The Ultimate Vampire Resource and Directory

Beyond the common definition of a vampire. A definition of a vampire in Webster's dictionary is: "A women who exploits and ruins her lover." Is this just a expansion of vampirism or a another form of vampirism in society?

In my opinion the reason that they wrote that is because a lot of the time people get Succubi and Vampires confused. They probably mean that as in vampires suck people dry and they think women can suck men dry of money and spirit.

Pleasent Nightmares, Rose (Blade)

i think that it is just vampirism in society. And I really have a hard time with that statement in the first place. That is not what a vampire is about. Society chooses how the see people and their beliefs on people. I certainley do not agree with that statement about women in general.

dont agree with the statement either, everyone has their own definition about vampirism so it just what the person is willing to believe

I thought this was an interesting question. I looked it up and sure enough, it does indeed describe women exactly as you say; so I did a little research. The link I am posting does a fair job of trying to cover alot of history very quickly. After reading it, I think the definition seems to come from certain stories in folklore combined with the powers of seduction attributed to vampires in later years. I hope the link is informative.

Click here

I feel it is from old folklores that they believe that women could/can seduce and devour their prey/target such as men.
Yet everyone has an opinon on how we preseve the term of Vampire... I have said it before people who are not educated in the history or such, judge and assume whatever they which to. Just an opinon.

The old folklore stories make that statement much more believeable. I find it a bit odd, though, that the statement would still define vampires in today's time. I guess somethings will never change, though.

You could see it as a form of social vampirism. But then you would also have to include men in that definition as well.

Personally I think that the deffinition was most likely written by a bunch of old men who had a grudge against the women who dumped them.
Okay, now that I got that bias opinion out. Yes, I do think that this could be considered a different "form" of vamprism. And yes, as someone stated earlier, it applies to men as well as women.

its cause women are crazy. for guys it seems that they are drainning you life.

I think he was trying to remark the seductive way of women...

We all know, thats womens powerfull "weapon".

The traditional vampire is a parasite. A thing so unholy that it drinks up life and leaves a dead husk behind. That definition would easily apply to a number of men and women on a romantic level. Once you've accepted the original definition of a vampire, it's something that could be used as a slang term for many things:

Corporations
Politicians
Lovers
The Church
or Priests
Lawyers
Police

Pretty much anything that could have a power or authority over people and use that power to 'feed' upon the innocent, could then be given the slang name 'vampire'.

RIPBlackMetal, I've known a couple guys that could seduce easily. But you bting up a good point about the definition fitting the seductive trait of women. But keeo in mind that it still applies to men as well, but just not as much.

The definition more commonly known as the 'vamp' came into play around the turn of the century. The silent movie vamp gave way in the 70's and 80's to the successful female vamp who had no time or desire for long term relationships and therefore was thought of as 'feeding' on the men she took to bed.

I'd say the reason that it's usually (if not only) applied to women is that the origin likely stemmed from gender based prejudices on how much power a woman should have. Though the 80's vamp was actually a term that was proudly worn by women in the backlash against gender roles during that time period. I recall many a license plate during the 80's on some succesful business woman's car with VAMP featured in it in some form.

Misfit...i know some guys can do it...but, its true that along the history, womens had achieved great and important things through their "seductive" way...

Not saying that you use it for the wrong things, some do as males, but, it is a very good and powerfull weapon.

RIP, beleive me I know, and I am guilty of using it. Would be lying if I said I wasn't.

hmmmm maybe their just afriad to believe the truth and see Vampirism as what it really is!

Thats interesting because I just looked in Websters dictionary 2006 and it says a corpse that rises from the dead to drink the blood of the living it also adds in folklore.

*Merriam-Webster on-line dictionary: definition "b", if I recall...in fact, here:

Click here

Knock yourself out.

i think it was meaning that women can be seductive as that is our most valubale weapon. but vampurism shouldnt have been defined that way. i believe that men can be just as much vampyres as women. i've actually met many men vampyres.

everyone has their own perceptive of vampurism. that is just mine in a very small nutshell.

