Saturday, November 04, 2006

The Vampire - a gay metaphor? (REVISED)

(I mistakenly posted this in the draft stage - hopefully I can do some damage repair on it! And maybe it will be more coherent than the new RSV Bible translation.)

Have you ever noticed that vampire movies are replete with sexual tension?

The vampire steals into the bedroom of his victim and assaults him - or her, sucking the life-blood of his victim in order to feed his craving, thus continuing his life amongst the living dead. It is a totally selfish act, exploiting the victim for the vampire's pleasure, without regard for his victim's humanity and eternal soul.

Again, I'm thinking about the Ted Haggard scandal! Although I am not implying he is the victim here.

I believe, in cases of married men seeking same sex pleasure, there are those who unconsciously attempt to derive some sort of affirmation of their sexuality, their maleness, while asserting a sense of power or dominance over the other. On the other hand, the gay man, again unconsciously as well as symbolically, may be seeking to 'sap' this energy - that is, the man's virility, away from the other - it becomes a 'victory' of sorts. Gays refer to 'tops' and 'bottoms' in their sexual partnerships, which translates to dominant and submissive behavior. The 'roles' can be interchangeable, yet the terminology is very telling, as well as fundamentally demeaning. It is the epitome of weakness.

Many homosexuals are attracted to the 'manly man', the straight, masculine man, due in part to their insecurity regarding their own manhood. Because the straight man appears to be so unobtainable, he may present a challenge, thus becoming more attractive to the active, and/or passive homosexual. When one considers that one of the 'cures' for same-sex attraction is a wholesome, non-genital same-sex friendship, it is obvious that sexual encounters between men represent this need to find affirmation and validation of their masculinity, albeit perverted by genital expression.

Descending to the level of anonymous homosexual encounters in latrines or any other semi-public place, as well as in the solicitation of a prostitute, men encounter the more predatory homosexual. The encounter must be more sexually exciting because of the danger of being caught. It would be an adrenaline rush. I imagine it has to have something to do with the excitement of the illicit along with the risk involved. Regardless of the motivation, what is happening is a mutual exploitation for sexual pleasure, yet more deeply, a vain attempt to satiate an obscure psychological, emotional, and spiritual deficit. (Although the hedonist may well be simply seeking pleasure for pleasure sake.)

Married or unmarried, homosexual or heterosexual, all promiscuous men enjoy the chase, the hunt, and catching their prey. While some men may continue to enjoy the hunt after marriage, even if they 'play' the part of the pursued - they are still hunting. The dynamics are so much more complicated than these thoughts, and I ought not generalize so arbitrarily. Nevertheless, I keep wondering what is it that would cause a married man to leave his marriage bed for another man?

The next time you watch a vampire movie, look for the homosexual overtones - or rather, all the perverted metaphors - then connect these to the actions of certain types in our culture. I think the vampire has to be a metaphor for the many types of aberrant sexual behavior that occur in our decadent society.

(I don't know if I tackled this issue very well.)


  1. Brian9:30 PM

    I see the analogy - but what about same sex relationships that endure - the couples that have lived tigether for years - it doesn't seem to fit your prejudice? There are gay couples who have been together for years, they don't fit the profile here. Their relationships are loving and committed, much the same as heterosexual couples. How would you or the Catholic church explain that?

  2. Brian: The Catholic Church doesn't have to explain anything and plus, Terry is simply speaking his opinion on the subject.

    My thoughts are that vamprism is a form of blasphemy against our Lord. We believe as Catholics that we receive the sacred Body and Blood of Jesus Christ in Holy Communion..vamprism would be a mockery of that..the drinking of blood to gain life. I say mockery because vampires are generally portrayed as evil and often are repelled by holy objects.

    Having said that, is it a sin to consume human blood if it were offered to you from a willing donor? Too much would make you sick for sure but a little? Not that I would do that I'm just curious about the principle of the matter.

  3. Plus I think Tom Cruise as Lestat from "Interview with a Vampire" is really, really cute.

    I don't think there's anything effeminate about vampires personally.

  4. Brian - I can addrss your question in a subsequent post. Thanks for your comment.

    Lady Fett - I'm sure there are many other analogous meanings for vampirism - I wasn't refering to anyone drinking blood however. Also, not all homosexuals appear effeminate. Tom Cruise comes off pretty masculine.

  5. Brian, The same sex "couples" I know who have remained together for many years in an enduring and healthy way generally 1) relate to one another as good friends or brothers, 2) live a chaste relationship in conformity with the teachings of the Church, 3) receive the sacraments regularly and are faithful to prayer, 4) are involved in charitable works or in the service of others.

  6. Brian,

    You asked a sincere question, and a common one. If you go back to Genesis, you will read that "The Lord created them, male and female". The love the man and woman have for each other and the results of that love, a child, are the reflection of God. This is what is meant by "God's image". We are all made in God's image, that is, out of love. I realize I am oversimplyfying--read Theology of the Body for more in-depth information.

