The Ultimate Vampire Resource and Directory

I read an interesting article just now that was produced for Salon magazine in 1997 called, "Interviews with the Vampires" that speaks with 3 self acclaimed blood drinkers and vampires (one of whom I knew personally - Clint Catalyst) and discusses their blood drinking and their motivations.

The article is hear:
http://www.salon.com/feb97/vampires970225.html

I think it shows an interesting look at the 'vampires' of the late 90's and how many were very clinical in their own view of a self described 'fetish' and the benefits that it gave them. It makes an interesting contrast to the more spiritual vampires of the current decade.

Has vampirism evolved into this 'awakening' as a defense of credibility or because of a natural selection wherein the few that remain every year hold more highly the values and reasons for what they do?

I should mention that it's also in the database here:

https://www.vampirerave.com/vdb_view.php?entry=154

I think the answer lies largely in the question re: credibility you raised in the last paragraph of your question.

Blood drinking, despite views to the contrary here, is not a physiological necessity for anyone... including those here claiming to be true sanguinary "vampires." Thus, as this fact (and if this is contested, I welcome any scientific study to the contrary) rather derails the strict interpretation of "vampire" as a blood-drinker a la the Stoker variety, a new definition of "vampire" became increasingly requisite if vampiric claims were to have any pseudo-legit credibility. Hence, the expansion of the definition to legitimize more "spiritual" and/or emotional definitions today associated with the new term: "psy-vampirism."

This is not evolution of whatever might be consider real "vampirism," but rather an increasing loosening of the definition so as to permit almost anyone to claim being "vampires," themselves.

So you feel it's a general softening of the intent.

Let me explain...if we go further in the past of the 20th century, self proclaimed vampires were often murderers and or rapists.

So we went from murder, to physical violence or assault, to blood sport or fetishism to spiritual vampirism that doesn't even require contact. And you feel that it's a conscious or subconscious effort exercised over a culture to become more accepted?

It does seem that over the ages the look and portrayal of a vampire has indeed softened. It seems to be more socialably accetpable not then it was ages ago, although still not sociablly acceptable all in the same breath. Even in appearance this is much the case. We have gone from the hideousness of Nostferatu to the beauty we have today. It goes with the fact that all things change over time in my opinion. :)

FelixFelix,

Good point! You are correct that if we go further back, the Media tended to give the term "vampire" to murderers. However, when these terms were being used they were used as pejoratives and long before the term "Vampire" was considered "in vogue" and "cool" as it is today.

My point is that prior to the advent of what is today called the "Vampire Culture," the term had specific meaning in the Media to those who were especially bloodthirsty (i.e, murderers, torturers, people of psychotic mindset).

However, just because the term "Vampire" was exploitatively used then by the Media in sensationalistically depicting such persons does not mean that this was the actual definition of the term back then. Thus, there can be no logical assumption that the way in which this word has been sensationalistically used by the Media somehow circumscribes its actual definition. Nor can we then connect the dots, as it were, based upon this Media usage to reach the conclusion that the term and the entity it represents has undergone some sort of kinder-gentler metamorphisis.

As I have stated from Day One, we cannot know what a vampire truly is until we can first determine what the term originally meant to those who created the word in the first place. And, originally, the word created to define this entity (whatever it is/was) was the word Upir'.

excellent article! I agree that times do change, therefore peoples perceptions of themselves would change as well. Early 90s I myself was indestructible, more playful... very much the fetishist.

More spiritual now? Definitely! Spiritually vampiric? Now THAT I must ponder...

I do believe, that with time, society tends to accept things more. It happens with many different things, including vampirism.

SOFTENED?! SOFTENED?! TODAYS VAMPIRES ARE A FRIGGING JOKE. THERE ARE "SELF-PROCLAIMED" OF ALL TYPES OF VAMPIRES. TODAY THEY ARE POTRAYED AD NORMALHUMANS WITH NORMAL PURSUITS, ALBEIT VAMPIRIC STYLE. CARS, CELL PHONES, RESTUARANTS, E L I T E S I M! IF A VAMPIRE OF TODAY EVER WENT UP AGAINST AVAMPIRE OF OLD, OLD WINS. THE CLOSESTS I'VE SEEN TO, OR BEST EXAMPLE AS IT WERE, IS THE POTRAILS IN UNDERWORLD AND THE AREWNT PERFECT.

