jhameia: ME! (Sparklez for Efferyvun!)
[personal profile] jhameia
Inquiring minds need to know.

ETA: What about a vampire / zombie pairing?

(no subject)

Date: 2009-11-23 02:27 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] castusalbuscor.livejournal.com
Well both objects are dead, so I am going to do with a not what we would consider necrophilia

(no subject)

Date: 2009-11-23 02:34 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] tariq-kamal.livejournal.com
Actually, I think it is.

I was going to say that it depends on whether vampires are dead or not, or whether they're considered human or no longer.

But then I remembered, hang on, animals engage in necrophilia too (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necrophilia#Animals).

Now, if the vampire is a reanimated corpse that's powered by the vitae of living creatures, you'd think this gets complicated, but I don't think it does -- whatever it is, live or dead, a vampire is an organism, and since it can move and react to its surroundings, you can still use language that was reserved for entities that are humans and animals. So I'm figuring that, yes, even when we're talking about dead vampire variants, it's still called necrophilia.

Now... the question is... if a robot fucks a corpse, is that necrophilia too?

(no subject)

Date: 2009-11-23 02:42 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] salzara-tirwen.livejournal.com
if the vampire is a reanimated corpse that's powered by the vitae of living creatures

Then that raises the question of: is this particular vampire a person, or an automaton like some zombies?

Is it necrophilia when a puppet zombie, 100% controlled by its master and with no thought or volition, fucks a corpse?

(Wow, this is getting gruesome.)

(no subject)

Date: 2009-11-23 02:52 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] tariq-kamal.livejournal.com
Is it necrophilia when a puppet zombie, 100% controlled by its master and with no thought or volition, fucks a corpse?
Then why is that called a vampire?

To my understanding vampires are by themselves independent creatures, and the kind of control that they have would possibly come from a sire to their offspring, but that's usually portrayed as, you know, dominating mental control, and removal of previous personality, with the vampire retaining some autonomous control and functionality. If the master's attention is diverted, the vampire would still be able to defend itself if you were attacking it, which wouldn't be the case if we're talking about puppets that are 100% controlled by someone else.

If they're complete and utter automatons, then why aren't they called ghouls or zombies (or zuvembis, if we're going to use AD&D terminology)?

(no subject)

Date: 2009-11-23 03:07 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] salzara-tirwen.livejournal.com
I wasn't saying that was a vampire, I was extending the question. :-p

(no subject)

Date: 2009-11-23 03:09 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] tariq-kamal.livejournal.com
...

My brain not wurk. Sorry, I don't know how that happened.

(no subject)

Date: 2009-11-23 03:33 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] salzara-tirwen.livejournal.com
lol ok, I think it must be one of those days.

(no subject)

Date: 2009-11-23 02:40 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] salzara-tirwen.livejournal.com
I think it is. Vampires may not be properly breathing or metabolizing, but generally I think if it's acting like a person, treat it like one, which means that the rules about necrophilia and such apply.

So is it bestiality when a vampire fucks a werewolf in wolf form? I would tend to say not, because a werewolf is still a person, at least in most fiction, but then there are legendary aspects that seem to indicate that the wolf form is only an animal and doesn't retain humanity.

(no subject)

Date: 2009-11-23 02:56 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] tariq-kamal.livejournal.com
And some werewolves are considered separate species from humanity, at least in the Old World of Darkness novels.

Which is interesting, because despite all of this, in that universe, werewolves breed with humans and wolves, and it is preferable to do so, because werewolf/werewolf mating was often bad news, as the offspring would be sterile.

So it's not really a species barrier. On top of that, or werewolves generally involve themselves in bestiality all the time.

(no subject)

Date: 2009-11-23 08:37 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] mistressnaoko.livejournal.com
Wait, where is this information that werewolf mating with werewolf made them sterile? @@

(no subject)

Date: 2009-11-23 08:40 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] tariq-kamal.livejournal.com
Made the offspring sterile, I mean. The offspring of a werewolf-werewolf mating was called a metis in that universe.

...and yeah, that's what it was called. =/

(no subject)

Date: 2009-11-23 08:42 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] mistressnaoko.livejournal.com
I know you meant the offspring, but this is the first time I've heard of it. Hmmm... *goes google*

And wasn't Metis the Mother of Athena whom Zeus swallowed to prevent her from giving birth to a son that would kill him?

(no subject)

Date: 2009-11-23 08:48 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] tariq-kamal.livejournal.com
If you're looking for it, you may find it in sources that describe the rules for Werewolf: The Apocalypse -- children born of werewolf-werewolf matings were called the metis, and not only were they sterile, they often had deformities or derangements.

It's possible that that was the origin of the word. But métis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%A9tis) also describes someone of multiracial parentage, and there are a group of people called the metis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%A9tis_people_%28Canada%29) in Canada.

Considering how much of W:TA's mythology was supposed to resemble Native American mythology, I think I may have spotted some kind of RaceFail.

(no subject)

Date: 2009-11-23 10:08 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] mistressnaoko.livejournal.com
On the surface it seems that they were using a pre-existing term, and considering the implications of the word, I think they were justified.

(no subject)

Date: 2009-11-23 03:03 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] tariq-kamal.livejournal.com
Re: your edit.

It's only necrophilia if the zombie does not retain any autonomous functions. Obviously fucking "live" zombies (i.e. 28 Days Later zombies) are okay, since they're still alive, so it's not necrophilia.

With classic zombies, though, it's necrophilia, mainly because they are considered automatons, in a sense (rogue ones, admittedly). BUT... with regards to Land of the Dead's "Big Daddy", maybe not, since he and his kind were already showing signs of intelligence.

(no subject)

Date: 2009-11-23 08:38 am (UTC)
From: [identity profile] mistressnaoko.livejournal.com
I agree with this. It's necro if they are moving pieces of flesh with no sentience whatsoever in their minds. If not, then it's not.

January 2025

S M T W T F S
   1234
567891011
12 131415161718
19 2021222324 25
262728293031 

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios