The Ultimate Vampire Resource and Directory

I couldn't find anything currently in the forum related and I was wondering what others thought about this.

Do you view Vampyrism as Parasitism?

By defintion a parasitic relationship is one in which one member of the association benefits while the other is harmed.
Is this not generally the case with a vampire and their prey?

But when a vampire strikes its prey, it is necessarily harming their prey? At times, the prey benefits from being struck, correct?

It would have to depend on exactly what you mean by benefits.
If you mean that they then will turn, then I believe possibly.
But other then that I have no clue what else could be a benefit.

I think that would depend on the nature of the relationship between the vampire and their "prey" or lack there-of.

I guess..if you are comparing them to a tick or something.
Hehe pretty goods question .

The 'prey' aspect of a vampire/human relationship is more hollywood based than anything. Now it's more likely that a vampire has a willing donor than someone is violently attacked. Because of the above, I would have to say no, I do not consider vampires to be parasitic in nature.

I can see the correlation between the two..but vampire/prey is a more complex relationship than simply parasitism I believe.

I do not think vampirism is a parasitism in any way. It is far more sofisticated than a simple blood sucker.

Can this honestly be so simply answered with a yes and no? It seems so much more complex to me. Or I'm just thinking about it way too much.

If you are talking about vampires in the modern term then I don't think they can be classed as a parasite as the true definition includes permanent damage to health etc.

No, Vampires are simply hunting prey and getting food just as any other creature does. If you are going to use the sole behavior of getting nourishment to define a vampire as a parasite than you have to define all creatures as such. It’s just the circle of life.

There are similarities between creatures feeding off each other and a Parasite but there is a distinct difference.

I don't think you can class a vampire as a parasite in the same way a mosquito isn't classed as parasytic because of the episodic nature of its feeding habits.

All exchanges are parasitic in nature... we are liken to a human body full of intestinal worms being sucked dry of life.

They do feed on the host, right? It would stand to reason than. Kinda blows the image, huh?

i think that it all depends on the vampire and the prey.the relationship,how they met.maybe they didnt /did like each other before one turned.

Are you comparing perhaps a leech or tick to a vampire?

Suppose referring to how a vampire will feed off another..in some essence it could be called that.

This is no exact comparision to any specific parasite. Just generally speaking.

Well,parasites depend on a host to live..any vampires you know of live exclusively on blood or energy so that they will survive?

firstly, you all think to much.
secondly, it's not anything like a paricite. a parisite live in it's host for one. a top the host will genaraly live on for some time, and as for vampires...well that all depends on the lore of the regon

Very good point to be brought along the forums. But I don't think they are the same. They have similarities by definition, but I do not agree that vampires are parasites.

To me the answer is very simple really.No,they are not parasites.At least not in real life they arent.

Again, it's not stated that vampires are parasites. I'm not saying that.
I'm asking do you think they are similar because a vampire feeds off a host. And more times then not the host is harmed. Which is like a parasitic relationship.

Again.No,to me they do not compare.
because you see,it makes no real difference whether the host is harmed or not..not in the long run .Thee most important aspect of a parasite is a parasite depends on the host for its survivial.

Dont missunderstand,I think your thread was well thought out and a great question...its just my own answer is no,simply because of that one fact.Now Im sure others will see it differently,based on other factors,they might see comparisons,but I dont.Not in the true sense of what a parasite is.

I hope no one is offending her making her think her question was a stupid one. I actually like this thread. I havent thought of this ever and we need more threads like this that show some intellegence in the question. It was well thought up

I do not think vampirism is a parasitism in any way eithor

This is why I stated what I did right before you posted CV,like you,I like the thread.It was refreshing and provoked thought...And I thought about it,I really did,but when it came to the nut cuttin,my answer is no.Even with the comparison she pointed out..which is a valid point,but in the end there were just too many thing s to disspell it for me.Ive dealt with parasites for a long time in my line of work,so Im only going on what I know about em.
And hey,my answer is only one..hardly one to really make a difference in the overall deal here.

