"D J Williams describes his interests as including "deviant leisure, forensic leisure science..."
That is- doing weird stuff, and also sniffing the seat afterwards?
Genuine, blood-drinking vampires lead difficult unlives and are often reluctant to "come out of the coffin" and reveal the fact of their vampirism to social workers and other care professionals, a new study suggests. The paper, titled Do we Always Practice What we Preach? Real Vampires' Fears of Coming out of the Coffin to …
I must have missed something because the idea that there are people who feel the need to drink blood seems to me to be unsurprising. Whether their "vampirism" is based on a Richard-Trent-like psychosis, or just on the circumstance that they have picked up some half-witted occult ideas, is to a certain extent irrelevant.
Now, if this Dr D J Williams said that drinking blood gave them supernatural powers, or enabled the vampires to live forever, then that's one thing - but that's not the attitude he seems to have taken.
Who could doubt that there are people - mentally ill, suggestible, whatever - who somehow have gotten the idea that drinking blood is beneficial to them? That this guy has studied them (after succeeding in what must have been the rather more difficult task of *finding* them in the first place) could prove interesting.
If we recall, for example, Heaven's Gate, Marshall Applewhite, and the Hale-Bopp comet, where otherwise well-educated people actually killed themselves at the behest of a former mental patient preaching a doctrine than can only be called "moronic" - then what is the difficulty in thinking that there are also people who have "reasons" to drink blood?
We see people who entertain and act on the most bizarre beliefs every fucking day. And it's worthy of study, don't you think?
Usually I'd dismiss the subjects of such a study as "the biggest shower of self-indulgent wankers". But clearly in this case that epithet belongs to the research team.
It turns out that the true power of mirrors over vampires is that they realise that there's a sociologist standing behind them....
So... this the research produced when the 'millennials' graduate. Do vampires get their own pronouns as well? Wouldn't want to hurt any vampire feelings by just calling them out for being delusional tumblrite snowflakes, and also risk getting labeled cis-species bigots (or is it anti-vampite these days?).
I want of this ride.
As usual, Charlie Stross did a reasonable analysis of vampirism as part of his research for the Laundry Files series. And gave it a great title. :-)
Read it here: http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2013/01/fang-fuckers-some-reflections-.html
Icon 'cos it's the only one with fangs.
hey, Goths aren;t wannabe vampires - at least none of the ones I've known have been. The wannabe-vampires (and I'd classify those that Prof Williams calls vampires as wannabes) tended, if anything to be smirked at if not openly laughed at by yer average Goth, who had their head far too well screwed on to be into that kind of nonsense. Mind you, I dunno what the current Goth scene is like, since the local one got nuked by redevelopers. Or maybe I just knew an unusually mature bunch of Goths? (shrugs). Prof Williams should be kept an eye on - I reckon they're well into cackling territory, by the sounds of it!
who claimed to be real vampires while overseas.
They look like goths who have overdone the hallucinogens and occult to me.
There is a case in Brisbane, Australia, I think, the perpretators claimed to be lesbian vampires, murdered for no reason a man they lured along, unless one is to count an imagined 'need to drink blood' as a reason.
Much before my time there, but easy to look up.
'Goths' in Tokyo are generally a bunch of passive-aggressive morons, I stay away from their scene, no fun. Then, from time overseas, passive-aggression seems to be common to all of them?
Some also claim to be 'real' vampires, they are correct if you count being mean fun-sucking posers as 'vampirism'.
seem to be goths too, just like lifestyle vampires... at least if youtube is to be believed.
Maybe the term vampire means something different to those that did the study, but to me it's a dead guy with fangs he drinks blood without a syringe, wears a red and black cape and can fly through the air or turn into a bat...I'd like to see some of these "real vampires" do this stuff.
Also I doubt that most "real vampires" exude the kind of sex appeal that dracula seem to have. Most seem to be lard arses or lady boys in drag.
I think in a pre-politically correct world they would be called psychos or freaks.
Seriously. Williams is getting paid for this shit. I wish I was.
I was fascinated to read that his interests include "forensic leisure science". Surely that's not a thing, I thought. So I Googled it and discovered that the only references to "forensic leisure science" are Williams's own book, Forensic Leisure Science: A New Frontier for Leisure Scholars, and links to it.
Credit where it's due: his book starts thus:
Lately when asked what I "do," ...
I love the quotes around "do".
... my reply tends to be that "I'm a forensic leisure scientist." Judging from the somewhat confused looks on many faces, a further explanation is usually warranted.
Yes, that's because you've invented your own area of interest and are literally the only person on the planet doing it.
Forensic leisure science has yet to be recognized as an area of study
Yeah, no kidding.
Have to say, I like this idea of sticking three cool words together and getting paid to do the result. Can I get a job in impressionist martial cuisine?
You've discovered proof of the existence of a whole new (sub)species of human, hidden for millennia, known only through folklore & superstition, with mastery over death itself. Do you:
a) take full advantage. Nobel Prize!
b) take full advantage. World domination!
c) write a pissy little paper that no-one believes, no-one respects and has zero scientific merit.
What a tool.
"You've discovered proof of the existence of a whole new (sub)species of human, hidden for millennia, known only through folklore & superstition, with mastery over death itself."
Well, not exactly. It seems more like the perfersser was looking at something an AC mentioned below: a subculture, not a subspecies. Though the vampires say they're real vampires, not a lifestyle choice. They even have glossy magazines.
That is more worthy of a publication than an attempt at world domination.
