specific reference to both the "Fallen Angels" as well as, later, to Vampires.

The word "trapeza" also means... "feast." This is rather similar in some regards to how our English word "table" can mean the same thing, such as in the context of the phrase, "She sets a really good table."

As you might recall, the "fallen angels" were claimed to have "feasted" on Human flesh (as per the deliberate lies told of them in the Book of Enoch and Jubilees). And the term "Upir" (the original word that later became our term "Vampir") means: "one who feasts." So what's the relevance here? The word "feast" also has a very ancient and extant sexual connotation, as well, and referred to sexual "feasting" as having extended sex for a long time rather than a simple meal. Let's recall that the term "orgasm" did not even exist until the early 20th Century CE. And the term multiple orgasm and multiorgasmic didn't exist until decades after that. Thus, it is possible the term being used here is a euphemism for extended sexual communion.

There is precedent for this in original Christianity, as well, in which the original form of worship was called "Agape" in which a "common feast" was enjoyed by the original Christian communities... that was condemned by the Romans for being sexually orgiastic in nature, that the "feasting" involved in these 1st and 2nd Century Christian "meetings" were, in fact, group sexual communions as had been taught them, so they claimed, by Jesus. Beginning in the 3rd Century, the Roman Christian "Fathers" began to issue bans on these "Agape" feasts due to their extremely sexual "feasting." Thus, despite the term's actual meaning as "unconditional love," yet the Agape feast, at the very least, contained a highly and quite literal erotic component.

Now... returning to Verse 61b, when read in the new context of "table" meaning "feast," the verse now takes on new meaning... and far greater specific significance:

"Who art thou... as if sent by someone. You mounted my bed and 'ate' of my feast."

Now the entire sentence is a progressively increasing one of sexual import. He mounted her bed with her and then "feasted" with her... something an ordinary man could not do given the normal male's unavoidable "down time" following one or two orgasms. Yet, apparently, Jesus was able to fully "feast" with her on and on... fully accompanying her on her sexual feast, fully with her sexually, emotionally and spiritually... truly as one. And this amazing capacity to fully commune with her as no other man ever had or possibly could... would most certainly have resulted in her amazed question: "Who art thou?..." And this followed by her explanation of the question: "You mounted my bed and 'ate' (participated with me) of my feast..." This apparently referencing his superhuman sexual and perhaps also emotional/spiritual capacity to do so with her.

Hence, his reply: "I am he who is from equality (full equality with females), I was given of the things of my Father." After she then, now fully understanding who and what he really was, declares herself to be his disciple, he then completes the verse by stating, "Thus I say that whenever someone equalizes he shall be filled with light, yet whenever he divides he shall be filled with darkness."

This last pronouncement by Jesus has no parallel anywhere in the Biblical Gospels or in any of their stated doctrines... and is entirely not understood by Christianity. However, this is Jesus explaining in part his true mission: to make equal the sexes again, to be filled with light as a fully potentiated person emotionally, spiritually and sexually... and, thus, finally able to fully unite as one, as truly one flesh, male and female, as has not been possible on this planet since the actual and true Fall of Man that had nothing to do with "Forbidden Fruit" and everything to do with Men's vilification of Women and separating themselves from women by considering her ... so exquisitely ironically ... as inferior.

And therein lies the Ancient Key lost to Humankind ever since of our collective Human happiness and fulfillment as a species... and defines exactly the True Romance of those called "Vampires."

And that's from only a single verse of the Gospel of Thomas.

Told you it was a deep topic. :)

So unless a male is born with these gifts,you can never achieve even a mediocre use of them?

Damn you, I am going to reread the nag hammadi in a new light.

I think that the Son was sexually active, however, I am not sure I believe entirely the direction you take this. The copts do take a mystic bent, so I can see the hidden possibilities in their Apocrypha; however the hidden deepenings are usually of a spiritual nature.

In your quote you have capitalized father, which refers to a singular god, Father. Unless this is a red herring, or a later addition to the coptic as western written tradition.

In my earlier rantyness I was tying to say something similar to what you've said about the equality of men and women, whereas you purport that equality with the line of Upir and women.

I do not believe that men are inherently unequal in love to women, in that sense at least; although I am willing to accept the theory of Upir's line as pioneers.

You have given me more to think about, and I do enjoy thinking about such things.

Upir... maybe you could give me a little feedback about my earlier post? I love your views!

Esteemed Sangreas... It is my view that a man does not have to be born of the bloodline to develop greater emotional and spiritual depth if his core values are honorable and true. A man's emotional and spiritual strength or weakness stream forth and are either potentiated or retarded from that which he values most and to which he dedicates himself above all else. If such values are true and he is guided more by them than his lusts, pride and vanity, then he will achieve his true potentials as a man and his relationships will greatly benefit, therefrom.


Studious Kg... Great points all and deserving of response point by point. You rightly point out that the majority of the Nag Hammadi library is filled with the corruption of later Gnostic mysticism that infiltrated and corrupted the original texts. Key to understand here is that with the sole exception of the Gospels of Thomas and Philip (which two Gospels, unlike all the rest of the texts uncovered at Nag Hammadi, were found bound together side by side in leather apparently acknowledged by their original ancient owners as unique among all the rest and intended to be read and studied together, and treated as companion Gospels) are the only two texts that are NOT Gnostic in nature but, in fact, ... anti-Gnostic. Egyptian Gnosis was a far-later corruption of Christianity after it had been amalgamated into and heavily influenced by Dualist religions originating primarily in Persia. This was not what the historical Jesus taught but was a far later corruption. Unlike these, the Gospel of Thomas and Philip speak contrary to Dualism and Gnostic thought. In particular and as I mentioned earlier, the Gospel of Thomas has been dated to and contains concepts and texts that actually predate the late-First Century Biblical Gospel of Mark and still today is considered a possible Egyptian version of the fabled "Q" (Quelle) Gospel upon which the three Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) are considered by modern Biblical scholarship to have been based.