    Now, a same-sex relationship, at the very foundation, cannot produce anything other than pleasure for oneself, and that is self-centered, not other-centered. You may argue that a dish named Petrie can serve as the incubator for a new life...sure, science can do that, but how many new little lives have to die in order for that incubation to take place in some surrogate with no claim on the child? What of the little ones who are thrown away? (This applies obviously to hetero couples as well).

    When we reduce the idea of "family" to include that which does not by definition reproduce, then we have undermined God and we have undermined society. The measure of any society is that society's affirmation of life, or conversely, the reduction of that life to nothing more than a battery to power whatever whim of science has come alone.

    So you see, it is not just a matter of a couple of men or a couple of women living together and declaring love for each other--in neither case can that "love" become the foundation of anything, and even with the intervention of science, others must die so that these "couples" can try to claim to be families.

    Even if those couples do not intend to have children or do not take advantage of the science available to create life in a petrie dish...those couples are still not open to life, as required by the way God ordered society. They cannot be open to life for genetics will not allow it. It is against nature, for nature, by definition, is regenerational and pro-creative.

    I apologize for this very choppy explanation, and likely I've only prompted more questions rather than answered yours. I would highly recommend that you read some experts on the topic. Theology of the Body is awesome, but it's hard reading. Christopher West and Jason Evert have a couple of books that given an explanation we can all understand, and there are others as well.

    Brian, you aren't alone in your questions and I once had that question, too. Thank you for asking it, and God bles you.

    As far as the general post..I think the most recent vampire movies I've seen come from Anne Rice books, and I've read most of the vampire Chronicles. Yes, the overtones are there, much more in the books, and she did this quite purposefully. Back in my outside the church days, I also read her erotica, and it, also has homosexual undertones. She admits to this freely. I have found, though, that Hollywood toned it down quite a bit in comparison to her writings.

  7. I tried to post once before and it didn't go through.

    Brian~ You asked a question I used to have as well. I would advise you first and foremost, to read Theology of the Body or works by Christopher West or Jason Evert which explain the series of documents.

    Brian, there is far more to the way God ordered our lives and our world than "loving committed relationships". I appreciate that some SSA couples do committ to each other, but unfortunately, their relationship is flawed at the very foundation. They are not living up to their potential as human beings, and their very lifestyle is still undermining that final reflection of God...that of the potential human life.

    If you go back to Genesis, you will see that it says "God created them, male and female, He created them.." The family, that is, the love of the man and the woman together, combined, create is this love and this subsequent co-creation with God, this new little life, which is God's image. It is not man alone, or woman alone, but this little family which is God's very reflection.

    A same-sex couple cannot even hope to accomplish this for nature does not allow it...the very act is contrary to nature. Nature is regenartive, creative, and even out of death new life springs up. Not so with same-sex couples.

    Sure, you could argue that a dish named Petrie can be used to cultivate new life...but where is God in this? There is only death so that one little life, one embryo may live on, while all the other little "products" die.

    The measure of any society is defined an outlined by how the dignity of life is upheld...or whether we have reduced life to a manufactured process. This is what our society has done. And if a baby can be created in a petrie dish, why not same sex couples?

    It's like this, taken right out of Jurassic Park- Just because we CAN do this, does not mean that we SHOULD.

    Same sex couples are not an affirmation of life...they are a perpetuation of death, not only actual, but spiritual.

    You call it a prejudice...and if you define "prejudice" as a disagreement with a life seperated from God, then yes, he is guilty as am I, as are many of us.

    Thank you for asking your question, and really...there are better resources than blogs that will give the answer much more succintly. Please take advantage of the authors I referred you to before.

  8. sorry! Terry...feel free to delete!

  9. Therese5:18 AM

    I have always thought exactly what your wrote about Terry...I have called it Vampirism myself. It is not the wanting to "be with" that happens but the "taking of" that happens. It can happen with heterosexual couples...contraception brings that out...the woman will instinctively feel the man is wanting to take her but not be with her. They are really no longer man and woman in the true way God planned and they know it inside and down deep...
    Personally, the most I have ever felt with my husband has been when we were giving birth--in those moments of intense laboring and pain and he is coaching me and I look into his eyes--I have never felt so with him --ever and the day our marriage was blessed in the church after more than two years of marital celibacy. Those moments had everything to do with who we were made to be sexually.
    I pity those who will never understand that and are married. I pity myself for all the years I did not understand.
    Those moments are the times when I know I was completely within the will of God. What is better than that?


Please comment with charity and avoid ad hominem attacks. I exercise the right to delete comments I find inappropriate. If you use your real name there is a better chance your comment will stay put.