A parasite doesn't necessarily have to harm it's host. The difference between whether something is a parasite or a symbiote is whether the host 'benefits'. Now I've heard some occasional references to modern living vampires using the energy they harvest to help or heal the host but in most cases, the act of feeding both in legend and in the case of living vampires, is the act of a parasite wherein the vampire gains nourishment or energy and the host gains nothing (except maybe the joy of being fed upon if your into that).

See that is how I feel too FF..that it comes down to other factors .Depite ALL the things that happens when a parasite enters or finds a host,there is one thing that remains a constant..the parasite HAS to use the host in some way for survival.Whether it feeds off of it or crawls inside to lay its eggs as many do if only in transit.I personally do not know of any Vampire on this planet who needs a human to survive. I could be wrong naturally,but I can only base my own answer on what I know.

Thank you guys for the compliment. I did for a second feel I asked a rather dumb question because I wasn't yielding anything but simple answers. I wanted to here reasoning. And eventually that's what came about. Thank you for your continued responses, that grew with reason.

Now back to subject matter.

It seems that no one has any opinion on this now. To hard a question possibly?

Had to think on the word Parasitism for a moment of clarity...Is it even a word?

Anywho, most things are parasites if you think about it, even humans are a parasite. Like locusts, traveling from one destination to the other, both destroying and living off the land to their own natural benefit. Save for a small aspect, humans tend to rebuild after they are done.

How this relates to vampires? Simple, an accurate display would be the prey scenerio, you involve yourself with your "prey", damaging it slightly, or by choice, killing it...Though killing is very rare and should not be done under any circumstances...Both vampire and human law prohibits this act of voilence.

Back to the point, as most organisms are parasitic in nature, although many are aware of this nature and are intune with it more than others. My answer would be an affirmed yes...Vampires would be parasitic in nature on certain levels.

I do like how Felix worded it better...Props to you.

No I do not view it as parasitism because it is very different a parasite has to have a host in order to even live. It doesn't always harm it's hosts either. Like Toxoplasm is inside a cat it doesn't bother them and we can get them and it doesn't harm us unless a woman is pregnant then it does harm the baby. Vampires do not live inside a host they feed on them not live inside of them. So no I do not view a vampire as a parasite or a form of parasitism.

I feel vampires are more predatory and hunt when they are hungry,but can see how you would wonder if they were parasites and leeching off of people, but I believe they are more predatory like , because they only feed when they are hungry as a parasite keeps leeching off of a host.

(please dont use caps all over its like yelling and is anoying, thank you)

now about the subject. I think its like any relationships. some are and some are not. I t all depends on the individual invovled

I do, yes. Because only the vampire is helped by it feeding in fiction.

"A parasite is an organism that spends a significant portion of its life IN or ON the living tissue of a host organism "...Does anyone know a Vampire that fits that description?
Cereb,Im with you,a vamp would be more a predator than a parasite.

A vampire does not in most cases from what is portrayed use the same victim over and over they move on most parasites use the same victim for as long as they can

and do you mean that the vampire itself is a parasite or the hunger consuming them is parasitic?

Well they just can't be a parasite they do not fit the description at all.

Oceane - I understand where you're coming from with the living in or on bit. However, humans don't really follow standard animal descriptions. Obviously a human isn't going to physically attach themselves to another for food...but socially...well in many ways, the act of socially hanging out with your donor, closely and perhaps even romantically, could be construed as a 'human equivalent' to living on or in a host which you are feeding from.

Hmm, you pose and interesting question. But I always thought of a parasite as a creature that is making a host of another body. Sure vampires feed off blood, but it's only a temporary connection they sustain. The vampire doesn't make a home out of their prey's body.

I hope that makes sense.

Honestly,I see your point too FF,but as far as Im concerned,thats grasping at straws...Many creatures on this planet are social..that doesnt mean they are parsitic.