Thus given the high degree of Dualist (Gnostic) corruption found in the other Nag Hammadi documents that were written hundreds of years after Thomas, if you wish to try to study what is the closest to what the historical Jesus actually taught... I would highly recommend confining your study to the original pre-Gnostic Gospels of Thomas and Philip, only.

The best translations of both key Gospels I have yet found are here: www.metalog.org. I highly recommend these!

And finally, dear Kg, perhaps the historical Yeshua (Jesus) was on the right track in his apparent conviction that men could learn or perhaps develop as-yet untapped sexual/emotional/spiritual potentials within. When you read Thomas and Philip, you will see exactly how much this was considered reachable by the real Yeshua. When additionally viewed in light of what is called the "Secret Gospel of Mark," this view by him of this possibility where the sexual is concerned is made even more potentially self evident.


Dear SDW... I did not reply to your entry because I am not sure what you meant by the difference you reference. There are many here who (I shall speak frankly) delude themselves into believing they are unique and different because they are "sanguinary" and/or "psi" to degrees that mark them as unique from others... and by such claimed traits call themselves "vampires." This is both vain and inaccurate (the latter as vampires never were nor are sanguinary). It is vanity and shallowness that compels all such to seek to be viewed by others as "unique" rather than seeking that which is uniquely honorable within themselves and developing that so as to recognize and pursue paths of greater light and knowledge only visible to those who have first so developed themselves, instead. Thus, when you speak of being different as are others here and that, as a result, the ability of others to love those such as yourself is made more difficult, I do not understand. Real uniqueness, being internal and the result of self development and the discoveries of greater knowledge and understanding that inevitably result... makes such persons far easier to be loved and respected... and not more difficult. Those difficult to love tend to be those who are too self-absorbed to come to know and love those around them.

And having the sexual capacity to be multiorgasmic, in and of itself, does not automatically grant one the spiritual and emotional maturity to use such honorably and to one's emotional and spiritual benefit. That comes, yet again and as I mentioned above to Sangreas, from a man's or woman's core values if such be properly placed and esteemed and followed.

Upir,

do you believe that "your" version of the vampire is exclusively male? Or are all women vampires in that sense?

Kg... great question! And by the way you phrased your entry, I think you've rather figured out its answer. If my research is accurate, then the short answer to the question is an unqualified "yes."

When examined, all historical vampires as recorded by all original Slavic accounts... are male. And yet, you are also correct that if identified primarily by their capacity for "insatiable sexuality," then all females are in that sense "vampires," too.

However, females are not called nor were considered "vampires" because since the dawn of Human history, it has been known and well recorded worldwide that all females possess this natural sexual capacity and potential. Thus, there is nothing "supernatural" or particularly unusual in this that would have required a different term for a subset of them. They were all females... and that's just how females are or at least have the potential to be everywhere in the world!

Males, on the other hand, do not and never have had this natural capacity, regardless of race, bloodline, culture or religion... anywhere in the world. Thus, upon encountering such a unique male group or bloodline so unlike all other males, and more importantly a group whom females found more attractive because of it (again... I'm not just referring to their sexual equality but, more importantly to females, their greater emotional and spiritual capacities), it is understandable if not inevitable that a name would be invented to differentiate between all normal males and this strange new group of males. And we find this is exactly what happened.

In the 11th Century Christian Russian text, "Word of Saint Gregoriy", it states that prior to the advent in Eastern Slavic lands of Christianity (which began in the 10th Century CE), the Slavs worshiped "upyri." (This is the plural form of "upyr," which is the original word that later became the modern word "vampir/vampyr.")

This proves beyond any doubt that prior to Christianity and its demonization of sexuality, vampires were not considered evil or dangerous at all, but were, in fact, highly revered and even worshiped. And further, for a time even after Christianity arrived they were not considered evil given that in 1047 CE, we find an Eastern Orthodox Christian priest, a highly educated man and an apparent confidante of Prince Vladimir Yaroslavich, actually calling himself "Father Vampire" (Popa Upir), thus proudly announcing to all that he, as a Christian priest, was also a vampire. And apparently there was no contradiction or indication of heresy in so proclaiming himself.

However from here, things changed down through the centuries as Christianity grew to dominate and, finally, to rule all Slavic lands as Christianity has always done once it consolidates all secular power, as well, to itself. And once this occurred, it was easily able to force its misogynist (anti-female) and anti-sex philosophy on all Slavic lands... which required that those same Vampires previously held in such high regard and worshiped be demonized and destroyed. Hence began the lies told of upyri to accomplish this... lies of them as undead corpses who doomed to Hell any woman who had sex with them. Perhaps because even this did not sufficiently dissuade women from them, later began the additional lie that they drank the blood of the living (we know for a fact the blood-drinking trait did not exist prior to the about end of the 17th Century, which was about 600 years after 'Father Vampire.' So if vampires weren't even reported to be drinking blood until 600 years after that, then obviously vampires were NEVER originally named for anything to do with drinking blood).

However, as they could not demonize women like this to the point of killing them given that men desire women and need women for procreation, instead they made them spiritually inferior (as the Bible portrays them) and subjugated their sexuality beneath male authority. However, women did not escape unscathed in Western Europe during this same time period.

