To answer such a question as posed by this forum topic, we must first come to grips with the definition of the term, itself: Vampire.
If, as Oceanne pointed out in the prior now-closed thread, a vampire is any being that requires outside energy to survives, then by such a definition not only are we all vampires... but, in fact, so also is every living organism in the Universe given that, in some fashion, all living things need energy whether from food, sunlight, water, etc. Of course, as mentioned in my reply to her erudite observation, if the term, vampire, is so open-ended as to include within all living organisms... the term loses all defining characteristics given that such include everyone and every living thing. And, obviously, whoever first coined the term back during or before the 11th Century was certainly attempting to define something, or someone, a bit more specific.
If such a defintion, on the other hand, refers to blood-drinkers... then, again, while more specific yet anyone can "drink blood." Thus the ability to drink blood does not limit the definition much further. Now, were this a religious rite engaged in as part of that which identifies a particular religious group, such as Doru and Severus have argued, at least this does further limit the definition.
However... such a religious definition does not satisfy the additional parameters that always have accompanied the blood-drinking trait found in Vampire Lore in which all such bloodsuckers were... reanimated corpses and, additionally, needed to drink blood to live and, in fact, did not eat food at all but instead only drank blood. Thus, I don't see how becoming a member of any "vampire" religion would imbue the initiate into such with any capacity to pass through death, itself, and then rise from the grave and "live" thereafter with only blood as an energy source.
Thus... we seem to be left (in my view, at least) with only two other possible definitions.
The first being what I feel we most often see here: Those who choose to emulate the Vampire of fiction without actually being, themselves, reanimated corpses who live solely on drinking blood, as Vampires have always been defined in Vampire fiction and lores. While this is fun and can be exhilarating, yet such also bears with it the potential to permit oneself to become deluded into beginning to believe that one actually is... a real Vampire. This was a problem that Bela Lugosi suffered following his cinematic portrayal as the eponymous Count Dracula; he identified so completely with this fictional character that in death, he was buried in his Dracula costume. Many have likewise said the same of Max Schreck, following his earlier cinematic portrayal of the vampire in 1922's "Nosferatu."
Given these facts, in my opinion there can be no doubt but that those self-described as HLV (Human Living Vampires) fit this description exactly. After all, by every definition of the folkoric vampire, the very term itself is an irresolvable contradiction.
The only other definition for "Vampire" that I can find is that left us by history when the term, itself, was first written down... and far predating the "Vampire Panics" of the 17th through 19th Centuries, during which time all the aforementioned "Vampire" tales and lore were popularized and fictionalized into the vampire we know today.
When we go back in time more than 500 years before the term "Vampire" meant an undead blood-drinker, we find the term originally used as a nickname by an Eastern Orthodox Christian Priest who called himself: Father Vampire Insatiable (Pop Upir Likhyj), who worked as a master translator and linguist in the direct employ of Prince Vladimir, son of Yaroslav the Great, of Novgorod, Russia.
As pointed out so well by Dr. Bruce McClelland, author of "Vampires and their Slayers: A Cultural History of Killing the Undead," it is immediately apparent that what the term "Vampire" meant when first coined and employed is a far cry from what it came to mean centuries, thereafter.
Thus... before any of us can declare ourselves to be, or not to be, a "Vampire," oughtn't we first to investigate what the term actually meant when coined to define what it originally did? Until or unless we can... the question cannot be truthfully answered.
- Upir'