A majority of men view women as those who suck the life out of a relationship...so the term vampire and the given definition is definitely a result of society.

i have to say that this is a crap deffinition of vampirism in society

I think it was meant to be used more as a comparison or an anaolgy..women can drain money, life, etc from a man. I would agree with RIP..not all women do it for the wrong reasons, but it is done and women are more known for it because those are the stories that are told and remembered.

Vampirism is one of the terms that’ll be redefined in the new DSM V when it comes out, or so it’s been discussed. Currently it fits under a few disorders depending on the behaviors of the individuals in question.

The definition related to the topic of this post would fit under emotional vampire which is currently classed under Narcissistic Personality Disorder. That is most likely where they pulled the definition from thus labeling vampires as stated.

Important to note that to get a psychological label of a disorder from the DSM requires multiple diagnosis and most people in general exhibit behavioral traits from many different disorders but do not have them.

There are many ways to define vampires as has been pointed out.

There's been some very interesting and intelligent reasons given in this thread but I'm afraid I stuck on the old one of If it's a bad thing, blame it on women. Prejudiced I probably am about it but it seems the way things worked in the past.

Seems like just another definition to me. Words do have more than one definition u know (not tryin to sound like a jerk).

Nightgame, maybe you just got the wrong women, or there is something about you that make women do that to you.

It sounds like another way of putting it. Some feel that women only look for rich men to take care of them and will "suck them dry" of their money. Not all women are like that.

Not all are, but as far as I've seen, most are. I went to school with too many girls like that and I wanted to smack them all lol. Those are the women that give all of us the bad reputation of doing that

Misfit has a point here...

Many womens (too many i must say), use theirs seductive power to satisfy their needs in life...
It has been like this for thousand years...

But, dont forget, womens need also more "love" then mans...

Isnt that a way to "suck dry" the male too?

Seduct to earn more love, is also a way of feed from males...

I hope i could explain it well...lol...im portuguese, so...sorry...

RIP I think you did a good job explaining it.

But you also have to look at more than just the majority of men and women. There are men and women out there that doen't really require more love than the other person. But just looking at the majority, you explained it pretty well.

I like this topic being that it has alot to do with the druidic belief as well.The men would not have sex there whole lives and the women would have it as much as possible.Then these elders would meet in avalon..( which now is called glatsonbury..) and they would step into the circle of stones and use sex magick.The woman would take the mans essence that has not been used for many years and conduct it in huge rituals.. The ancient scripts say that this power was so great that a man couldn't wield it. So he would use the woman as an athema( Also goes into the arthur legend as well but that is another story.

The definition of vampirism has changed so many times to adapt to an evolving society... a society that is no long dead-set against the anti-christ creature the vampire of folklore seems to be, and instead tend to romantisise and love them for their boldness and charisma...

Lady vamps in particular... it's a man's ultimate fantasy I think... deep down... it's a woman strong enough to take control, and hell if you happen to have a damn good time... she made you, seduced or manipulated you in some way.

Either it's her seductive 'powers' or her unnatural beauty... but it's never your fault... It blends the male sex-mad nature... with the rape-scenario... making it seem both beautiful and ugly...

(sorry my words are confused...lol)

its just humans trying to make something they dont understand into something else. why must you humans be so naive?

cyrus667-

I am somewhat familiar with the Arthurian Myth and Avalon. That makes sense to me...

Misfist...im seeing this as a whole...not, as single person...

But, you have a very good point...

Yes.. The old ways still combine with the time of today whether people realize it or not....

There's some Jazz age slang involved here as well. It even became a verb wherein 'vamping' meant: to seduce (a man) with intent to exploit him. Obviously since man has been exploiting women for what is likely forever, it didn't need any new definition or term but in the free wheeling jazz age of the early 20th century, empowered women were still something 'new' in common society.

An independent woman who wanted her own freedom (both literal and sexual) would often receive the 'vamp' moniker. The belief that if she wasn't subserviant to man, then she must be exploiting him. At that point, this could go back even further with the whole Femme Fatale characters in literature and even biblical stories with Lilith being the first woman to stand up and ask for what she wanted and Lilith also being the first vampire in many myths or works of fiction.

or maybe it was just an egotistical man who wrote the definition.

