A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community

[childofthespiral]

It still seems that the assumptions being made that psi vampires are doing their best to prove themselves better than sangs, or disprove sangs altogether, are being made based on a very small number of sangs. As to whether or not some psis are trying to do this... well, I've read some of the articles written by Sappho Wolf, but other than that I haven't seen it.
Yes, some psi vampires take energy without consent, but many do not. I don't. I cannot say that I never have. When I was a teenager with no access to any kind of information on vampirism, I had no idea there was such a thing as donors who would be willing to give of themselves in that way. I did my best not to feed and would literally feed only once every month or longer, and suffered horrible debilitating migraines as a result. When I gathered energy, I did not get these migraines. I could actually enjoy vision during my waking hours. Did I enjoy taking energy without permission? Hell no! If I did then why would I put myself through so much suffering by not feeding? However once I learned about the OVC and read about some vampires' ability to elemental feed, I figured I would try it and see if it would work for me... the end result being that if it did I wouldn't have to take others energy. In the four years since I first attempted it I've only been successful 3 times. I am extremely lucky that my husband is my willing donor.

I also want to ask why should we assume that a sang is more vampire than a psi because they're taking real physical risk? If a sang is smart and responsible, and gets their donor tested regularly, and engages in safer bloodletting practices, then there is very little risk involved. From what I've read, the human stomach destroys most blood borne pathogens, so it seems to me that drinking blood is no more dangerous for a sang than having sex is for a psi. Remember, condoms aren't guaranteed, and a mouthful of blood will never end in an unwanted pregnancy.

[CJ!]

On second thought Zeta's rebuttal didn't warrant the point by point response I thought it did. Three fatal flaws permeate the entire argument.

1.  Whining about Opinion and Bias:  This is an editorial. Of course there are going to be opinions and bias on my part. Soon you will be telling me the grand revelation that water is wet. The most important thing to point out though is that not all opinions are equal. Some are obviously better than others. To reference a scene from the Lion King Timon and Pumbaa are staring at the stars. Pumbaa postulates that stars are burning balls of gas that are millions of miles away. Timon offered the idea that they are fireflies stuck in the sky. Basically Zeta's attitude throughout the entire rebuttal is that the firefly hypothesis is just as valid as Pumbaa's.

2. Whining about Metaphysical failure: It isn't that the scientific community is ignoring metaphysical evidence. It is just that what is presented as evidence simply has never been compelling enough to warrant consideration. It is the metaphysicists’ fault that their claims collapse in the light of the slightest bit of scientific scrutiny. Take some responsibility! There could be a million dollars waiting for you.

and finally the most fatal flaw

3. The assumption that I am committed to my opinion at all costs: Just because something is forcefully argued and a certain paradigm is held above the rest that the author under all circumstance will do everything to protect that paradigm. Quite honestly, if there was a better way than science to determine facts about tangible reality given a compelling argument I would be on board. It was that open mindedness to better ideas that got me from metaphysical believer to really an overall skeptic even when it pertains to my sanguinarianism.

Before I go I do want to correct one factual error: The only thing from House Kheperu ever scientifically proven to suck was Urn.

Good night everybody!

[Cheri]

Obtaining donors and # of sanguinarians onboard (Cheri)
Cheri stated some of her first hand experience with fellow donors on how “vampire politics” drives away donors from wanting to donate. However I would counter that with greater knowledge on a solid and mundane footing people who may have not necessarily have ever heard of or participated in the current “vampire” community may be more apt to feel sympathy for our plight and perhaps donate. Perhaps butchers may find a niche market to cater to sanguinarians. There will be incentive on behalf of pharmaceutical companies to create medicines. Perhaps we will never feel the need to consume blood for our physical and mental health again. I just see a potential for more opportunities to satiate our needs if we put ourselves in position to get better knowledge of ourselves.
   As for the number of sanguinarians needed for a study there was an instance of twin girls who were the only people ever in history to have this rare disease. Only two people were needed in order to pinpoint and study that illness. (link: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/955349/fields_condition_the_rarest_disease.html?cat=5)

I think you missed the point in part I was trying to make. The stigma of drinking blood for any reason being wrong and evil, is not going to change  just because you get scientific proof of the medical need.
I would ask this question of the current donors in the community, If you now donate Sang, did you when you first entered the community?  I think you will find that many of them started into the idea of becoming a donor as a Psi donor, and when they learned more about the need for Sang donors were willing to try it. You cut your self off from a large pool of new, open, willing and clean blood from donors that have spent time in the community and learned how to be safe at it.