FelixFelix you post a good new point of view to the question. It's interesting what you have stated. Makes me think a little more on the subject and how it can't be just generalized.

Oceane - just wanna let you know I wasn't copying your answer. I never read others' posts before I respond to a thread. looks like we were both thinking on the same wave length :)

Dunna worry about it.:) It happens.
But while the term has broadened,there is still one thing that defines a true parasite..something in the host is essential to the survival of the parasite .And I have asked this before..does anyone know anyone who's consumption of blood is imperative to their survival?
I dont mean social parasites either.Hell,there are plenty of those around,and they arent Vampires.

Parasites live within a host and they do go from host to host. Some do harm us, but it is just not likely a Vampire is a parasite. Yes they are a like in some ways, but they are so different as well.

And those differences outnumber the similarities.

Yes and no. Each vampire is different. Some vampires can go a while without a "host" while others, well, can't. I just think each one is different, therefore act different.

Not going for it.While each "Vamp" might be different,There isnt one here ..vamp or no ,that NEEDS to drink blood to survive.Therefore a human would not be considered a "host ".

Not a host, just a victim. =P

A parasite's life depends on the life of its host. If the host dies the parasite dies.

A fictional vampire that feeds and kills its prey is just a predator.

A fictional vampire that feeds on a victim repeatedly may be a parasite.

A person living a vampire lifestyle with a willing donor where the donor received some type of benefit may be in a relationship classified as a symbiotic.

Now that I think about it, repeated feedings really isn't parasitic. You would classify a mosquito as a parasite. I'd have to say a fictional vampire isn't a parasite.

Now that I think about it, repeated feedings really isn't parasitic. You would classify a mosquito as a parasite. I'd have to say a fictional vampire isn't a parasite.

Have to agree with others....vampires are hunters.

Well to be honest a psi vampire can help clean out energy blockages in thier donor so the relationship can help both people involved.

yes. A mosquito isn't a parasite, but a pest. So you can view the vampire as a pest rather. Although I wouldn't.

well in most cases of current "vampryism" the donor willingly gives the blood to the consumer. So the donor does not come to any harm at all. It is just like giving blood to the red cross. But in the case of mythical vampyrism it could be taken that way. Because in that case the donor almost always ends up dead.

nope alll hollywood, all the blood lovers I met are all willing....

So vampires are not parasites by predatory hunters.

Yeah, basically. The majority of times the prey would probably be considered harmed, so therefore that makes the vampire a parasite of sorts.

I do not see Vampirism as a sort of Parasitism.

a vampire's victim doesn't neccessarily "suffer" if they survive

i'd say no

"Yeah, basically. The majority of times the prey would probably be considered harmed, so therefore that makes the vampire a parasite of sorts."
Umm,so does it mean a Lion is a parasite? Or a Hyena or Eagle? Not.

The impact of a parasite can vary from unnoticable to extreme results (death).

A tick on a dog usually only draws enough blood for itself and its reproductive cycle. But if you add in Lyme's disease or several scores of ticks feeding at the same time will harm the dog.

The same could apply to vamp feedings. If they draw too much or too often, their parasitic behavior becomes too extreme.

But dog, is a tick really a parasite. A parasites life depends on the host. A tick may drop off when full and the host is ok,the tick lays eggs and all are well.

If you think in terms of tape worms, the worm dies if it is pullled out of the body.

I think a mythical vampire is more like a mosquito, taking what it needs then going on to feed on other victims, more a predator than a prasite.

Well said 10241024...

A vampire is a predator not a parasite..

The term is relative.

If they are taking just what they need to survive with no harm to the host, they are a parasite.

If they feed until they kill the host, they are a predator.

Predator implies that there is a victim of an attack that ends in a death, where the parasite implies that the host is just providing food.

Soulshroude exactly what is a parasite though???

I mean because is a parasite something that attaches itself to the host?

Very well put OpeneyesTeufel.

To help, here is the definition of the two terms in question:

Parasite: something that resembles a biological parasite in dependence on something else for existence or support without making a useful or adequate return

Predator: one that preys, destroys, or devours

So, at their core, a vampire is a parasite, and if they happen to kill their host, they are ALSO a predator.

Easy enough for me.

Parasite is an organism that lives on or in its host, from which it obtains nutrients.
Dictionary.com Definition of Parasite

Accepting this definition, fictional/mythological vampires would not be parasites.

Well actually I do not think a vampire is a parasite because it does not attach itself to the host like you said TheDog.

Taking that literally, I'll agree that they are not parasites. They just have a limited food supply, but they are not required to remain attached.

Not sure what word would describe this behavior...predator does not always apply in this case.

dog, I would have to give you that, they may not fit the predator profile.

So what do we have, not prasite, but not predator. Much like a mosquito. Taking what it needs, and then leaving.

I am researching that now. The mosquito analogy will not work, since the male and female feed on nectar for food, but the female also consumes blood to support reproduction to get nutrients to create its eggs.

Don't think it would work to call all vampires blood-sucking females...

The best I can come up with is that a vampire is technically Hematophagous, which literally stands for a blood feeder.

This includes mosquitos, vampire bats, and blood feeding flies.

Now we have our answer.

Good day, sir.

I believe it has been pretty much established that Vampires are not parasites.These other analogies all great and everything but everyone seems to be forgetting one little thing...In Fiction perhaps,but in real life,there isnt a vampire who NEEDS to consume blood in order to survive.

You're right. The two should be separated.

For a human living the vampire lifestyle and drinking blood, they wouldn't be a predator, or a parasite.

I would venture to say they might be more of an addict.

Addict, that is an interesting thought. Is it a physical addiction like nicotine or is it a psychological addiction.

Maybe a bit of both..if one is going after opium junkies for their blood as stated in another thread.;)

I don't know for sure, but I had never heard that human blood had addicting qualities. Some people may have certain mineral deficiencies that drive them to consume blood. We see that in pica syndrome where people feel a need to eat chalk due to calcium deficiencies. People with iron deficiencies sometimes have a drive to chew ice.

It may also be psychological addition, sorta like the Rave itself, or online gaming or gambling. Something you feel a need to do and enjoy.

As discussed here and elsewhere, all evidence seems to more and more convincingly point to sang/psi/whatever vampirism being a form of psychological "addiction," or more accurately apsychological disorder, given that... as previously pointed out here by Oceanne, no one NEEDS to ingest blood orally to live nor to satisfy any physiological requirement or addiction.

My own take on this is that modern vampires are basically lost and lonely people desperately seeking some form of fantasy world inside which to delude themselves and as many others as possible into believing that they are more powerful, more seductive, and more unique than they actually are.

And... yes... this is indeed evidence of a psychological disorder.

3 hours later and no one has disagreed with you.

Upir if it was a disorder do you not think it would be given a diagonosis.

All so can you provide some proof as to how you obtained this info???

wolfkiller -

How ironic and illogical that I should be asked to provide "proof" for the non-existence of "psychic vampires" when no such "proof" has ever been offered by you or anyone else claiming such ability. It is a logical fact that one cannot prove non-existence. Instead, only that which exists can be evidenced. Therefore, if "psychic vampires" do exist, the burden of proof rests squarely on those making such a claim. I look forward, therefore, to having you or anyone else provide such empirical evidences.

(oh... btw... if you'll scroll up this very forum thread a ways, you'll find where I minutely detailed an example of just the sort of double-blind, scientifically monitored test that would provide such strong empirical evidence. Any takers?)

