Isn't being in love with a vampire a little perverse?

Chosen Enemy

Chosen Enemy

Losing my soul
Joined
Aug 11, 2010
Messages
3,430
Age
40
Vampires aren't humans. So loving them might be a little weird concept. Not because they're evil or souless. I mean, if one was in love with something inhuman, even an animal, it is a little perverse. So the idea of loving a vampire feels to me the same. Yet, some of us are in love with Angel, or Spike, or vampire Willow, etc. And that seems fine. But come to think of it, it's a little out there. Because they're not human. We are. Buffy is. She falls in love with vampires (well, not all of them, just a few... two) and sleeps with them.
 
Chosen Enemy said:
Vampires aren't humans. So loving them might be a little weird concept. Not because they're evil or souless. I mean, if one was in love with something inhuman, even an animal, it is a little perverse. So the idea of loving a vampire feels to me the same. Yet, some of us are in love with Angel, or Spike, or vampire Willow, etc. And that seems fine. But come to think of it, it's a little out there. Because they're not human. We are. Buffy is. She falls in love with vampires (well, not all of them, just a few... two) and sleeps with them.
Click to expand...

I don't really agree that some people are in love with Angel, Spike, vamp Willow, etc. I'd dispute that anyone was in love with a fictional character, despite what they might think.

Interesting question though, I suppose it is perverse, but Buffy didn't know that Angel was a vampire when she fell for him.

In a really weird way, it makes me think of GSA (Genetic Sexual Attraction) like, how two siblings that have been separated at birth meet thirty years later, don't know they're related and fall in love.

I don't think that's perverse, because they don't know. But if they had grown up together as brother and sister and then fallen in love, then it would be weird.

I can sort of apply that to Buffy and Angel, if you understand what I'm saying?
 
I thought the same thing, a little bit pervers. But in the end I think the demon in them you can't see. Their outer is like the outer of a human beeing. Not like an animal. So I think it is moral justifiable
 
Evil Angelus 95
Evil Angelus 95
[No message]
I think it would be a bit perverse if they weren't in human form, but aside from the whole undead thing, loving vampires seems pretty similar to loving murderers and people of that ilk so not all that bad really.

The idea of Angel loving Buffy when she was quite so young is weirder imo.
 
brinkster130
brinkster130
[No message]
Not really. Seeing as how they look and act (and once were) humans. Also, vampires are known for their seduction skills and their sexuality. It's pretty much normal for a human to at least lust a vampire, which can also be seen as humans being tricked into thinking they "love" them.

Saying it's perverse is implying that it's not normal, but if you look into the history of vampire fiction it's pretty normal for humans to be attracted to vampires.
 
Isn't being in love with a vampire a little perverse?

Yes. I remember an episode of Buffy, I can't remember which one, where Giles was describing vampires as just demons inhabiting a dead body.

Putting it that way, yes, it's a little perverse. Heck, it's beyond 'a little'. It's just downright creepy. :lmao:
 
Seeing as they look completely human 98% of the time, and actually walk and talk, it's not really in-your-face perverse... but there's an element of "Fridge Perversity" (gah, I spend too much time on tvtropes, don't I? 🙂) in it. Seeing as they're technically dead, have no pulse, no heartbeat, room temperature, and probably none too pleasant breath on top of it (congealed blood with a slight aftertaste of rot? How delicious... I bet Spike's smoking habit actually improved his breath a lot... 😀), there's certainly aspects of watered-down necrophilia involved. Even though a true necrophiliac would abhor all the moving and talking, of course.
 
S
Skytteflickan88
I agree. It's the corpse thing that's gross, not the non-human thing.
SlayerFest
SlayerFest
Seriously. Everything that you said is EXACTLY what hit me when Faith asked buffy about "boning the undead"...about the breath and the coldness UCH!
If you think about the necrophilia part, then yes, it is perverse. 😀 At least they're not rotten corpses. 😀
 
i don't think it's perverse in the least. vampires look and act like human beings most of the time, and they once were human. they're designed to lure humans to them--they're incredibly sexual, seductive beings. literary history is full of human beings falling in love with otherwordly creatures, so it actually seems pretty normal. it's definitely a trope at this point. love is love, in my opinion.
 
C
caritas08
[No message]
Honestly, yes. I think it is a little perverse when you start to think about it because they may look human but they're not really human. It's an animated corpse... which just opens up a whole realm of weirdness that is hard to wrap your mind around.