As a considered response, the term "vampire" or "vampyre" as some would prefer to differentiate, has indeed changed over the last decade.

I think that a lot of people adapt the word vampire to fit their own needs, understanding that what they are may not match other classes or types of people.

I personally use the term vampire, but not in the "spiritual" sense. I consider myself spiritual, but I don't classify myself in the ranks of energy workers, new agers, satanists, christians, or much of anything other than my own path that I choose to follow.

Perhaps the term vampire has widened in the same manner to include several different beliefs and types. But in the terms of the old vampires, even of a decade ago, yes they have changed to encompass a much wider range of people.

Vampirism, as a whole, now encompasses several different types. I think that while many of these types display vampiric qualities, one could easily categorize them as a straight fetishist vs a "vampire" in the classic sense of the word.

What makes the difference? Who's to really know if any individual claiming the title of vampire truly is a vampire of any kind...

Years ago, not that many honestly, we would have been put on trial and murdered for the things that we do and the openness that we are aloud to have in this day in age. We would have been absolutely unacceptable. Outcast, like nothing we've ever experienced before, to put it very mildly.

yeah, most the women nowadays would be labeled a harlet and a witch in two seconds flat.. and we all know how that usually ended up back in those horse and buggy days, even the 80's and 90's had it's share or EXTREME orejudices against anything different than the norm.. but i think as time goes on, and especially with what media amd movies do for things.. alot of sub cultures will be more wildly acceptable.

I had to think about this thread long and hard.
Well I see Upirs point he has been well talking about the true definition of vampire since he got here.
Terms change the meanings of words change whether we the vampire have evolved or not isn't really the point I think the point here is the evolving of a word
I am a psy-vamp, I get my energy thru taking it off another living being. I ask first as I have a personal code of ethic's.
I think the word and term for vampirism as it stands today is exactly what I do I take a bit of there life force and the only way I can see not being a total parasite is to give them something they need inreturn not energy but well something they might desire.
I knew a few vamps back in San Francisco they have there clubs and I would get invited to go to a party or 2. I never was a donner as well blood the giving of blood or taking it scares me for a number of reasons.

We have changed due to many different things enviroment being one of them more tolerance of sub cultures to the over all society.

Upir when you speak of actual vampires "the Upir's" as you have called them a number of times I don't see they have exclusive rights over a word such as vampire nor are there only one kind of vampire now as the word seems to be defined now that is...

I personally love to hear things about history, but history is just that the past revisited in the now...
You have sanguines, psy's, ego vamps gotta love them (NOT) a whole plethera of dffent kinds due to the fact this word has evolved so much as to include of these differnt kinds..Here it might just be possible that people that cliam they are vampiric in nature is due to the actual Upir's blood line being a part of our genetic code as well, albeit highly watered down but all the same a possibilty???

True, many women of today (if not all of them) would be burned at the stake or at the very best, locked in a sanitorium.

Then again, by the old standards, many men would get locked away as well.

I agree with Mikhail..past is past..so what does it matter..all the spouting off of what was, what history says is just doesnt matter..it is what is now.
Using history for longwinded answers gets old.

Please read more closely I actually love his answers I love to study history and I do this on my own time I am not in school. When I said that it was ment as a possible disemination of the Upir's blood lines come down and with the case of people having a vampiric side that they might be decendents of the Upir.
I have read bot his profile and most of Upir's jounral they fascinate me. We learn from history and if we don't we are doomed to repeat history.
The reason I said this again wasn't the challenge history but to say hey maybe the reason we are like this is because of the original vampire "Upir".