After reading the discussions about my question I agree with Alchemistdamned and RIP. There have been some very intelligent remarks.

Many women have a very powerfull way of seduction. And with a woman as a vampire I think their way of seduction is most potent, and is so second nature to her it is most dangerous.

Yes, I think men should be included too in that definition, however I think it is a woman who can be more powerfull in her ablility to seduce to ruin.

I am among the masses of women who don't appreciate this particular comparison but some good points have been brought up about it.

I think that is a pretty stupid definition......Because many people have many different definitions of vampires......This definition could also be confusing Vampires with Succubi

I think it is societys narrow view upon this and a false definition of what a vampire truely is

Sorry but i find women sexy as vampires especially when dressed up but thats me and i could care less as to what the word means in webster's book of bullshit :-)

I think it is just another male ploy to make women look bad.

males have the propensity to do the same thing. but they are applauded for the way they treat woman. they just good ole boys sowing thier oats have fun and teasing the girl/ladies.

but when a woman does the same thing is a bitch and a maneater.

Webster needs to be bitchslapped with his own dictionary.

All it is, is another way for humans to insult n e inmortal that drains life to keep themselves under control and alive but besides that its an insult and thats all it really is.....dont put too much time or energy into thinking about it, its just frustraighting....blessed be from AZUL

webster has part of it right, but it also has the same affect on men as well. the word"vampire" comes from romania. The original term is to hard to spell, and i don,t the text on me right now. i,m on a friends computer.

Its another deffinition of an idea.
Like it has been said before, as Vampyres "suck the life out" women can "suck the money,life etc" out of men
This is not a def. of a word or a corilation between women and real Vampyres, but of an idea.
Of course it could be better stated in analogist to black widows and women, both killing after they get what they wanted.
*Note to all women, dont take that offinsivly please, its for the sake of this topic* KISSES

Personally I believe the female vampire was created by women... as a sorta backlash against the stereotype of the male hunter/seducer and the female victim...

It empowers women without demeaning their sexuality

"A women who exploits and ruins her lover."

This is very simple in my opinion...

A woman vampire, can easely, get what she want, by simply using the seductive side of her.

Mans were rude, brutal, "animals" (sorry guys), and the womens always were the, beautifull beeing, lovelys, caring, etc...

Mans conquer everything though "bloodbath", the women simply had to pleasure man...

So...i think what he means is that...males are not the strong gender...women is...

Womens are capable of creating or destroy males.

My opinion...lol...

I think it is wrong because not only women practice vampirism.

the people who wrote that definition i think were looking at a vampire as a metaphor and not the creature. like how women suck the life and money out of a man until theres nothing left to give.

you know that is the like the third time I have heard " how a woman can suck the life and money out of a man"

what about all men that have woman dried emootionally and physically , not ot mention, montarily.

you know that any definition in any book that only list one side of the species at fault is bias.

and for the record men bleed woman as much as they are bled....

it is a give and take.

so for this meaning to have any validity at all there needs to be an equal definition of for the male counterpart.

I still say the webster should be bitchslapped with his own dictionary, I just think it should be really, really really hard!

Pretty...that is hilarious about being bitchslapped with his own dictionary..I would love to see that when it happened and I couldnt agree with you more.

I too am very much sick of hearing how pour men are sucked dry by a women...ppl are funny...This is a two way street...men suck just as much as women...and drain more then money etc.

a lot more than money...I mean when a man is done bleed a woman she is left holding the bag as she is often times left with the kids also.

I don't know where men think it is okay to go around bitching aboout how you were treated by women.

it didn't become an issue until she left and you sure as hell wasn't complaining while she was there.

I think this definition is another way for men to bitch and moan about women.

It just shows that it is a pasttime that has been around way too long.