Which is why I think that most fictional heroines we see are in slight denial of the more unpleasant vampiric aspects of their boyfriends. It's just not really pleasant to think about and since they walk, talk and act human it's fairly easy to suppress that really they've been dead for countless of years and all that that entails.
 
InsaneMystic said:
Seeing as they look completely human 98% of the time, and actually walk and talk, it's not really in-your-face perverse... but there's an element of "Fridge Perversity" (gah, I spend too much time on tvtropes, don't I? 🙂) in it.
Click to expand...

I heart TVtropes. It ruined my life, but I still love it. 😛



Vamps used to be human and still keep human form, so it's not perverse. That's why they're such popular mythical creatures--fantasy beings that we can still have romantic relations with! (More popular as romantic figures right now than elves or fairies, who are also humanoid, because of the whole sinister attraction thing.) If, for example, a vampire used to be human but had a beast-like form, the whole thing would seem much more perverse. It's appearances, window dressing, that actually make the whole thing more okay. Adding the fact that they used to be human justifies it.
 
brinkster130
brinkster130
[No message]
Taake said:
Honestly, yes. I think it is a little perverse when you start to think about it because they may look human but they're not really human. It's an animated corpse... which just opens up a whole realm of weirdness that is hard to wrap your mind around.

Which is why I think that most fictional heroines we see are in slight denial of the more unpleasant vampiric aspects of their boyfriends. It's just not really pleasant to think about and since they walk, talk and act human it's fairly easy to suppress that really they've been dead for countless of years and all that that entails.
Click to expand...
I don't know. Cordelia never seemed to be in denial about Angel's vampireness. Lol. Could it be that Cordelia's a bit of a necrophiliac? Lol.
 
I'm not entirely sure if perverse is quite the right word for me. I definitely think its ironic that a slayer would fall in love with a vampire. I also think that it's gross if you think about it logically, the fact that it's a demon inside a dead body. I just think perverse is a bit harsh. You can't help if you fall in love with whether it's a boy, girl or a vampire 🙂
 
They were human. They have human bodies, mannerisms, voices, thoughts. They're one step away from being human. I don't think it's the same as a guy I saw on the news saying he was in love with his goat and wanted to marry it. Goats aren't in any way human.

There's such a thin line between vampires and humans that no, I don't find it perverse.

But going on your logic, wouldn't it be the same for Anya and Xander? Sure, they fell in love once she was human again, but in s7 she wasn't human and he still was in love with her. Is that perverse too?
 
C
caritas08
Oh, come on. Who hasn't fallen in love with a goat at least once in their life? Someone? Anyone? On a more serious note....I agree with vampires being close enough to human for it to not gross me out.
brinkster130
brinkster130
[No message]
InsaneMystic said:
Seeing as they look completely human 98% of the time, and actually walk and talk, it's not really in-your-face perverse... but there's an element of "Fridge Perversity" (gah, I spend too much time on tvtropes, don't I? 🙂) in it. Seeing as they're technically dead, have no pulse, no heartbeat, room temperature, and probably none too pleasant breath on top of it (congealed blood with a slight aftertaste of rot? How delicious... I bet Spike's smoking habit actually improved his breath a lot... 😀), there's certainly aspects of watered-down necrophilia involved. Even though a true necrophiliac would abhor all the moving and talking, of course.
Click to expand...

reading it like this, yes, it is perverse 😀
 
I dunno, I think if someone is only attracted to them because they're undead, that could be considered a bit perverse. But if it's in spite of this then not really, because, as others have said, of all of the human qualities of vampires which make the corpse thing utterly forgettable.

But I think if you really, really, really think about it though...like really think about it, it can be a bit disturbing. I think blood breath alone would have to be a huge turn-off!
In any case, I don't think we're meant to give it much thought. 🙂

I remember back when Surprise aired there was a little bit of a scandal because they didn't show Buffy and Angel using condoms, and the WB would have preferred that they did as the show had a prime air time for teen viewers. Then Joss issued the statement, "He's a vampire! He shoots blanks!" Which sort of shut everyone up but then got them to think more specifically about the notion of vampire sex which could have been an issue on its own... I mean, really, what are you gonna do? 😱
 
brinkster130
brinkster130
eeek blood breath!
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom