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?
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)?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
regna![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2009-11-23 02:34 am (UTC)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)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)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)(no subject)
Date: 2009-11-23 03:09 am (UTC)My brain not wurk. Sorry, I don't know how that happened.
(no subject)
Date: 2009-11-23 03:33 am (UTC)