No kidding....Oh god I have to bite my lip here so that I don't come across the wrong way here..but most women have been crossed or burned by a man...BUT Most men have been burned by a women. I think that men can carry out a longer, more whiny rendition of the actual events that happened. See everyones interpretation is so different usually then the actual facts...but hey..again most ppl love drama...and to each there own I guess.

queen , I think you have hit on the head. I think that it is very offensive to for any man to (I do not give a damn if is a scholar or a begger) to beat up on woman in form.
And that is what that definition represents.

and all the interpretations of it thus far.....

now it's nothing personal against pretty or queen as i care about you both immensly however i think we have gotten a bit off topic. he merely wanted to know if this was a social definition. yes it does make women sound like life sucking bitches. but you have to admit. we can be royal bitches.

i have to agree that men are awful too though. they do drain us physically and emotionally. Most expecting us to do everything.

The dictionary shouldnt have said that, and that's true. it's biast and does deserve to be hit hard. but not much we can do about it.

The question of this thread is NOT whether men or women are bad; the definition of OGRE, for example, defines males unfavorably; the original question of the thread was in the spirit of how did this definition come to be related with females? I suggested it was folklore combined with seduction qualities attributed to "modern" vampires...anything else ON TRACK? This is not open season to bash either males OR females; it is an opportunity to think.

ouch!
Sorry....no harm intended..if I got off topic...excuse me!

i believe that the old forklorn as to how the women of that time period were of a more seductive nature is correct. the queen would seduce men and women to see that her agenda was carried out. i think it was use as a phrase more then a fact to descripe the method with they carried out. i could be way off base, but from what little i have read, i think that it was like that.

If I have gotten off topic, It was not my intention. It seem there was a lot of things being said about women that were unfair.

I think that the definiton in and of itself is very flawed. It is taking only a partical look at reality and and adding a definiton to it.

I do understand the reasoning behind behind it. though it is still a half fact.
and very bias in it's presentation.

the thoery of the queen that would use men and women to gain what ever means she deemed to be of value also holds no validity, as Kings also have done this on numerous occassions. Look at all the kings that married a female that he could not stand for no other reason to to have a minimal amount of power in the country that she was heir to/ or held sway over.

I am not saying that there is not a good reason for the definition, it is just very bias and one sided.

For every action that woman does a man has done also, that is the entire problem with the definition in general. I would very interested in the publishing date. It might be very interesting to see when
it was written to see if this a modern day stigma of woman or a general one that has been around for ages.

I would like to know in this dictionary if there are any other alternate definitions that has a male counterpart to this particular definition.

Prettyviolence: here is the complete defintion in the dictionary I have. It is the Tenth edition, collegiate dictionary, copywright 2002.

1. the reanimated body of a dead person believed to come from the grave at night and suck the blood of persons asleep.

2a. one who lives by preying on others.

2b. a woman who exploits and ruins her lover.

This question has opened my eyes to the fact that this is a biased definition. I didn't realize it when I read it, but indeed ruining ones lover is a two way street.

I don't know how long this definition has been in Webster's dictionary. But it seems to me to come from an earlier era.

Horenspiel, not necessary. It would actually make more sense if it was more a present day observation. As in the past the past, other than a female with a very high social ranking, didn't hae the rights that we do now.

woman of old weren't able to ruin anything as she didn't have any rights that she ws not given by either husband or father or the next male head of the family.

There is really no way she could have the fredom to have lovers to ruin, except on a very slim chance. Not to say that it wasn't done just that in the past it would have been hard for a woman to ruin a man as she had no rights to even her own body.

So with that being said and the point that it was published in 2002, makes me believe that it is a definition of present day.

Thank you for understanding that it is very bias, and why it would upset and offend women, as we are much more than the life and money drainers of men.

Though there are those that are. and that gentlmen, has never been in question. it is that the definition is one sided, as there are also men that do the same. that has been my point all along.

I would say that definition itself should read:
Anyone who ruins their lovers. or even:
A man or woman who ruins their lovers.

i am going to defend the women on this one there are very huge differences between a succubus(succubi plural) and vampires. A succbus is another creature entirely a vampire can either suck you dry or sire you while a succubus can only suck you dry am i clear and by the way the dictionary you should look up the definition of ignorant.