In Western Europe, the Church's anti-sex and, therefore, anti-female frenzy against multiorgasmic capacity grew to such insane proportions that women were ALSO demonized for possessing this same "insatiable" capacity that they were actually demonized by a different term and very similarly hunted down and slaughtered. That term was: Witch!

The Burning Times in Western Europe whipped people into such a frenzy that it is reported that in some German towns and cities, no female was left alive; ALL of them had been rounded up, tortured and then brutally murdered. And why?!

The REAL reason for the such wholesale slaughter of females is very specifically and undeniably recorded in the very book used in all such Witch trials by which females (women and girls) were identified as witches and murdered as such. That book, written by two Dominican priests of the Roman Catholic Church, was and is known today as the "Malleus Maleficarum" ("The Witches' Hammer"). And while today we have been led to believe that witches were targeted for any of a variety of claimed crimes including casting spells and otherwise performing "witchcraft," and while later examinations have attempted to explain all of this as, instead, indictment of women for being educated or practicing medicine that somehow threatened males of that time... yet all of this is absolutely untrue, historically.

The REAL reason women were targeted and slaughtered as a gender was specifically stated in Question Six of the Malleus Maleficarum:

"All witchcraft comes from carnal lust, which is in women insatiable."


And there it is... the real reason why women were called "witches." And it is for the exact same reason why this unique bloodline of males was (and is) called "Vampires."


Thus... we have now come full circle back to your two questions, Kg. And while the short answer to both is "yes," yet history provides such a more complete understanding why that is. :)

vampyric love as all else will be so different that definition in a clear sence becomes obscures in the wake of personal experience and definition

I don't know how y'all fell about the dominant/submissive aspect of the occult and romance.

They are one in the same really because they reflect the natural order of male and female relations. No matter how alpha a woman tries to be be in game play, they want to be dominated. Unless the guy is a pussy and then it takes a turn toward humiliation.

People can fuck watermelons for all I care, this is about the mystical female and male connection seen in time immemorial.
The reason I am so interested in your research upir is because in Luciferian sex majick the ultimate release and completion of the spell is based on the delay of orgasm rather than multiple orgasms, because the point is to focus intent in to that one moment and use the male flluid of life to consecrate the spell.
Men and women together are life, the son and the moon.

Together they are God.

This is seen everywhere and everywhen, and hey, call me a misogynisist.... But I like a woman with curves who is a woman.
Power does not attract me. Soft. Feminine. Caring. hyper intelligent and sexual dynamite. That is hot.
The blending of male/female androgany is losing this sacred motion of the universe. I cant' understand it.

If you think this is the thought of a bigot then you totally miss the point. This is why each and every one of you are here.
Because a woman and man became one and produced you.

Hi YTM... Sounds like you've been reading a bit of the Gospel of Thomas and perhaps, in particular, Verse 22 that reads in part:

"...if you establish the male with the female as a single unity so that the man will not act masculine and the woman not act feminine... ... —then shall you enter [the Sovereignty]."

It's easy to conclude that what is being promoted here is androgyny. However, as the verb used is "act" and not "be" (or other comparably synonymous verb), it appears more probable that Yeshua is speaking of the damaging ways that males can act (e.g., what we might call "Neanderthalish" behavior) and the damaging ways that females can act (e.g., allowing their subjective emotional responses to rule over objective rationality) so that empathy and common ground are found and nurtured together... by valuing and learning from one another. Only then can the two begin the journey together that results in their ultimately becoming a "single unity."

I feel that bdsm is about trust, same with bloodplay. When it comes right down to it, the sub is actually the one with the power, at least in healthy relationships.

@Kglitterous....
Agreed.

But there are some real sadistic fucks who see it as easy pickings.

The historical male/female dynamic was one of dominant and submissive.
We only hear about the horror stories, but judging by the fact that thd BDSM has exploded... I would gander that this innate need will rear its head no matter what. It's because when done with love, it feels right.

Nothing is more in control than a true alpha male.

And If I am his beta, then I am gonna watch and learn because that is the only smart thing to do. Fucking duh!

Kg & YTM ... I shall not take issue with either of your most recent posts, of course, given that such are your views and I certainly respect that. However given our prior compatible responses to one another here, I do wish to make clear that your latest views are very different from and rather opposite to those I have forwarded here.

This is not meant as criticism, of course, but only as clarification to others here.

Upir- I really do like your ideas, and where we differ, is that I do not see the male female dichotomy as being androgynous in union, an autosexual love in a sense. I get the feeling you do.

I find the differences pleasurable in a way that there is a fun competition.

The goal of coure, is always samadhi.
Orgasm or no orgasm, it is the same.

But for some it's difficult to see around the almighty nut.
Or "momentary tickle" as referred to by crowley.
I dominate to make her feel safe.
That is no different than equals.

And in fact a a previous poster pointed out, it's really the sub with all the power.

Vampiric love to me is long term
It encompasses your whole being,
It is deep seated and enduring.

It binds you together like no other love could.

This is a subject that I find very interesting but do not know how to respond to because I feel dead inside when it come s to love. I am so different then any one else or so it seems that I can not be loved...

A little about me. Got divorce in 2012. Now I am dating a beautiful soul mate from India. Yeap, She is a full follower of Hinduism and beside our in-comparability, when it come to the terms of religion, we are soul mate. The romance of a Vampire, can be with anyone, as long that love fulfill both.