Mikhail, I would definitely have to agree with your statement about learning from history. Those that do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. I have always had a fascination with history as well because I would like to learn from past mistakes. I am sure that we would all like to go back in time and correct at least one mistake that we have made.

i tend to agree that today's portrayal of vampire are a more softer type or a user friendly being. the stigma of yesterday's vamps are, at first glance, tend to lean to the more powerful then the deadly night terror. while the fright of the night is still with us, then hideous night creature of the past has been, in my view, replaced with the more sexy and sensitive being.

Mikhail - You said that you don't engage in blood drinking or being a donor because of fears (most likely fears of blood born disease...which is completely understandable). Do you think that led to an increase in psy-vamps over sangs?

Kytrin - History used for an agenda can rub the wrong way but to say that history doesn't matter exposes a refusal to learn and a willful ignorance. Understanding history is often understanding oneself. You are the product of your own history. This history may be a part of it.

Lord Lestat - So you don't see an increase in the number of vampires and blood drinkers that come forward with a more spiritual connection to their sanguinary actions?

Obviously acceptance can happen through time and patience and the obstinance to not be pushed aside as many here have suggested...but what of the more subtle self involved methods of acceptance wherein a thing becomes more acceptable because it has mutated to be less offensive or invasive? Could that in part be what happened?

Mikhail,

Thank you so much for your remarks re: my research and journal entries. I am delighted that there are those for whom such have been found of use.

There is so much more I could share were I not saving the real "meat and potatoes" of what I've discovered thus far for the book I am writing. However as much as I can, I do try to share tidbits from time to time to whet the appetites of those for whom such historical research is of interest.

Yes, the actual facts do fly in the face of most of what today's fictionalized "vampire" is supposed to be; and understandably so. Historically what I've researched is dead-on accurate, despite the later lies, vilifications, and then the more-contemporary and entertaining fictions that have so drastically altered our modern perceptions of "vampirism."

But, frankly, I find the truth far more intriguing and infinitely more entertaining than the fictions created to hide it.

Felix I well do know many of them now test both themselves and there donners.I really don't think the blood bourne diseases are the reasons behinf more psy-vamps showing up we've always been here always done this kind of feeding even when we didnt know who or what we are..We have found a niche where we belong just like the sanguines we no longer have the fear of letting others know what we are is more likely Felix.

Upir,
Your most welcome. I have a deep love affair with history I know a great deal about the development of western Europe I lack a balance here and deeply want to learn of the history of eastern Europe. I can safely say I follow what is happening in eastern Europe lets say the last 75 years or so. I don't however have a full background for anything older then that just sippets of legends and possibly twisted stories that were brought to the western half of Eurpoe and as best was contaminated by bias's

Well my being a member of the original 80's group og Goth I can truely say that there have been many changes with each new generation...in perspective and utilization of the movement or belief ...if you will...

With time society begins to accept more things.... but to just come out and admit or claim to be something that people fear or know nothing about causes major controversy

i think as time goes...things are more acceptable.....human race seems to be accepting more of what they call the "unordinary" now...

i think it has changed from the devoted blood drinkers to the spiritual psycicvampires because of the rules in society today. people are raised to believe that blood drinking among other things, is un moral, and disgusting. because of this, and to find a way around it, they choose to take something that normal humans dont really know has been taken form them.

Well they don't know where the word Vampire really stems from..Upir is a suggestion...I have seen many others but there are many words that mean the same thing. Vyrdolak for one. There are more tales of Vampire types in Greece than in any other place and that's where I think they come from personally.

I think it is a very misunderstood race of beings. I think folklore has misrepresented them. Everyone who eats are energy feeders. They just get their energy from a different source...Calories and they are energy units.

I prefer to use Vampyric. There is no difinitive information that unequivocally states that what we call vampires drank blood exclusively or really at all beyond superstition or those cases of mentally disturbed people with a fixation on it or fetishers that call themselves by the term. Just because they use the term doesn't make them one. They don't need the blood they LIKE it.

Supposedly vampyrics drink blood for the energy in it and not for the sake of the blood. It supposedly has a concentration of lifeforce energy. I have not seen that proven either and when debated causes a great deal of upset by those who believe they need to get energy from that physical source and they are medical people, professions and even Psychologists. Mark my words its not all kids and loonies. It is an emetic, only thirty percent of the world population can drink much of it without throwing up.