I agree with MidNiteAngel & a few others here.
In society,the word vampire has become synonymous with the word leech.
If a person takes from another all of the time & gives nothing in return,that person s sucks the other dry of their "resources" (money,Spirit,whatever).
But,I don't believe that such a general statement is fair or justified.
There are women (& men) who are users & takers,true.
However,not all women & men are like this.
Also,I don't believe that there are enough people,who believe that women in general are like this to,to be considered a fair representation of the social attitude.
Anyway,this is just my opinion.

RIP has a very good understanding of this

as does Misfit

But I differ and concur with pv instead

how exactly is the vampyre demeaning Women ?

They are the highest form of life

Sorry gents but you think for a second and although you may not like to admit it you cannot deny that they have one over on the male of the species

Well after reading your post Lord...I have to agree with you...
I mean really who makes up these definations...shit I would love to sit around a round table with half of you here..a bottle of Jack, Tequilla...whatever and hand me a pen and paper, and we can all 'brainstorm' and create a new dictionary...Vampire style...
Greetings all....lol

Vampire Dictionary,Definition # 1: Human-
"Dinner".

OMG, that is hilarious...no shit. Now there is a new thread idea...dictionary definitions vampire style...
hmmm...i mgiiht just do that...lol

hmm that's interesting. Although I'm sure looking in Webster's isn't probably the best way to get a true definition of what a vampire is.

Who needs a dictionary ?

Go to main menu then see"What is a Vampire?"

Cancer has already provided and that is how this site should be used

Informative & not a game of frivilous posts

Yes you are so correct...and we look at that link...and yes it has alot of information there...but this area of the site is not so serious....and somewhere to post and have alittle fun and chill...thus is the bonus of such an idea. Either we can be very serious, or alittle less serious...
To each their own I guess.

Wonderful point queenofchaos

May even lead to a new thread

"shakespeare" - to be or not to be (serious)

SAying that back to the agenda

Womens Vampyre Rights really seem to suck here

Are peopletrying to say that Vampesses forgot to "burn the bra" along with other kinds back in the sixties ?

Wow! see what happens when I take a nap?

I think that the definition was not to include the female of side of the vampiric equation. those if you look at the wording it is a bit vague.

I think it is actually talking about a human female.

I do not have that websters dictionary( Thank goth!) but I am betting that Vampiress is in it and even they are difined better then this.

I would hope so anyways.

Human nature is to define things according to human perception & human perception is egocentric.
The concept of a higher being is percieved in a human form,more or less.
However,if the being was truly higher or superior,they'd not be in any form human.
Concepts of equality are also made by humans,but equality is a birth right to being alive.
So,the difference between men & women is purely gender.
It shouldn't be anything to do with thoughts of "men or good (or bad)" or women are good (or bad)".
People are people.
Some or many men resent (or fear) the woman's ability to create (give birth).
But,this ability of women is nature,it is as it should be. People who feel the need to catagorize others in order to build themselves up just need to grow up.
Some men are takers & users & some women are takers & users.
But that's SOME & they also need to grow up & take responsibilty for their actions & to acquire what they want or need without doing damage to others.

Strigoi, what you have said is very true.

Answer me a question? The fact that a dictionary that is widely used all over the world would define Vampire as a "woman who ruins her lovers"
doesn't strike you as odd?

I mean I know you can't understand how it feels to have something so bias and antiquated in the total sum of its whole, especially since it is a directly slur against women and against vampires.
I am not a vampire I am a women.
And I have free admitted the that defintion clearly offends me. It was meant to.

Notice that there is not a male counterpart to the definition in the post in the a bit above these, that list all of the definition of Vampire. It is a one-sided bias "opinion" that has been put into a book that many look to for knowledge. It is a very sad thing that it is derogatory to women and the vampiric community.

I will grant that it isn't the first and I can pretty much, bet my ass, that it won't be the last.

But I think maybe I was mistaken on what it was you're trying to say.

