~~ vampire sex?
Feb. 6th, 2004 06:45 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
reenkaSo I accidentally found this whole website on "Queer Vampires" in the media (part of a "queer horror" extravaganza). At first I just sort of snorted when the site said that vampires were particularly "queer", or of particular interest to homosexuals... but then it just made me sad, especially realizing that queerness-as-otherness is being accentuated by the people themselves. It's like (they? we? which do I use?) -want- to be "different" in some kind of permanent, basic way.
Because, well, vampires are permanently different, aren't they. It's a sad sort of metaphor to use for queerness. It disturbs me, anyway. I mean, yes, they're free to lead their alternative lifestyle and so on, but they lose a lot of their humanity along the way. Why is that so easy to forget? That if you emphasize your differences (diversity, blah-blah-blahbity-blah) you could easily lose sight of your essential unity?
This even applies to the most shallow PC-type things like universities obsessing with "diversity" as their supposed driving ideal. What sort of driving ideal is that? I mean, the boundaries between people-- that's a sad reality, not a bright future, is it?
Of course, what people are escaping from is totalitarianism and suppression and oppression by the masses and so on, where no one has freedom of expression and you're either "in" or you're "out". Naturally, that's a Bad Thing. But too much emphasis on difference leads to segregation as much as totalitarianism does, just from opposite ends. People then segregate themselves, assuming that their diversity means they don't need to bother learning the ways in which they connect. I certainly see that in the public school I'm in. There's a lot of diversity, yeah, and no unity whatsoever.
Comparing the queer population to vampires seems like a -really- extreme step in the direction of this sort of dystopia. 'Cause vampires don't interact with the "real world" almost in any way other than feeding on it, do they. Vampires could just as easily be compared to any persecuted minority group, except that vampires have the power to fight back more than most human groups ever did, which is probably why they'd be attractive as a metaphor.
Maybe being bisexual just throws this issue into necessary relief. I -can't- completely segregate myself entirely comfortably, so I'm rather aware that it's a lose/lose scenario. I think the politics of difference just completely avoids the more biologically viable ecosystem model, where every species is dependent and intertwined with as well as related to every other. And in fact, the vampires are rather dependent on humans, aren't they? They're basically parasites, actually. So there they are, thinking they've got this freedom and abilility to choose their alternative lifestyle, whereas the whole time they're existing under constant threat of utter annihilation by the very humans they're segregating from.
This reminds me of the way people are constantly trying to oppose maleness and femaleness as if they're just the most opposing things in the universe. The women's liberation movement was always about saying we're equal, wasn't it? Everyone -knew- we were different-- we were just saying, forget that! We're also the same! Treat us as you would treat each other! That's what liberation is really about, isn't it? Equality? What sort of equality do vampires -have- with humans, anyway?
It seems to me that by defining ourselves by any single aspect our existence, we're coming one more step closer to a caste system, and a vampire metaphor is a perfect illustration of that. Even in the most utopian world, vampires would be a caste, always separate and unmixable with other humans by biological imperative-- they would burn up in the sun as well as be a danger to other humans. They -can't- be accepted into society, so the only thing they could hope for is a comfortable exile.
At some point, it apparently became all about "separate but equal" with the emphasis on "separate". That's the easy solution, isn't it? You don't even need to -think- about the queer if you can't -see- them, and that's where the roots of future oppression are planted-- in ignorance. In that little boy growing up in the olden days, almost completely separated from nearly all female company after his early childhood. So in the absence of any real interaction, he of course would begin to think of women as not really -human- like him. Simple as that.
Anyway. Don't know what this whole rant was trying to accomplish. The whole vampire metaphor being seen as so overwhelmingly positive, as -desirable- somehow, just freaked me out, I think.
Maybe this is why the whole fantasy world of slash, where sexual orientation is often secondary to emotional interactions between characters regardless of predetermined ideas of gender roles, appeals to me so much. It'd be so very, very nice to imagine a world where the boundaries were fuzzy and crossable, and where the vampires could get up and walk into the sunlight without burning into ash.