You can do all the studies you like and get all the proof  you want. It is not going to change many peoples opinion about you needing to drink blood to remain healthy.

I do agree that studies are needed, and that to get valid results  you have to  test the feeding types apart from each other. But I do have a question for you CJ. If science creates this cure you seem to hope for, they are going to push and insist people take it. To not choose to be cured will most likely make a person even more at risk then they are now. To cure yourself and be free for yourself, would you really force every Sang Vampire to either take your cure, or become even more hated and mistrusted then they are now in general society?
RK hit the nail on the head when he said:

In all reality, to me, the problem of exposure is more of a concern to me than the concern of lack of feeding, a concern that would rise, not lower, with efforts to make us 'more acceptable'. What is your response to this?

I would like to hear the response to this myself.

With respect,
Cheri

[CJ!]

I'm heading out of town shortly but before I do so I'd be glad to answer some of RK and Cheri's questions.

Personally, despite having not fed in a while, it is still not something I would want to trade in. Would this 'cure' you seek, cj, only eliminate the need? or would it also take the positives one gets from a feed?

Well of course we cannot assume what courses of action the mediical and/or psychological community would recommend for us after clinical trials so I really can't answer that.

I wonder. Further, I do have to ask - why do you call yourself a vampire, if you dont WANT to be one?

I actually don't consider myself a vampire, just a sanguinarian. As now however when people think of blood drinkers they think vampires. For some of the people who know about my sanguinarianism no matter how down to earth I explain things or never use the v-word, I'm not a sanguinarian, I'm a vampire. Of course I'd hope to change that and posting something like the treatise is an effort to turn the tide.

I think you missed the point in part I was trying to make. The stigma of drinking blood for any reason being wrong and evil, is not going to change  just because you get scientific proof of the medical need.
I would ask this question of the current donors in the community, If you now donate Sang, did you when you first entered the community?  I think you will find that many of them started into the idea of becoming a donor as a Psi donor, and when they learned more about the need for Sang donors were willing to try it. You cut your self off from a large pool of new, open, willing and clean blood from donors that have spent time in the community and learned how to be safe at it.
You can do all the studies you like and get all the proof  you want. It is not going to change many peoples opinion about you needing to drink blood to remain healthy.

No I got the point I just disagree with you. The stigma about blood drinking certainly isn't going to soften if we remain in the status quo. At least by pressing through there is some sort of hope or opportunity. Don’t get me wrong here I hold donors in the highest esteem. To allow someone to cut you in order to help someone else avoid illness is just so amazingly generous. I love you guys. However I absolute hate feeling I have to jab a sharp object inside one of my friends to maintain stasis. I don’t like hurting my friends. I also abhor the feelings of helpless and co-dependency when I get to near desperate levels. I’d love to be friends without having to slice your skin with a razor. I think the most likely scenario would be that some sort of treatment would be proposed to supplant the need for donors.

If science creates this cure you seem to hope for, they are going to push and insist people take it. To not choose to be cured will most likely make a person even more at risk then they are now. To cure yourself and be free for yourself, would you really force every Sang Vampire to either take your cure, or become even more hated and mistrusted then they are now in general society?

I have maintained for a while that as long as the sanguinarian is happy with his/her self and is able to stay lucid and manage their sanguinarianism on their own they should be left alone. However I think options need to be made available for those who are having a hard time managing his/her symptoms or just wants to be free of the extraneous need. Also if the proposed treatment appears to be worse than the status quo of being sanguinarian it may affirm sanguinarian as an identity.

In all reality, to me, the problem of exposure is more of a concern to me than the concern of lack of feeding, a concern that would rise, not lower, with efforts to make us 'more acceptable'. What is your response to this?

In short mainstream and to a certain extent scientific studies are sensational because we are sensational. We are the ones perpetuating the stereotypes. For example if one took a look at the roster of members at places like lesvampires and the VVC don’t most of them aesthetically and in terms of beliefs professed appear that they fit right into the South Park gym bleacher vampire clique? The little progress the community has made was through very unsensational approaches. What got Joseph Laycock interested in the community were not our beliefs and gothy flair but the fact that a group commonly dismissed as a new religious movement actually initiated a survey to find out demographically who we really are. This is a social science example of the team effort that I am advocating. The reason Ryan Dube turned around was the quality of reasoned and grounded replies from those within the community. Judging by the transcripts he offers sympathy to the idea that what we describe as vampirism could be some sort of physical or psychological ailment explained by science; an unsensational reason. None of these efforts sparked some mass media extravaganza; our privacy is still intact. I just want to get in the position where those interested in investigating the world of “real vampires” and by extension sanguinarians to find as little reason for sensationalism as possible and thus much reason to initiate further inquiry.
 