Vampyes love forever. I suppose that is one thing they got right in the books, and in the movies. It is a deep love like no other. It is something that you feel deep down in your soul.
it is like none other.
TO me it is something that draws you in and doesn't let go.
You are bonded to one another forever.
Perhaps it is where the term soul mates come from.
I say this even though I am single, and have not met my true love.
Yet I know that vampiric love has a draw to it, a calling you might even say
where one soul calls the other.
Vampires love forever.

It seems that romance is not around much anymore Although Vampires and demons are very romantic

Humans, (Which we are all, but some of us descend from higher realms spiritually) tend to not know what love is, nor how to transmit it.
Love is a powerful emotion, only when true and from the heart.

Those humans with vampiric descent, (Vampires) live life awaiting their one true love.
They can have a thousand lovers, but when their eyes have crossed with the soul of a woman they believe to be their soulmate, that is it. And so the dance begins.

Vampires are Masters of Seduction, it is impossible to say no.
You fall captive to their spell, and you are then lost.

agrees with thedarklady we are higher power when it comes too vampirism and the lust is very erotic

I believe that love is one of the most elaborate workings of self harm. That being said, a vampiric love binds you completely to another person. Which is romantic. But it also makes that love twice as painful when/if it ends or when there are problems that pose themselves in a relationship. Vampiric love is tragically beautiful.

But that also poses another question. Vampires are children of the night/underworld, can they even afford to love?

An overwhelming need and desire to reconnect with the singlemost important part of their lost humanity, the ability to love unconditionally and eternally.

I know I'm looking for romance my self, and I hope to find it soon, but isn't everyone from all walks of life? I guess it's something that one says we all have, and all have need for. so what I'm asking is can romance be called an emotion?

Love/affection is the emotion romance is the application of love, and affection. Today people seem to have forsaken courtship.

immortal romance is always lustful has been for years. and if you watched allot of vampire movies you would know,

From what i have seen in some above posts, there are people who are mistaking love as a cause of pain. This is where i must correct the issue.

If love causes one pain, did not understand love at all.
Love is what makes one feel good. It gives you life and light in a dark world. It is what most of us desire and need and want to obtain as a constant. It is in essence, a universal creative force that is harnessed within those of us who understands love for what it is.

The only thing that causes pain within self is the lack thereof. Whether one leaves or it is taken from you, it is simply the absence you are feeling.

Tending to agree with some of this, empathy is a big part, as are emotions, often confused with the bi-polar types.

My guess, based on 6 years of VR is degrees of a "higher state of conciousness"

Some just read and pull, some can push. Some can do both, some commune on different plains and have almost waking dreams in strange lands. The trick is to hone and try to master any additional abilities.

I think the "powers that be" know something else is going on but are uncertain why or what it is, or indeed what it means.

I agree with what Sangreas said at the beginning of this thread about true vampiric love. I use the word soulmates. Its like when you meet them again, you feel like the warm sun on a spring day, a fire on a cold winters night, like a kid jumping into a freshly raked pile of leaves, and jumping into a cool lake on a hot summer day all at the same time.

to me you look at the person or persons and no you cant live with out them,

An unquenchable desire that is never fulfilled.

Romance, is obviously seen and or felt differently amongst us.

Just in my experience there are romantic people & not romantic people, plain and simple.

What is romantic for someone, may not be romantic for another.

Such is life.

A few immediate things that jump into my mind, in this moment: Intelligence; reckless; rebellious & quirky.

But mostly that escape.

I may be late to the game, but this is a very interesting and thought-provoking questions!

Vampiric love is presented in so many different ways in literature, film, and art. It is eternal; it is dangerous; it is passionate. It is also very sexual, as vamps are known for being sexual creatures. How does one separate the love the stems from the emotions to love that is developed from a simply physical connection?

I personally can't think of one specific way for this question to be answered. There are many answers, I believe. And again, it's a fun topic to ponder!

Many here are desperate for any kind of Love, good or bad.

Many here are damaged.

Many here are empty.

Many here are predatory.

Many here are being watched.

Many here have no idea of what is on the line.

Wisdom is to know yourself, your flaws, your acceptance is the key.

Being in love in like being addicted to something. You need it, you want it, you feel like you may die if you lose it. It's the start and end of everything you were before, there is no way to be in love and to remain who you were before you fell in love.

Vampire love is so much stronger, it's the same thing but a lot of the grey is gone.

A vampire love affair is like being addicted to something that you depend on for survival. Not only do you feel as if you will die if you leave, but perhaps you really will die. The person you were disappears and a new person is born from the ashes. If the love breaks, if the person flees or the relationship ends, you're left with a different personality all together because who you were is dead, who you became is gone, and all that's left is a struggle to remain real.

it's a feeling that regardless how deeply you love, there will always be a sence of dissatisfaction, and perhaps self loathing because your need for blood will always outweigh whatever love you've expressed, and shared.

Many here probably need to look for love elsewhere. Try the local library, a church, a dance hall, a club, a nightclub, the YMCA/YWCA, work, school, etc.

I don't think a vampire's love is any different than human love. People can be selfish with their view of love just as an evil vampire or can be as selfless. I have a hard time seeing how they are different in any way. Love is love. Hate is hate. Greed is greed. Maybe perceptions differ, but it is what it is.

Quite an interesting question. The vampire movies of today would not be very different if we remove the vampire theme and some of the books are just Sandra Brown plus the vampire theme. So the question is essential for the myth and thank you for placing it in the context.