Actually,I for one am glad that Horenspiel
made this post,because despite the controversy & the potentially heated debate that it can cause,it's good to be able to get things out.
I agree that we should be able to "lighten up" & have fun here at the forum,now & then.
However,some serious discussion is definitely in order as well.
To the guys here who might not get what prettyviolence is saying,have any of you men ever sat in a room with a group of women & had them "man bash"?
I have!
Now,here are a group of women talking about men in the most negative fashion.
The things that they're saying about men are hateful & insulting.
But,I'm not like the way that they're discribing men to be.
I'm not perfect,but I'm not how they say that men are.
They might have 1 or 2 really bad experiences with men,but in their minds all men are as bad as they're making us out to be.
Do they truly believe all men are that bad? Sure,at least at that particular time.
But,is it fair?
Of course not.
But,the statements are made some what public &,being a man,I'm placed in that same catagorie as the one(s) that they're describing.
People should just be treat others as they want to be treated & never take anything that's said or written to heart too much,because they are only opinions----one person's or one small group of people's idea of how things are.
LOL But,of course,this is just MY opiniin. ::grin::

men can suduce just as easly as women, and i agree the prolly just got succbi and vampires confused

of course we can... indeed some of us are very good at it...

i think its cus of wut women can do to guyz mentaly

bloodluzt your remark "i think its cus of wut women can do to guyz mentaly"Was rather offensive. it isn't about that at all, and for the record i do not see many men not wanting to leave their homes due to what a work has done to them mental! but How many women do just that for the reason you gave. How many teenage girls have lost all their sense of self to a some teenage boy. So it is a two way street.

And for the record you are not looking at the big picture. I do not know how you identify yourself or if you do.

But according to Websters Dictionary you have a choice a choice of either being a walking corpse or a female. if you are a vampire. So males welcome to womanhood!

Gees lord all the fuss, this is not about men vs women. It about a definition. In my opion through history women where taught to be more subsmissive take care of the home, and men were taught to be agressive protect the family. I think that because of that, women have had to use any methed to get what they needed, and they had to learn to do it in a manor which did not appear agressive. Which wasnt accepted long ago, and is why women are good at being seductive. Doesnt mean men cant be. (need us not forget the gigolo) All and all I believe that we, male and female were ment to compliment each other in our diferent strengths. Though time roles have changed, women are now becoming more aggressive and men are takeing on more than they have ever done in the past. As far as the diefinion I think we are all smart enough to take on our own interpretation of what it really is and not have to base it on what somone wrote in a book.

that's what Webster calls a woman who does that? Hey,I call it getting even :)

If we want to further discuss how the term became specifically attributed to women, I don't think it helps to say that women were more or less seductive in the past. That implies that women as a whole had a trait or specialty in seduction.

I think there is something that could be said about seduction being more NECESSARY for a woman to gain power or money in the past. Since we've had a predominantly partriarchal society these last few thousand years, women have had a hard time gaining respect, education, money and power through more direct means. There were even laws set up to prohibit women from amassing too much power.

Because of those limitations, women have had to 'marry into' wealth or power. Women of particular determination have found that through seduction, marriage or affairs, an end game could be run wherein she could establish an equal footing with her male counterparts of the time. Since marriage and seduction were often for motivations of power or wealth, it's not too much of a stretch for someone to cut loose the bait once they've established their goals. Since men were easily able to divorce or at least have affairs with less trouble, women would be seen as destroying a marriage for the same 'crimes' that men committed without much reflection.

So marriage and 'romance' for wealth or power was looked at negatively for a woman (commonplace for a man) and ending a relationship while again commonplace for a man was seen as destroying harmony for a woman and could get her a bad name like 'vampire'.

I don't agree with that definition. That sounds more like a Succubus to me, not a Vampire.

You're mincing words. We're talking about how vampire came to have a definition as a metaphor for a seductive woman. While I agree that a succubus drains the life out of men in mythology, I don't believe that the term was used to define real women until recently. Succubus was to my knowledge usually reserved for the original definition of a particular demon. The term vampire became applicable in society as an insult or slang for the type of femme fatale that Webster implies.