Now assuming there were actual real vampires they would not only be reluctant to talk to social-whatsevers, they would not talk to them at all, except the brief "Come hither, Food."
As Pratchett pointed out in Carpe Jugulum: There's a solid reason why vampires would be Traditionalists.
Thank God we live in a world where curiosity can be still be indulged. Presumably you would like to reduce us to some sad utilitarian state where the only allowed research topics were those that showed a proven increase in profitably for 'UK PLC' within 3 years (never mind that this research was done in Georgia). No music, no art, no astrophysics, no drugs except for heart disease and major cancers, and maybe indegestion.
One of the lessons of research is you don't know what is useless until you have done it, and maybe not until much later. What if he had found that self identifying vampires were actually harming others? What if there is a grisly CSI murder and people start to blame the 'vampire community'?
Curiosity is one of the most permanent and certain characteristics of a vigorous intellect.
I know some "real vampires". I even dated one for a while. I am very familiar with their beliefs and practices. They actually have a lot of intersection with modern paganist beliefs. The core belief, at least among the ones I know, is that all living beings generate life force (my term, I forget the term they use but it amounts to the same thing) and that they, unlike most, don't generate enough life force to keep themselves healthy without taking some from others. Honestly the whole thing doesn't hold up real well to logical examination, but hey anyone who ever calls humans logical has clearly never had any human interactions.
Weird beliefs or not they tend to be good people, though to be fair one sanguine I know can be scary as hell. The others I know tell me he's far from the norm, but everyone who knows him knows he's going to snap one of these days and you don't want to be around when it happens.
feeling forlorn for the 'vampire' girlfiend
Forlorn? Hell no. She was attractive and nice and all, but we had next to nothing in common except for intersecting circles of friends. It was one of those situations where you start dating someone you don't know very well and as you get to know them you quickly realize you're all wrong for each other. We ended it by mutual agreement after a couple weeks and never made it to the bedroom. I'm much happier with the woman who eventually became my wife than I would have been with her. And I suspect she's happier now than she would have been with me.
And, by the way, if 'secks' is your goal in dating, you're doing it wrong.
I don't know, if you're not undead, you can't be a real vampire.
P.S. destroying a vampire is not illegal because it can't be classified as murder. Do you really want to tell people you're a vampire? It gives them plenty excuse to murder you and claim they thought you were a real vampire. Vampires also can't vote and have no human rights.
I was expecting an article about people who suffer from that (actual) genetic blood condition* that likely lead to the mythos of vampyrism. Not a bunch of circus geeks.
*Symptoms include: UV sensitivity, retracted gums, bad temper, and - in pre-medical-science days - a need to drink blood to get the chemicals the body can't make itself (though raw blood of any mammal would do).
It's a subculture. Anthropologists and sociologists study that stuff. IT'S THEIR JOB.
Just like they study trainspotters and practitioners of dangerous sports and a million other niche communities.
Do you think we would approach a more complete understand of humanity by pretending these people don't exist or (as almost all of you here seem to think is ok) just laughing at them?
I think it's interesting research. Maybe not particularly important to most of us, but not every academic is involved in finding a cure for cancer, or finding a replacement for fossil fuels. There are plenty of sober comp.sci folks who waste their time on meaningless and unusable research, and I suppose you guys think that is somehow more worthy.
What if your favorite kid 'discovers' he is a 'vampire'. Are you going to beat it out of him until he 'gets real' or are you going to look for some academic research to try and make sense of it?
I'm disgusted by your narrow-mindedness. Register commentard community reveals itself here as a hive of out-of-the-closet fascists, and arrogant, jeering snobs.
I'd be very tempted to get him the help he needed. Much like any other delusion, its generally better to treat them gently, and help them to look rationally at their delusions.
Of course, if its a full blown psychosis, then psychological intervention may be needed.
Unless of course, you want to posit that vampirism is a real genetic issue and that these individuals do derive some actual, measurable, scientifically testable benefit from the blood drinking/psychic energy absorbing?
Careful who you toss accusations at m'dear. If someone makes claims about themselves that are patently untrue, then they'd have to be damned silly to expect them to be taken seriously. And that's precisely why those claiming to be vampires tended to get bemused tolerance at best through to being openly laughed at at worst amongst the Goths I knew (Goths are as varied in their personalities as society in general, most pretty symapthetic, but with a few less pleasant ones amongst 'em).
Given that the term 'vampire' is commonly understood to mean a creature living off the blood of others because it NEEDS to, and given that so far as I'm aware I have never met a human that fits that definition, and further, those in the study this article is about don't fit that definition, that's why I personally would refer to them either as 'wannabe' vampires or as in urgent need of a better name for their collective selves. And possibly in need of some sort of treatment. But that said, what I CARE about, about anybody of any creed whatsoever, is if they're good folk. If they are, then they're fine by me. And I suspect they wouldn't mind me having a chuckle at their foibles any more than I'd mind them having a chuckle at mine.
What made me laugh with derision in this article though, was Prof Williams' claim to have been studying 'authentic vampires'. That is truly delusional. 'Self-identifying vampires' would be more accurate, and I'd also take issue with the article writers assertion that Goths are 'lifestyle vampires', which merely demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of Goths - not a one of the ones I knew made any claim to vampirism or were trying to be pretend vampires or suchlike, and I suspect most would've been surprised or even affronted if accused of such. About the one thing that they all had in common was an appreciation of somewhat gloomy art of all types. Personally I found them to be a fab, fun and brighter-than average bunch of people to be with, with few exceptions.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020