This has been the downside of the community because its full of fetishers, lifestylers and fashion vamps all calling themselves the same thing. I personally don't like the names applied. We all feed on a source of energy. We are essentially energy feeders. There is no reason to divide up types. If some want to drink blood that is fine but I am turning 60 years old in April and from my experience not a one of them unless they are OCD get energy from one source its just that the majority do not drink blood.

I had no real awakening, I just sort of evolved into a knowing beyond just knowing I was different. I called it "behind the eyes" as a kid and I got involved with the Occult and Spiritualism so I would have never said vampire I would have said occultist. As time passed people were more willing to step out and define it more clearly to what they saw written in the past. Some have gotten carried away with it in that they mimic the novelistic vampire. Sighs...that's life.

Nowadays it is a bit fool hardy but up to the individuals to decide. Hopefully they use donors and safe practices and get medical testing prior to commencing this sort of feeding with anyone. I personally even though I have felt urges from time to time will NOT drink blood. It is full of all kinds of things that we are not immune to and it gets worse as each decade passes. Many of us overeat for all these reasons. More often than not the real vampyrics are over weight. WE eat food to try and fill the need...why we don't know. Some of us have anamolies in common but to get testing one would have to start with a list of things that might be considered in looking for something in common. Another thing too, the normal labs are not sophisticated enough to find anything. I know I worked with autism and know the more sophisticated labs that do their testing and on occasion test others the normal medical profession says we cannot find anything but they do. So there may be some differences but I believe they would be very subtle and probably not found due to the nature of them.

There is no proof it isnt spiritual as opposed to physical or both or something else. WE don't know but there are enough people with reversed circadian cylcles and you name it to take it seriously by any name.

Life force and energy, two good key words. People are much more tolerant of these terms than they were 10, 15 or so years ago. I don't think it should be labeled as an awakening. I would use the word "enlightened" instead. Progress for the Vampiric people!

i agree that todays day and age that we are more open about our lives then back in the earlier times..but i dont think there is much of a differnce from 1990s to 2000s but i think there was an awaking in the 70s early 80s..i could be wrong im not a rocket scientist but thats what i thinks happened...

Personally I think we have just reached a more accepting stage in life. This seems to be the age of tolerance where it is becoming illegal to hate anyone for who they are so why would vamper ism be any different

Very interesting article Felix. I think that the meaning of vampire has softened and changed over time. When did vampires become sexy? I remember the Bram Stoker's dracula and early dipictions of vampires as being hideous. Today they are seen as almost erotic and aluring. Perhaps it is the rise of trendiness of emo and goth? I am not sure if this is just a fad or something more, but the culture and community behind vampires has come a long way even from the early 90s to today.

How much of this disuussion is based on what the media thinks is not just popular, but profitable. I don't believe that that either would be stronger than the other, it is how we allow our own ideas to be deluded that skewer our perspectives on these ideas.

I think vampires have changed a lot in every decade.

Think about it. Go back to the time when stories were told merely by mouth. Vampires were bats and wolves, fine mists and terrible creatures...

Forward in time, they are walking corpses, horrifing to look upon, mindless and unable to keep from drinking the blood of those who have it... even thier life's loved ones...

Forward more and they start to have minds, Dracula brought out a revelotion where vampires controled animals, but weren't of them... of vampires who were horrifing as beasts, but could pretend to be human and be amoung them with control.

Go forward now to a bit before now... when vampires began to take on the wild untamed sexuality that stormed people in the last few decades...

It's no surprise to see the "legends" change.

Times have changed and the Vampyres of today have changed from what they were in the 90s. Yes, they have become more spiritual and some are initiates of a religion of mysteries. The Psi Vampire has emerged from the shadows of human evolution, and found their niche. The sanguinary Vampyre is returning to the darkness from where they came, the practice becomming too dangerous with multiple blood borne diseases.
Vampyres have been with us since the dawn of human awareness, incarnated beings of unknown origin, and appearing universally in folk tales and myths.

Jumping into it a little late...that was certainly a riveting read, FelixFelix. :) Thanks for bringing attention to that article.

I believe that at least a portion of the answer to your question lies in the article itself;

"(therapist) Daniel Lapin...warns that intelligent people have the capacity to justify just about any dementia."

The only shift I'm seeing from what I read in that article to today's vampirism is a slight but divisive one, the one you already mentioned; that the 90's vampire used the sub-culture as a means of emotional self-improvement, and today's vampire uses it for spiritual self-improvement. Are today's new vampires less psychologically damaged? Do they have less history of sexual abuse? Does this mean that eventually, our future leaders will be forced to publicly announce the validity of a vampire religion?

Eh, neat thought, anyway.

I am awefully sorry not to be able to first read all responses here, but I am running out of time atm and my tired head denies me longer stays tonight.

The first thing wich came to my mind reading the introducion and first few responses was:

Who remembers the Lost Boys or the little Vampire (in Germany it was renamed Rüdiger, der kleine Vampir), vampires in Television and/or cinemas in the 80ties?
My impression was, they where much more rebellious and angry than the 90ties wich became noble monsters and somehow sensual beings (yes, I am plain refering to Anne Rices view of the vampires, forgive me my lack of sources, please).

Or lets head back even more in time. Bela Lugosis famous acting for example. this vampire was a real Gentleman, yet somehow strange and dangerous.
Or even further back in time until to the Middle Ages. Here we meet monsters of great might, feared all the way through.

What I do ask me now (hopefully not striving off topic too much):

Are not or views towards vampires just a reflexion of our society in general and thus influenced by whatever might be the most common ethic/moral?
Carefully observing more sources with more time at hand may reveal such hypothesis true. Take it as a little new thought and reflect yourself and your views (if yet the mirror denies you its reflection. ;)

Vampires images has changed over time,but its always sanguine vamps that are dwelled on.apart from rogue in xmen,has there ever been a psy-vamp featured anywhere.

Vampires do not seem to be as "angry" as they were once portrayed. I do believe it is more of an acceptance than a softening. If people are not as quick to judge and ostrasize you then you seem more "soft" I guess is the only way I can explain my view.

As alway a great topic FelixFelix. I do think the we as a whole are more spiritualy aware and are trying to learn more about our desires and our gifts.

Scorpnoire - I agree that society will be reflected in it's fiction and that fictionally, the vampire has become more of the anti-hero and less of the villain. Characters like the family in your example of the Little Vampire or Angel or Vampires Anonymous...go even further becoming the true heroic figure and a victim of prejudice.

As for the living vampire, I find that the religious aspect of this lifestyle is definitely becoming more predominant and wonder if this might be a rejection of more common and older religions for something one can better control or at least share in the shaping of since it's young and open to more personal interpretation.

I realize that it has been said before but I feel that the obvious reason for a "vampire" to choose NOT to be a blood drinker is the blood borne disease. The vampire awakening is much like the free love movement of the 60s and 70s. At that time, no one really understand fully the dangers of sexually transmitted diseases so they were more apt to share thier bodies freely. The same holds true with the older generation vampire. As time and medicine progresses, all physical fads change and take on new meanings and faces, vampirism is no exception. Although the trend does seem reversed somewhat, in that blood drinking would be less taboo today (outside of the disease aspect) because movies, television and other media have taken some of the fear out of the "dark and unknown". Even small children know what a vampire is and that it is really nothing to fear because it is a mythological or made up creature.

Heres what I have to say on the subject. I find everything that everyone has posted as something that really connects with the question. The thing of it is though, if you look back to the history of where dracula came from and the real story that started the whole senario of a person being a vampire, they didnt have to be ugly, most werent. In fact through times vimpires really did have money because they were a duke or a knight or someone of rank in their countries government at the time. They created the image that vampires were hidious monsters at all times to hide the fact that they were one themself. This is where they cover up what they do and would do and in today times they protray more of a realistic appearance of those in earlier times appear to look like. Van Helsing was a movie yes, but it used more of a true based image of a true vampire. I dont believe however that there is a meta-mophic change that they undergo, but a phsycoligical change. It explains their diet. To truely be a vampire is to live that form of life, but even as excepted as it may be. You will always have ignorance in the case of truely being accepted. Its something that has improved over time, but never will be just out there excepted by all including employers. On the comment about mental vampires. They have developed a way to absorb your energy based on the fact that people in general have amplified their intellignence. We have been able to prevent the loss of any more knowledge and able to spead knowledge across the world. the mind is getting more use as long as people are thinking, improving, continuing creativity, then these forms of vampire will continue to grow.