In Stoker`s Dracula, the nostalgia after the lost love was not explicitly related to Mina Harker. This was an add of the XXth century(I`m not sure but I think it was made in Coppola`s movie inspired from a Poe based movie with Vincent Price).


Upir`s point of view is interesting because usually in literature vampire is associated with sex, eventually violent and dreadful sex.The idealized platonic love is as I said more a modern add and it brings the stories closer to Beauty and the Beast kind of relation. The eternal attraction of the opposite.

The vampire love is for me (as for the XIXth century Romanticism if I understood it correctly) more close to an aesthetic category of "uncanny". This is combined (complicated?) with the motifs of "sin"" in the perspective of eternity, not like a desirable state but a perverted unnatural state of existence(at least in the Victorian era).
Of course the parasitism and damnation are quite strange for now-days audience (just imagine a script of Twilight WITH this two components...).

Basically today vampire romance is more about social in-adaptation of a sensitive soul then about damnation and sin of the immortal soul. Twilight and Dracula... an impossible love. Makes me think about US and UK...

I'm wondering if the original poster also, is referring to vampires, as hollywood's vampires are portrayed, or literal HLV, Human Living Vampyre. I'm just curious.

In response to Dragonrouge's mention of my posts here, the love experienced by the historical Vampire was/is neither violent nor platonic. It is, instead, complete: fulfilling together all its varied and multi-dimensional facets in full unity and near-endless expression -- emotional, spiritual, intellectual and sensual/erotic. And it is through the sensual/erotic, taken to heights and depths not possible between females and normal males, that the ultimate fusion of all such is forged... creating One of all involved. This is only possible between two or more Equals... of which such are those unique males of the Annuna bloodline... also called by some "Vampires"... and Human females.

Great post, DR.

Love is a lot of different things it depends on how you perceive it I do think. As a young Vamp myself its been really a struggle for me and meeting those I once held love for and them mating with another and still having feelings for those of my past life. One I half resent and feel he will never fulfill a promise to me even if he did try it will always be broken and he will never have a chance with me in this life or the next... The other its mixed I love him but I am unsure if I would ever want to pursuit more than what it is now. As said I am in a new relationship and building on that. Those memories just never fully leave or can be forgotten

I greatly enjoyed reading the contributions regarding the topic of vampires, love, lust, sex and pain, especially those wonderful recollections of late night chats on this very thing, my dear friend Upir. Well done. ;)

Taking a perspective upon those notes, I would agree with Upir in regards to the potentiality that females have for the multi-orgasmic sexual qualities as only matched in male equality by those sharing that same inherent potential. However, as fully realized my own potential quality may be, I have not been One in the flesh since I started. The down time is a major issue, often starting before anything begins. It is difficult to say the least, to be an equal partner in the bedroom or elsewhere when one inspires such excitability to the point the mind is literally "blown" before 10 minutes is up.

As for dominance/submissive roles within the male/female relationship, I find the female desire for dominance, is the need to command the lust, allure and excitement of the male energy as deferring to the feminine embodiment of unequivocable desire. Hence, Worship my Body as the Goddess I am. Substantially, in the same qualitative thought, being a psychological submissive, there is a deep-seated need for the male to "exceed" my sexuality, not subjugate it. This is and has been as lost as the Ark of the Covenant for women with awareness of their sexual and sensual potentials.

As for Love being the worst pain we inflict upon ourselves, I must digress upon that notion. Healthy love accepts others as we accept ourselves, debilitating flaws and all. No one is perfect and although we might feel that love is selfless, it is in fact selfish to a certain extent. We love because we desire to love the part of ourselves we'd rather not face. When departed from the one person who makes life worth living, we find ourselves alone and in self-loathing because assuredly, there must be Something we did wrong Somewhere to make that person Leave, but hence, the clawing question is simply an intractable fall from our own grace.

As for Vampiric Love, Eternal Love, Passionate Love that Stays throughout the Test of Time, the whole of that ideal in Bram Stoker's Dracula, for me, is the Light of Life breathing back into the Dead Soul....to see, to feel, to touch the beauty of one so Beloved Dear. It is the "second chance" at a love lost that you never expected to have again.

Anything in a novel is the idea of the author and possibly the research they have done. I did a lot of research on this area of writing and most authors in that time period copied each other in style. Much of what is written was in connection to Polidori's short story. Even Stoker was said to be a plagiarist, sometimes word for word. I can't quote where but it's been written about and I have read too many articles to go back and give references. But I read this on a number of occasions.

The one who is attributed with the romanticism in connection to the vampire is not Stoker. His book wasn't even popular when it came out. Even though there were those before like Varney and Camilla, the one that most think of as attributing most to the romantic, gentleman type of vampire was Polidori. "He is known for his associations with the Romantic movement and credited by some as the creator of the vampire genre of fantasy fiction." Polidori's work, Vampyre is not a novel but a short story, although some will say novella but I don't think it's length is long enough to be truly considered a novella. If you want to read it you can read it here:
http://www.freewebs.com/trepessa/vampyre.htm

This was how they were writing about the vampire in the Victorian era and it is purely fictitious. Stoker blended myths of the werewolf and vampire lore together. It is known he spent time perusing Baring-Gould's book on vampire legends. A work of fiction is just that and has no bearing on the mythology of the vampire because the stories can be anything the writer wants; romantic or not at all.

So true, AsphaltTears. Polidori is credited with actually creating the vampire fiction that we are all now familiar with. (I have a tiny bit on him in my profile).
He was active during the actual 'Romantic' age - of Byron and Beethoven's time.
He didn't get his due credit until many years later. His death at a very young age only adds to his mysterious aura.

Love strips us of all we are and forms a bond that creates a weak and vulnerable being that can be taken advantage of because of our needs, physically and emotionally.

Love is something that gets mistaken for other things. However, when you find it it is amazing. And it hurts like nothing you have ever felt when you lose it.

Damn, Doru...love can also bring about all of the opposite things you mentioned. lol

Isis101, but the opposite only seems to last like a whisper; you think you hear it and it is gone never to return.

That depends, Doru, on one's values and understanding of what Love and Romance truly are...something men so very seldom understand or, for that matter, actually value. Hence why for almost all men, love as they define and understand it is so very fleeting...generally lasting only as long as it takes to become sexually bored or for the woman to realize he is too clueless to warrant further emotional investment.

Again...only the historical Slavic Vampire, the descendants of those demonized falsely as "fallen angels," were ever women's actual emotional/spiritual/sensual equals.

UpirLikhyj, While one would like to believe love is stable and true, it is not, it is a difficult path that takes understanding, passion, and work to create when it is lasting. Love takes two individuals to share the same thought and passion, morals and values have little to do with this emotion other than aiding one to stay in love. Love is not a bond that is isolated to a man or woman.

The following quote describes love as I know it:

"Love is friendship that has caught fire. It is quiet understanding, mutual confidence, sharing and forgiving. It is loyalty through good and bad times. It settles for less than perfection and makes allowances for human weaknesses."

Ann Landers

Ann Landers' quote defines Love well...And is chock full of the very morals and values to which I have referred and that Ann describes. Love is not just an emotion or desire, Doru, which explains why, for those who deny the very values and morals upon which real Love depends, are unable and incapable of either understanding it, finding it or keeping it.

A simpler answer would be that your love is more ethereal in many ways, however just use wisdom and common sence when applying it. Be sure your love is 100% mutually shared.

I would posit that simpler is not always better. If one's view and understanding of Love is incorrect, then it is that understanding that must change and mature if Love is to be understood and, ultimately, shared. For far too many (again, mostly men), "love" is simply an emotion/desire, little more than an impulse, felt today and gone tomorrow, a selfish ambition with designs on another: the object of that "love." This, of course, defines not love but, instead, infatuation and/or lust. And seeking out another so inclined is simply seeking another with similar passing attraction to you, which is not finding Love, at all.

Love is, truly, a virtue that very much linked to strong values and principles of which, in romantic love, certainly sexual desire is present... but is not the predominant element. Instead, that desire is governed and subservient to those values and principles of truly treasuring and valuing another as highly as one does oneself, if not more so. True Love is something developed over time as one comes to know and be trusted by... and to trust and be known by... the other person and finds that that person enshrines, including their imperfections, the soulmate to and with oneself. And this is something that doesn't happen in a flash (unlike with infatuation and lust), but is a realization that develops over time as one focuses on knowing the person rather than simply seeking to sate desire on that person.

Love... real Love... is not just an emotion, thus it cannot be explained or understood simply; it must be developed and lived by those who have the quality of character and integrity sufficient to take the time necessary to slowly develop it with another who also has the same degree of maturity to warrant its development and reciprocate it back.

And as one now married over 30 years to my own soulmate, I don't speak from mere theory but from half a lifetime's experience. :)

"For far too many (again, mostly men), "love" is simply an emotion/desire, little more than an impulse, felt today and gone tomorrow, a selfish ambition with designs on another: the object of that "love.""


In my 40 years of life on this planet, I have seen this in women, just as equally as I have in men. Furthermore, I have seen just about all of the attributes you attribute mostly to men, equally in women.

*Just my personal observation.

An eternal unbreakable bond of absolute trust and affection that transcends time and death.

This guest article from YourTango was written by Jianny Adamo.

"Everyone wants love but not everyone finds it. Interestingly enough, when you love or are in love, you know exactly what it is. Love paints our view of the world and bestows purpose and meaning to life. Somehow, when love is absent or lost, amnesia sets in. It’s hard to define love; you wonder if it’s even real. You are either on a journey toward love or on a journey to defy it.

Love is fluid, offering different flavors and depths. In the attraction phase, being in love is an emotion producing, strong affection for some and an obsession for others. It’s driven by chemistry racing around your brain and body, an experience many poets and artists have written about. It’s euphoric and cannot be understood unless you have experienced it yourself.



This experience is a hallmark of new love, marked with preoccupation with your beloved and making the world around you disappear. It transcends time and commands your attention.




More from YourTango: 7 Ways Love Transforms Your Brain

A three-hour conversation with your beloved can seem like a blink of an eye when smitten with love. Existence quickly moves from okay to “I can climb Mount Everest,” simply because of your experience with love.

But not every relationship experiences such a high, nor does experiencing this bliss determine the longevity of your relationship. Dopamine, the pleasure chemical in your brain, norepinephrine, which produces the racing heart and excitement, and endorphins — the body’s natural painkillers — act like magnets bringing lovers together in ecstasy. This chemical reaction produces a dependency on your love object. For some, the need for this natural high has tripped them up to becoming addicted to love, cycling through relationships looking for the next rush. On average, this phase lasts 18 to 36 months and is nature’s way of attracting us into venturing into ‘real’ love.

Check out YourTango for relationship advice

Consider the attraction phase the prelude. Many relationships naturally phase out here when there isn’t enough interest, commonalities or shared values and goals. For those that continue, the next phase is attachment. The attachment phase centers on commitment. You’ve moved through the fantasy and are ready to embrace real love. It’s as if in the attraction phase, all the possibilities of what this love can bring flashes before your eyes — and in the attachment phase you get to build it… together.

