Vampires: Bisexual by natures?

[elegant20]

Yep, we know vampires don't exist and all. Yep, they have many weaknesses: garlic, sunlight, stake through the heart, and mirrors. But judging from the movies or books you seen and read, do you think vampires are primarily bisexual by nature? Or hetero at least? What is your theory?

 

[2322]

Vampires are asexual. They cannot reproduce via sex because they are dead.

 

[Rugbypup]

Vampires are asexual. They cannot reproduce via sex because they are dead.

Good point, I think Anna Rice was quoted as saying Vampires are neither straight tor gay, but attracted to life itself.

But I guess it depends on how far you go back, the earliest legends say nothing about mirrors and as for sunlight, just that vampires are nocturnal and weak in the day.

With the myth reinvented every generation, I guess they can be what ever you want them to be...

...we all know werewolves are far cooler any how, lol.

 

[B_FruitFly]

They'll do just about anything to get that blood

 

[2322]

They'll do just about anything to get that blood

Very well. "because they were once dead." Either way, they do not use their organs in a natural manner.

 

[elegant20]

That's an interesting theory. Gotta love that scene when Chris Sarandon puts his hands on the fledgling's shoulder in Fright Night. Though I wondered if the 80s version of vampire flicks(good or bad) made them more bisexual than they were in the old days from the 20s-60s. The 70s made it a little more sexual, too.

 

[whatireallywant]

In the Anita Blake: Vampire Hunter books by Laurell K. Hamilton, the vampires do have sex. They vary between being straight, bi, and gay. The main vampire character, Jean-Claude, has sex with Anita Blake.

 

[B_8inchesNotAverage]

Who cares there is no such thing as vampires, second of all if they could have sex they would be straight, because a male would be turned on by a female and his testicles would still shoot sperm because he is alive duhh.

 

[2322]

That's an interesting theory. Gotta love that scene when Chris Sarandon puts his hands on the fledgling's shoulder in Fright Night. Though I wondered if the 80s version of vampire flicks(good or bad) made them more bisexual than they were in the old days from the 20s-70s. You think when they have these companions, they require some company, even if they can't reproduce sexually at all. So even through the centuries they outlived, they must seek companionship. That's why they are so bored.

Post-Stoker vampires do, but that's more for the necessity of modern life. To hold someone in thrall makes being a vampire safer. Gives you someone to watch over your sleep, take care of daytime business matters, and who isn't intimidated by religious objects.

Folk vampires are far less complex. They are loners, have questionable sentience, and are very vulnerable.

 

[Rugbypup]

Who cares there is no such thing as vampires...

Kinda pointed out in the original post but cheers for clearing that up.

...second of all if they could have sex they would be straight, because a male would be turned on by a female...

You are aware of of sexualities?

...and his testicles would still shoot sperm because he is alive duhh.

Any one else care to field that one?

 

[elegant20]

We are not saying that vampires exist at all. We are just saying what the nature they are portrayed in literature and movies. That's all. We are not claiming the existence of them at all.

 

[barkerfan]

I think that's exactly it. It's about that companionship and more of a mental/ emotional bond. I don't think it is so much about male or female as it is about a sense of desire and belonging( or in some cases "owning". There are defined roles in pretty much all of the texts and movies.) One of my all time favorite vampire movies is called The Hunger. It is pretty sexually charged but it also presents an extremely different take on the vampire legend. It's also a great example of that desire for a companion without being bound by gender. Very stylish film. If you haven't seen it I strongly recommend it. It stars David Bowie, Susan Sarandon and Katherine Deneuve. It was made in the 80's so there are a couple weak points but really not many. Very well made film.

 

[barkerfan]

So.....If I shoot sperm, from my living testicles, that means I'm straight? Damn, MY WHOLE ADULT LIFE HAS BEEN A LIE. I gotta call my folks.

 

[drumstyck]

Barkerfan beat me to mentioning The Hunger...


basically, there's no vampire "canon"...everyone interprets the mythos differently, every movie or book is gonna have its own little twist to the way vampires behave...the vampires in Underworld live the sexy lifestyle, big extravagant parties, swank mansions, etc...whereas the vampires in 30 Days Of Night are just fucking animals, no real emotion, just craving blood.


so for quick references:
Bram Stoker's Dracula, Count Dracula was in love with a woman.
The vampires in Underworld seemed pretty hetero; Kraven was lusting after Selene, the blonde vampire chick thought Michael was attractive, etc.
Lestat (as played by tom cruise (i never read the book)) seemed rather foppish, or that might've just been his hair.
the vampiress in The Hunger was explicitly bisexual.

 

[elegant20]

Allow me to point out that Bram Stoker was not the first vampire writer. There is another novel much earlier than Stoker's Dracula. This book was written in the 1870s about a lesbian vampire. I forgotten the name of it. Bram's version dealt with the battles of good and evil, Victorian straight-laced attitudes, and diary form. Dracula using every power he could have: fog effects, hypnotizing, and vanishing. Almost superhuman.

 

[2322]

Allow me to point out that Bram Stoker was not the first vampire writer. There is another novel much earlier than Stoker's Dracula. This book was written in the 1870s about a lesbian vampire. I forgotten the name of it. Bram's version dealt with the battles of good and evil, Victorian straight-laced attitudes, and diary form. Dracula using every power he could have: fog effects, hypnotizing, and vanishing. Almost superhuman.

The first is John Polidori's The Vampyre, published in 1819 and written on the same night as Mary Shelley began penning Frankenstein as both were staying at Lord Byron's castle in Switzerland.

The book you're thinking of is 1872's Carmilla by J.S. Le Fanu.

 

[2322]

Dracula is one of my favorite books and I once wrote an enormous paper on it. The use of diary form was absolute genius on the part of Stoker; very unique for the time. The rest of Dracula is, however, a defense of bourgeois British Victorian values on many social levels. Stoker's insight was very keen and deftly executed. It's definitely a book that requires multiple reads to understand everything that's being discussed.

 

[The Dragon]

I must say that I like the Anita Blake more than any other vampire series.
I love the sheer sexual tension and the bloodshed gets greater with every new book as Anita fights and fails to keep her humanity while being caught between her Vampire and Werewolf lovers.
She is a gutsy lass who is "real" gritty, gutsy, sensual woman who pulls the trigger and asks questions later.
It is well written and I adore the series.

 

[elegant20]

I think it is incredibly interesting interesting as to even some gay porn flicks get involved with the vampire myths. While there take is not very much in truth with the actual account of vamps, I just find it interesting at least. There weren't that many of them. They are just scattered.

There was another vampire movie made in the early 90s(very low budget and forgotten the name of it) where Dracula unknowingly takes interest of a victim that's a guy and the whole comedy play ensues later on. It is more a light-hearted take on the legend of vampires, but I forgotten the name of it. It was show either on Showtime or Cinemax in the late 90s or early 00s. I don't think that one is released on DVD at all. Anybody know the title?

 

[No_Strings]

It simply depends on the author and universe; all bases have been covered at one point or another.