Posts Tagged ‘ non-consent ’

Parasites and symbionts

So i’ve promised you all some other posts, but this one is fresh from the press:

Donating, to me, is usually a win-win situation. At the very least it is a pleasant experience for both the vampire and me. Usually the vampire gets significant benefits, in particular sangs might benefit for weeks. For me a good feeding means deep restful sleep, a chance to relax from my usual overcharged state, and often also a break for my body during which it can heal from my everyday stresses.

It is not quite a symbiotic relationship, because in a true symbiotic relationship the two species are dependent on each other. But it is certainly one from which both the vampire and i benefit, and that’s without even considering any altruistic motivation.

But some vampires are parasites. They slip in a link when you’re unaware, when you’re preoccupied, when you’re tired from lack of sleep or from illness. They don’t ask, don’t negotiate, they disguise the drain with symptoms of illness, and then they just draw all that they can. Once they’ve drained enough, they don’t even disguise it any more, as you’re too weak to defend yourself anyway.

I’m lucky enough to have a very experienced psi-vamp and energy-worker, one who recognises the symptoms and can stop the parasite (and hopefully hurt them in the process). But getting attacked by a parasite like this is not something i wish on anybody.

I like vamps, i like the vampire community. Most vampires are friendly, open, very accepting of otherness. Most vampires are also very polite about feeding, never feed without explicit consent, and very conscientious about after-care. But idiots like this parasite, they throw the whole community into disrepute.

Advertisements

ethics of feeding

something which i’ve come across several times recently is vamps, specifically sanguinarian vampires, saying that they do not want to consume human blood for ethical reasons.

now i think ethics are important. not in a simplistic good/bad, but as deep personal reflections on what is right for a specific person. i approve of people who think about ethics. but with these sangs it did not appear to be the result of careful reflection, but more of an excuse to avoid icky feelings surrounding what is a rather taboo* and intimate human interaction.

what i see is not a right or wrong in their decision not to drink human blood, but rather a logical inconsistency in their arguments. the same vampires who say they won’t feed from humans are busy swapping tips on how to acquire animal blood, and have no hesitation about eating meat. i wonder how they arrive at the conclusion that killing and eating a non-consenting animal can be ethically less problematic than drinking a little blood which was freely given with minimal injury by a consenting human? i’m sure you see the point i’m making: non-consensual death vs. consensual minor injury?

one of the vamps i recently saw involved in such a discussion might actually have internal consistency, as they described themselves as christian, with the implication of humans being by default infinitely superior to animals in their belief-system. the others have a much harder position to defend, as they describe themselves as pagan, which in current usage almost always implies a certain kinship and equality between living creatures of all kinds.

personally, if you’re going to be feeding from a fully informed and consenting human donor then i think the ethical issues become truly minimal.

*and nobody go and tell me that drinking human blood isn’t a deep taboo in most human societies.