Playing a key role in this stage are oxytocin, vasopressin and endorphins, which are released when having sex and when engaging in things that makes you feel close to your partner. They produce a general sense of well-being, including feeling soothed, peaceful and secure, leading to happy feelings and a deeper attachment. The commitment or attachment needs to be strong, as problems and distractions will arise testing your patience, your love and at times, push you over the edge.

Attachment and commitment are central in long-term relationships. Marriage cannot happen without these key ingredients. The pathways to attachment and commitment are developed initially in infancy with your primary caregiver. This is part of your emotional and social development and is necessary for your survival. As an infant, you attached to adults who were sensitive, responsive and consistent in their care for you. These caregivers or attachment figures became a source of security and based on their responses, you developed patterns of attachment. These primary relationships became your relationship blueprint guiding your perceptions, emotions, beliefs and expectations for future romantic relationships. This is why when you fall in love it feels like you have always known him or her…your other half.

There’s a lot of work that goes on in this phase. You are building a home and a life together; you’re establishing careers and perhaps raising a family. At times, your different styles and personalities harmonize and at other times, clash. What’s important here is to be sensitive, responsive and consistent—be present and available to your partner and your relationship. Checking out mentally or emotionally can run the peril of riding a run-away train with no one at the helm.


More from YourTango: 10 Uplifting Quotes That Will Make Your Whole Day

It takes conscious effort to maintain attitudes that ensure the success of your relationship. A perspective of a glass half full, works better than the glass half empty to keep you together. It’s important you see the best in your mate; acknowledge and appreciate each other. The actions and the choices you make—even when you don’t feel in love and at times may even question it—determine whether or not you sustain a satisfying relationship and keep love alive.

In real love, your attitudes matter. Your actions matter. The choices you make matter. Being responsible matters. Having fun matters. Pleasure matters. Real love brings two strangers together for the dance of a lifetime. It gives you the opportunity to co-create the lives you desire and leads to deep personal growth and fulfillment like no other relationship offers.

In real love, each partner takes great care to satisfy the other’s needs and regards the other as his or her most valued prize; held in high esteem and with gratitude. There is a great sense of security and freedom in this form of love which comes with time. Statistically, lasting love has a greater chance in marriage than in cohabitation. Perhaps, it’s for the single notion of commitment.

Real love guides us to live in peace and with vitality. It teaches us to have courage to face and rise above the challenges life brings. It inspires us to a spirit of generosity and kindness. It leads us to live with dignity and honor. And it reminds us to be quick to forgive as this is the journey of love."

From the following link:
http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2012/03/27/how-is-your-love-defined/

As a vampire, "I love you" is not as silly as society as made it. It's not something we just toss around. Those words has a bit of our souls and hearts attached to it. And if it's said to the wrong person, it can lead to devastating effects, ones that could ruin the vampire for some time if not permanently.

I don't consider myself to be a vampire, but based on what I've seen here on VR, and how love is often portrayed in the media (in books/television/film/music), there are multiple definitions. I've also seen various definitions flourish between the generations.

Is there one true love for all of us? That's hard to say. I am happily married and I love my husband, and I'd do anything for him. However, I have loved others before him, and that love felt different with each person (I say "person" because I've felt love for a few past boyfriends and there are three women whom I fell head over heels for). Love is felt between friends, family members, even between people and animals. I don't think there is one solid definition of love. If I were to make one up, I'd say "love" is a word to describe any person/thing that makes me happy.

Pure Vampiric love will not be corrupted simply by base emotions. It seeks to bind with love, indeed but will never be used as a source of unwarranted force.

Vampire love (to me) is predatory in nature. It objectifies the female and reduces her to a fetishized version. The male, in turn, is simplified as a fetish. That's why it's so powerful. You don't have to trouble yourselves with the reality of each other's flawed humanity. It's a lovely delusion while it lasts. But nothing about it is love. It's entirely self-seeking for both male and female. Stoker's intention wasn't to write a love story. It was a warning against self-seeking lust. Mina gave up her power and strength as an individual under its control. Spoiler alert: she got it back when she led the charge in annihilating Dracula.

However, to you it can be entirely different. Stoker's Dracula changes between readers. It's probably why the text has lasted this long. Females do tend to redeem the vampire character in their interpretations. Female authors are the ones who continually place vampire in roles of protagonist and love interest. I think there's something very significant about that.

When you become a vampire you become... Very sexy.

Lust or desire is about wanting to own something.

Love is when that something owns you.

Well stated, Severus... :)

I knew coffee and I were more than just friends.

Love is like that female spider who is attracted to that male spider with hairier legs. Or when an animal is drawn to the colorful feathers, or certain coats or scents one produces. All that foo foo is called chemical reaction.
It's a neurological matter. It's the penguin that finds a special rock and gives it to it's mate for life. Something in a scientific matter draws one to the other.

So Dracula was drawn to a woman he fell in love with based on his perception of her beauty. She simply HAD to belong to him. You don't have to be a vampire to have intense feelings or desires.

Love at first sight is possible because animals do it too. You trigger something in another for whatever reason and viola, we define it love.

I would venture that what is called "love at first sight" is, in fact... infatuation and/or lust. It is not love.

But Upir, attraction is what kickstarts the path to love :)

Yes... attraction can lead to infatuation which can lead to love... eventually... not "at first sight."

Then how do you explain people who say "When i first saw you, i knew I was going to marry you." ?