However, in lieu of such strong evidences, then all we are left with is a bunch of psy-vampires claiming that which they cannot document and which relies solely on their own emotional perceptions of what "energy" they think they are receiving. As no evidence of energy exchange can be offered, then... like with sang vampires who claim to gain energy from "feeding" despite the fact that no such physiologic-biologic process is occurring in their bodies... the only rational explanation is that they are imagining that which does not exist. This is called... delusion. And that is indeed a psychological disorder.

As no empirical evidence exists to the contrary, whether you like it or not this is the only logical conclusion possible.

well, considering that a parasite exists by living off of its host, and draining a person of its blood is not a continuous co-existence, no, i don't think that being a vampire is being a parasite.

While I thought it was in THIS forum thread that I had posted the scientific test for psy-vampirism I referenced in my previous post here, I was mistaken; it was posted in the now-defunct "Arguement" (sp) thread.

So... I'll post it here:


You want to prove that psychic vampirism exists? Hey, no problem! Just get a "psychic vampire" into a laboratory together with whatever "victim" he/she prefers, attach bio-electrical and other bio-feedback monitoring equipment to both "vampire" and "victim," separate the two via an opaque curtain or wall so that neither can see or otherwise communicate with the other... and then have the vampire signal when he/she is "feeding" without the "victim" knowing when that is... and then monitor the resulting bio-feedback to see if energy is being exchanged. See? Simple!

Of course, as I am sure no such energy exchange will be documented and this will all be revealed as the nonsense that it truly is... you might not want the results too widely publicized.


Again... any takers?

Well they are just too different to be the same thing or even close.

I sat here and read the whole thread and I agree with UpirLikhyj on the proof and evidence needed.I deal with getting proof and evidence In my field of work and If my EMF reader or my Videos or stills do not come out with anything It dose not exist.But I am finding a contradiction with in the evidence Sometimes things are not see but Felt so most of us rely on feeling rather then sight.And we can not aruge with science because thats what people want proof.Not what we feel or how we see things.

The fictional type, yes. The real ones, no.

First upir I only asked a question so therefore you need not to bash me and no one can afford that type of equipment unless you care to provide it.

Allso you have no proof it is false so therefore you cannot put judgement on me or anyone else saying that it is not possible.

And just because you are so narrow-minded that you cannot open it up and understand where we will be comeing from that is your fault.

Let's play nicely children! Everyone has there own opinion and nobody is bashing another's (some just may be a little vehement on their opinion).

As a psyvamp I would love to participate in such an experiment.

Now, on to the question - no, I do not consider myself a parasite because I do not harm the person I am feeding from. The most that may happen is they might feel a little tired.

Thank you Oceane for looking after my thread.
It seems to have gotten a few peoples interest.

But many of you are blowing it out of proportion. I'm not stating they are one in the same only that they could be similar.

All arguments are good, except for the few with no supporting evidence.

Very good question, one I thought I posted myself in one form or another in this forum.. or maybe not...

Anyways, I don't think vampyrism and parasitism are the same things. They may both have the same characteristics and behaviors as the other, but they are surely not one in the same.

The definition of a parasite is an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment...

While the Vampire would take blood it doesn't actually continue too...you see vampire movies they take and leave. Though in some thats not the case they don't necesarily live off just that one victim.

So I'd call the more of leeches then parasites.

Upir, didn't you once provide clinical evidence of sexual "vampirism?" Has your position changed or have I remembered incorrectly? It has been some time since we spoke.

Joli -

My profile contains more information on the actual sexual component of the Slavic vampire of history, yes. This is the true nature of that unique race descended from the original "Fallen Angels" whose "insatiable" sexuality saw them demonized as "plague carriers" before, as also were their forefathers, hunted down and slaughtered as many as could be found. Only centuries later were they also falsely vilified as "undead" "blood drinkers." The original Slavic accounts make this quite clear, yes.

However, they were not then nor today are "parasites." Thus, no, I do not call it "sexual vampirism" as this assumes that those with whom they share this eroto-emotional "insatiability" are victims rather than the quite active and willing participants that they are.

This thread has been automatically closed for length.