EDIT - omg, I so want one of these, it's not even funny :D :D :D Ok, yes, yes it is.
Because, well, vampires are permanently different, aren't they. It's a sad sort of metaphor to use for queerness. It disturbs me, anyway. I mean, yes, they're free to lead their alternative lifestyle and so on, but they lose a lot of their humanity along the way. Why is that so easy to forget? That if you emphasize your differences (diversity, blah-blah-blahbity-blah) you could easily lose sight of your essential unity?
This even applies to the most shallow PC-type things like universities obsessing with "diversity" as their supposed driving ideal. What sort of driving ideal is that? I mean, the boundaries between people-- that's a sad reality, not a bright future, is it?
Of course, what people are escaping from is totalitarianism and suppression and oppression by the masses and so on, where no one has freedom of expression and you're either "in" or you're "out". Naturally, that's a Bad Thing. But too much emphasis on difference leads to segregation as much as totalitarianism does, just from opposite ends. People then segregate themselves, assuming that their diversity means they don't need to bother learning the ways in which they connect. I certainly see that in the public school I'm in. There's a lot of diversity, yeah, and no unity whatsoever.
Comparing the queer population to vampires seems like a -really- extreme step in the direction of this sort of dystopia. 'Cause vampires don't interact with the "real world" almost in any way other than feeding on it, do they. Vampires could just as easily be compared to any persecuted minority group, except that vampires have the power to fight back more than most human groups ever did, which is probably why they'd be attractive as a metaphor.
Maybe being bisexual just throws this issue into necessary relief. I -can't- completely segregate myself entirely comfortably, so I'm rather aware that it's a lose/lose scenario. I think the politics of difference just completely avoids the more biologically viable ecosystem model, where every species is dependent and intertwined with as well as related to every other. And in fact, the vampires are rather dependent on humans, aren't they? They're basically parasites, actually. So there they are, thinking they've got this freedom and abilility to choose their alternative lifestyle, whereas the whole time they're existing under constant threat of utter annihilation by the very humans they're segregating from.
This reminds me of the way people are constantly trying to oppose maleness and femaleness as if they're just the most opposing things in the universe. The women's liberation movement was always about saying we're equal, wasn't it? Everyone -knew- we were different-- we were just saying, forget that! We're also the same! Treat us as you would treat each other! That's what liberation is really about, isn't it? Equality? What sort of equality do vampires -have- with humans, anyway?
It seems to me that by defining ourselves by any single aspect our existence, we're coming one more step closer to a caste system, and a vampire metaphor is a perfect illustration of that. Even in the most utopian world, vampires would be a caste, always separate and unmixable with other humans by biological imperative-- they would burn up in the sun as well as be a danger to other humans. They -can't- be accepted into society, so the only thing they could hope for is a comfortable exile.
At some point, it apparently became all about "separate but equal" with the emphasis on "separate". That's the easy solution, isn't it? You don't even need to -think- about the queer if you can't -see- them, and that's where the roots of future oppression are planted-- in ignorance. In that little boy growing up in the olden days, almost completely separated from nearly all female company after his early childhood. So in the absence of any real interaction, he of course would begin to think of women as not really -human- like him. Simple as that.
Anyway. Don't know what this whole rant was trying to accomplish. The whole vampire metaphor being seen as so overwhelmingly positive, as -desirable- somehow, just freaked me out, I think.
Maybe this is why the whole fantasy world of slash, where sexual orientation is often secondary to emotional interactions between characters regardless of predetermined ideas of gender roles, appeals to me so much. It'd be so very, very nice to imagine a world where the boundaries were fuzzy and crossable, and where the vampires could get up and walk into the sunlight without burning into ash.
EDIT - omg, I so want one of these, it's not even funny :D :D :D Ok, yes, yes it is.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-02-06 05:13 pm (UTC)