Dark Greeting's,
From an Anthropological point of view culture always changes and constantly re-invents it's self why would Vampirism be any different. Evolution Happens even to Vampires.
Dark Blessing's,
KA

each decades has it way of seing vampires and the style, and the lifestyle, , its like in any other area, each decades has also the fashion and taste in music, along with the generation link ot it, its the same with vampires, it depends on the time, generation and current mood ( Please do not flam me for this last note)

well...some people cant go into the daylight because they are either allergic or because it hurts them
blood drinking is a fetish i must addmitt
sharpened cannines are born with along with the pale complexity
and nightlife is what we live for

Vampires these days are portrayed as being weak and vulnerable.

I wonder when it became the "in" thing that only the beautiful could be vampires? Things have certainly come along way from when vampires were lurching, monstrous beasts of the night...and I for one applaud the improvement if only to debunk the myth that vampires are only shells of humans seeking blood, like some kind of zombie. But the edict that all vampires turned must be beautiful as to be more of an affront to God is something that I have a hard time swallowing (no pun intended)

It does seem that over the ages the look and portrayal of a vampire has indeed softened. It seems to be more socialably accetpable not then it was ages ago, although still not sociablly acceptable all in the same breath. Even in appearance this is much the case. We have gone from the hideousness of Nostferatu to the beauty we have today. It goes with the fact that all things change over time in my opinion. and my coven master lol

I agree with the last statement. Vampirism has become much more socially acceptable than it was before. They are almost seen as "normal" human beings (so to speak). All of the past assumptions and ideas stuck to vampires seemed to have faded over the years. They arent portrayed so much in bat form anymore for one example. I think society has grown a lot more open minded over the years and in turn has grown to accept that which they dont understand, even though they dont understand it. Theres only a small percentage of society left that are true stifflers...and its mainly the older generations(prior to baby-boomers).

Dar Greeting's,
Diabloss I disagree with you to a point.My Grams explained to me what I am my Mom has just come around to 100% accepted.I've talked to many "Older Folks" and they seem to be a bit more tolerant.I'm 48 I gret more acceptence from some of them than my own generation.
Dark Blessing's,
KA

I agree with Diabloss (no Im not biased if I disagree, hes the first to know about it)

My grandma is so unopen minded & anything I do she snubs, shes a lovely woman don't get me wrong, but shes VERY set in her old ways, she thinks people with mental problems are just lazy bums, because in her day...There was no such thing, it's either work or eat.

Most of the older generation I have spoken to, think all this stuff is ridiculous

I never said there arent exceptions to my personal view. But from what I have seen this is what I know to be true. However, you cant say all apples are red, can you?

I was an unaware but awakened vampire in the 90's (that might make sense to some, but not to all - I apologize)...I fed automatically but not intentionally off ambient energy from various things (sex, elements, emotions) - the only thing that changed with the decade was my awareness.

I have a few friends who have been aware longer than myself; they will tell you they don't see much change like emotional vs spiritual. I think that depends on the person and not the decade.

Of course, I answer this from the standpoint of a human vampire (vampyre) - not from the fictional/mythical creature.

Perhaps the way vampires are portrayed in the media has changed not because the decades have changed but because they're the "in" thing right now with the subculture being so huge - writers are making them user friends, so to speak?

That I can agree with...was a little worried about you with your other post...but that one I have a bit of understanding for. Well said.

public perception is probably the biggest change between the 90s or even ealrier decades and the present times

90's vampires i beleive are close to the same as today its just that the publics eye has changed in what they see due to all of the media