FelixFelix, thank you have said more eloquently what me and my sister have tried to point out.

Though outhistory up until about 50 years ago, woman really did have and rights or claims to much. She was allowed what her male "caretaker"was benevolent enough to give.

Women who werre married and their husband died was given a bit more freedom. she then was able to chose her own mate. there in lies where she would be able to get some of the things wanted as far as power and prestige in her own right.

And this was frowned upon as a overstepping of one's 'place' in gender roles and so she was given a 'bad reputation' as a leech or a vampire.

But in more recent years (the last 100 or so)...there was a backlash wherein women took pride in the moniker to the point of using it as an aforementioned verb...to go "vamping" or seducing in the jazz age. One can hardly argue against the fact that we (men) almost asked for it.

I would say that it was the evolution of the female. as we became more aggressive in our wants, needs, and achieving our own ambitions outside of the binds that were suppose to hold us to hearth and home.

I am sorry to say tht a lot of the treatment can be laid at the feet of the religion. I would not but the whole blame on men as indivduals. The different religions all had a say in the treatment of women and a good upstanding (dare I say god-fearing)man would adhere to the church dictates.

I would not say that men asked for it. but I would say that they should have expected it.

I had forgotten about the gay 20's and the vamping as it was called.

Pretty Violence - Who was in control of most global religions? Men. Still are for the most part. Our societies have managed to be almost completely patriarchal throughout the current historical record. Men found some way to get in power and have used everything from law to religion to medicine to try to keep that power.

In the Lilith thread, I raised the theory that the story of Lilith may not have actually been about one person who desires equality and is ousted or leaves but perhaps a metaphor for a time where the struggle for gender equality reached a head in ancient history. Perhaps a record of that time when man managed to take the reigns of power in gender politics.

I think that everyone has it's own decision in belief.

FelixFelix, after I wrote that, it did occur to me that in a way I was stil saying the same thing as men as in control of msot major religions.

I know of the thread of which you speaak. I am right now study the lost book of ENKI. And I find it fascinatinig, especially a look at the women of the age. who for the most part are to coin a term vamp. they are begetting of childrren left and right.

It would might lend a host to the your theory. though granted it is very hard to fine a realistic translation that is creditable. I believe my brother has. you might look at it. It seems that and sometime in the very far past women were as equals. and treated as such.
so were did it go wrong?

Vampire by definition is well, a great many things.. Everyones perception of it is different. So trying to define it in just one way, is a pain in the ass. LOL

I wouldn't say that we are so much trying to define the term but establishing the fact the the use of one definition is very flawed. and that there are reasons for this fallecy.

It is merely a discussion on the definition, my dear. nothing more.(though I will freely admit that at one point it did chap my hide to see the termed defined thusly)

Alright as Im reading this subject has gotten many responses. I agree with my sister PrettyViolence that webster should be bitch slapped, but overall women have always gotten the flack for bleeding men dry and sucking the life out of them. This is why he refures to us as Vampires. Let me tell you women are a mans back bone. Women put there entire being into there man and the family. We are the ones who give birth to life not take it away.

I believe that vampirism doesnt have a dominate sex weather it be female or male as far as websters' concerned women have taken so much crap for men, and ounce again were taking the rap!!! cant the sexes be equal?

Society

I don't know if we got sidetracked but i had sort of assumed that the answer to the original question was rhetorical.

Is this just a expansion of vampirism or a another form of vampirism in society?

The definition was metaphoric not literal. Like there are definitions for shark that have a meaning beyond the fish, this meaning of vampire was meant beyond the mythical. Now I feel safe to get sidetracked again on how it came to be.

PrettyViolence - I genuinely believe that most of our myths and legends and even religions were ways to wrap history in a more timeless package. Likely, the stories of original man and woman were more about original civilizations. I'll look for the lost book, sounds fascinating.

However you look at it......that is a very shortsighted and narrow definition.......what happen to the rest, lol

This thread has been automatically closed for length.