Rules of vampirism
(midwest.social)
pseudo
VampiresI mean, my girlfriends from my 20s had impeccable taste in guys.
What? Why? Are you claiming that vampires are incapable of learning and/or changing their behavior model?
I think in some mythologies that's actually part of it, for example in Twilight they literally keep retaking high school. (And someone turned as a child won't grow mentally, besides not growing physically)
In Dracula, van Helsing goes on and on about how the vampire has a "child brain", implying not only does it not mature over the centuries, but it actually regresses to an emotionally and mentally less mature state than a human adult would be.
In Twilight the high school thing is specifically because of the not growing physically. Nothing to do with mental.
They realized if they start in high school they can stay in one place longer. It adds more time they can be there without seeming weird. They go to both high school and college and then move on to a new place.
Good lord. Could you imagine having to relive high school years ad infinitum?
I would fucking stake myself.
ad nauseum, even.
Imagine how many teen girls can they stalk though
Bruh…
If I'm not mistaken one of them does touch on that. Something like they're just getting to the fun part (college) and they'd be pissed if they had to do high school twice because they had to move because of Bella or something.
I would think they continuously grow mentally because of having decades and centuries of experiences, which makes it even more ridiculous that they would keep going to high school. There are ordinary people who stop going to high school and never go back. Surely a vampire could figure out how to make that work.
You're forgetting the whole story supposedly came to her in a dream and this follows weird dream logic
I didn't even know that, but presumably she was conscious for the actual writing.
Ew. That one's the worst, honestly. "Vampire", bah. An immortal pedo is still a pedo, just for far longer.
Being immortal means they (and all other immortals) have to endure the heat death of the universe for effectively ever, so there’s that
IIRC, there was a vamp scene in a flick/series I was watching recently where one of 'em commented similarly. Man, now I gotta figure out what it was! 🤦🏼♂️
So boomer marriage?
Also, the vampire is 300 years old and attracted to 20-somethings
"Preys on" ≠ "attracted to", full stop.
Why not? Stories where that's both true can be viscerally terrifying.
I was referring to the original subject, tbf. Not in general. 🤷🏼♂️
I... was under the impression the original subject was horror too.
The original subject in this sub-thread was the glitter "vampires", but not a worry. I hear ya.
Preying on young animals is normal: they taste better and are more tender. That’s why almost every pig and cow and chicken you’ve ever eaten is under two years old.
Hell, predators eat young animals all the time. They’re slower and dumber.
But converting one to be your companion is creepy as hell.
Sounds like parasite apologia. I'm certain the animals you cited'd be fully against their slaughter, or those like them. This isn't a "nature does it" discussion here —especially since the creature in question is literally not of the natural world, ergo "supernatural". 🫤
I’ve met the pigs I’ve eaten.
Never wanted to fuck ‘em.
The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
How does your hair stay like that with all the whooshing going on? 😶
I can see that as adaptation. Finding partners of appropriate mental age would become impossible if you perpetually looked like a teenager.
Except I didn’t like teenagers when I was a teenager. I can’t imagine liking them now.
Maybe you were unusual, I was attracted to people of my age as an adolescent.
So I guess the question is whether adolescent vampires have the same hormones as normal people and are normal.
Personally I prefer older partners for their experience.
Another question is why take any discussion seriously when it's about the hypothetical properties of fictional creatures.
Because sometimes it’s fun to pretend
in your 20s
Doesn't seem any more difficult than going to high school forever.
literally hell.
I had pretty good taste in guys in my 20s, not to mention a ton more self-confidence, so I think that would probably work out
TBF, I'd always assumed they'd grow in all ways but implied age... then, Interview and the glittery skeeze series came out, so 🤷🏼♂️
Sorry I'm not clear on what you mean here. What does "grow in all ways but implied age" mean?
Sorry, I meant that they continue to experience reality throughout their unlives and that alone's enough to teach a few lessons here and there without much effort.
They only appear as young as they'll ever be, and most go to great lengths to inhabit that expectation (hush, Nosferatu.) Additionally, the majority of vampire legends agree that vamps get more powerful with age —though they differ on how.
Ergo, "grow in all ways but implied age". 😁
Oh right I see.
Obviously the modern vampire has existed for just over 200 years and been told in many forms in that time.
It's been too long since I've read The Vampyre to be able to recall, and I've never read Varney or Carmilla to be able to comment on those, but the idea of vampires being emotionally stunted goes back at least as far as Dracula, where van Helsing monologues at length about the vampire's "child brain"—its simple-mindedness and almost instinctive/animalistic approach to going about its plans. And obviously you're already aware of how Rice's vampires are stuck at the age they were turned. Though as I write that, I wonder how that general trend in her books meshes with the portrayal of Claudia in Interview developing sexual feelings despite having been turned as a very young child. A retcon/something Rice developed more as the series went on, perhaps?
But anyway, my point is that the idea of vampires failing to mature is certainly not new as of Twilight or even the Vampire Chronicles. It goes back basically as far as the modern concept of the vampire. As for earlier vampiric folklore...van Helsing seems to talk about it as though he's discussing existing folkloric tradition in Dracula, but Stoker's idea of what that tradition was is very...idiosyncratic. It's hard to say how much that actually represents true folkloric beliefs, how much it represents Stoker's misunderstanding of said beliefs, and how much is the character of van Helsing. Regardless, personally I view the modern (post-Polidori) vampire as being so distinct from the folklore that there's not much value in comparing the two too closely when discussing vampires more generally.
I am humbled and excited by your knowledge here! Rest assured, I will be happily rabbitholing on vamp lore tonight! 🤩🤘🏼