I can't answer to anecdotal claims made by unnamed people whose situations and circumstances in each instance are varied and unknown to all but themselves... and neither can you. Obviously, almost all married people are going to recall being attracted to that person, some "at first sight" and others later on. However, almost none of them would claim they married the FIRST person they were attracted to or initially infatuated with.

As I stated, attraction and infatuation are the first steps "on the path" (to use your words) to Love... absolutely so. But... not all attractions or infatuations lead to love, do they? And that was my point.

Love takes time and knowledge to develop as you get to know the person and they get to know you. Were attraction or infatuation ("love at first sight") the same as love, then we all would have married the first person to whom we become infatuated.

I imagine it'd be... Something that is always full of worry and fear. I don't see why people drool over it so much - "forever with your love" - but they're able to die, so it'd be like... regular love, only with heightened dangers of the vampire-fantasy level - crap like sunlight and stakes.

Not saying you're incorrect in what you are saying Upir but i will have to toss in the fact that i did get engaged to the first guy i took interest in, and it was ofc mutual at the time. ;) Sometimes people just KNOW who and what they want in life and "feel" a certain draw or connection to said person and while you are right that no one can verify these things, including myself (your words), sometimes you don't need to. :)

I agree 100% with UpirLikhyj. You put it very clear too. Well said.

People.have different opinions on love.but here is the real.truth on love
Love is complicated and emotional thing people do not understand

I too, am a Bram Stoker's Dracula fan. Romance and love is subjective to each individually. I believe in ''Lust'' at first sight but not 'Love'' at first sight. There are so many variables when it comes to love as there are people/vampires etc....Who you love is the main variable and determines the outcome. Vampire's love the same as Humans do - they equally can become jaded and unempathetic when their hearts are broken. It is said, though....''Only a Vampire can love you forever.''~Author Unknown......~Mina

I've scrolled to bottom as I think this question deserves a personal answer not built on debate.
Love to me is finding or being found by that other that completes you and makes you whole.
With that in mind, there are many things in the legend of the vampire that can be crystalized into a mortal. No, I do not believe there are eternal physical beings, but there is a spirit coinciding with the cycles of nature that can sleep for aeons and awaken thirsty-ready to embrace their true love.
Consider how your perception of time changes when your suffering. Relavent to a vampire lover is the power of seduction like inducing that exquisite suffering of ecstasy that can seem like an 'eternity'.
In such a relationship powers can develop unique to them. For an example, shapeshifting seems tied to legend. I think physical shifting is possible but a waste of power, where astral is more efficient. The youth and beauty are also things that develop in such a union.
Ofcourse one is truely not complete without fulfilling that paternal or maternal instinct. So children are reproduced in their own special way.:)
That to me is the love of a vampire wether by spirit or a HLV turning another.

Real vampires don't feel love just the urge to feed and the lust for blood, power, and unadultered love making. Most people even females are just mere victims. Now Dracula he is a diferent story with his thraw he can manipulate you with it even using love as a means to gain victims to feed off or to gain disciples that will follow him.

Love can be a powerful emotion but a dangerous one too, as it can be a severe weakness. I myself am fortunate to be unable to feel it but a lot of folk do and it can drag them down and destroy their true potential.

What makes the love of a Vampire different from the dictionary definition of love? Is it all about way and manner a vampire handles his/her emotions?

The One

I say good sir! Drive thy stake through thine heart and that of thou entire body; Then chop off thy head and burn thy remains abruptly casting ones ashes among thy grave, lest thou become an agent of thine slave!
They called him Vampire,
But what was it he desired?
Was it the lusts of blood and rage,
or was there more that sparked his fire?
So sleek, and so magnificent,
The way he would hunt his prey!
It was more like he was sent here specifically,
to eat my sorrows and pain!

~D.N.N.~

romance is a tool to love not love at all.
romance is what one does to find love or to experance it .
but you can have love with out romance just not the long lasting kind of love .
and you would not use romance on a family member not in this day and age.
for in bc days maybe but all if not most of romance changed for days of old to today.
today one could even think romance as things given to one we seek . and most of the time but not always can it lead into love but is not love itself.

I believe the connect formed between vampire and donor would be a form of love I guess

Love is an essential part of life.. Without it we will and die inside.. The cold seeps in.. Our minds tell us what our hearts won't.. In all walks of life love is evident.. I myself would prefer to love.

Dracula seems to have an obsessive need for Mina. I have read the story and it is a great story. I do not believe in physical immortality. However, I feel that our spirits can survive eternity. Re-incarnations seems to be possible. I just have no proof of it. I would not want to destroy lives to get the girl so to speak. He believes that Mina was his lost love and he goes all out to take her back. I wish that I was able to find the right one and we were able to mutually love each other forever. However, I doubt that really happens.

I didn't see anything different in his "love" for Mina. It was obsessive controlling possession. She didn't love him back - it was one sided-affection. It wasn't romantic or "ideal" to me at all.
The only form of "vampire love" I could think of would be a gaggingly over-sweet relationship where they never, ever fought, never got tired of each other, never looked at another person - because after the assumed centuries, they'd likely get bored with each other - so "vampire love" is completely unrealistic to me.
Hence why in a lot of modern vamp literature/cinema, a lover usually dies or they separate away from each other after a bit.

A vampires love is stronger and eternal for lack of a better way to put it. The emotions of a vampire are keener and they feel everything a 1000 times stronger than others. The story presents a moral quandary in the eyes of the reader. Yet the morals of the Vampire are considered to be different I do believe. At least they are different by Hollywood standards

This thread has been automatically closed for length.