[LadyOfPales]

Ladyofpales, I like your new avatar caption...very cute, I had to chuckle a bit.  But it does stand to reason that we *still* don't know who CJ! is, as "she" seems to have avoided almost all of my questions and points.  My reply must have not been important enough to bother with, hu?  ;-)  

I'm very blatant, so
I don't like you, and you are not flattering; And I just don't care, what you had to say was really of no use. Personally, it sounded like bickering.
The fact that who "CJ!" is doesn't bother me either. That's like seeing a crackwhore who came up with something deserving the nobel prize, and a scientist who came up with something deserving the nobel prize. The fact that they are different people does not matter, it's the idea that they came up with that is important to people.
The intentions of the writer were made clear, and by the letter alone I agree with it wholly and there is no reason not to at least try what she suggested. the letter isn't meant to represent the ideas of the entire community. That's why it was titled "A sanguinarian treatise"
IMO, I don't like the idea of the proposal of the letter getting cockblocked by people who just can't let go of their "identities". If you want to be a "vampire", sure, that's ok. It didn't say that you had to let go of it. It didn't say that psi vampires couldn't be a part of the community as a whole. But there does need to be a clear distinction between the ways both psi and sang acquire their needs so to speak.

[Rav]

So here's an idea: go start a sang only website where no metaphysics or spirituality of any kind is allowed. You can whine all you like but if you really want something done, you need to step up and do it. Don't expect the community or any of the current sites to change just because you want them to. If this is what you really want, get to it and do it yourself.

[SangSavvy]

I've always felt that concidering the source of anything is an important thing to pay attention to, in addition to the words themselves.  Do I need to say the word Obama? 

I'm not going to sit here and take the badgering from all of those that (also) support this treatise.  I'm an easy target, because I've been adding to the discussion with points that needed to be said, and so I said them without hesitation.  Instead of personally attacking me, why don't you tell me which points that I made were off-base. 

To LadyofPales, "just being honest" with me isn't a rational reason to get out of being responsible for how you speak to or treat someone else.  Furthermore, your analogy of crackwhores as opposed to a scientist is not realistic or relatable to this argument.  It's also basis circular reasoning, and an easy copp-out.  The details of this situation do absolutely matter.  I also like how you spoke for "the people"...speak for yourself. 

If you will check out the specific quotations cited and replied to by Zeta, you will notice that there was more than one instance where CJ attempted to speak for the entire community, as well as all sanguinarians. 

Regardless of the pretend politeness that this treatise carries regarding the notion of "hey, I'm not forcing you to do anything here", it *DOES* imply and infer a bias across the board to anyone that disagrees, and goes so far as to imply that those who do not participate are only 'harming themselves'. 

Yes, RK, CJ is entitled to her opinion.  I'm also entitled to object, and the reasons why I objected include when anyone decides to place me on one side of a proverbial fence, or the other, without need of my involvement whatsoever.  That is extremely rude, and extremely counterproductive, no matter how many nice words are included in the argument.  I will genuinely state that I didn't mean to come off "snooty", and if I did, I absolutely apologize for that, as that's absolutely not my intention.  I do feel impassioned when I feel offended, and no, I do not usually "get this offended", which should tell you something, and should also tell you that you don't really concern yourself with what my real concerns are, or my genuity.  Then again, you don't seem to do that with anyone aside from those that kiss your ass.  If CJ decides she doesn't like something you said, you'll hate her forever too.  It's the same old cycle. 

Aside from that, I've "got nothing", because CJ decided to sidestep *my* questions with a poor attempt at reverse psychology. 

[LadyOfPales]

So here's an idea: go start a sang only website where no metaphysics or spirituality of any kind is allowed. You can whine all you like but if you really want something done, you need to step up and do it. Don't expect the community or any of the current sites to change just because you want them to. If this is what you really want, get to it and do it yourself.

well, isn't that why the treatise was written? as a proposal? I am willing, but not able due to my situation- fuck, i'm only 18- no car, no job, but I would still be willing to go on board with anyone seriously willing to do anything of the like
chill out.

[Rav]

Why do you need a car or job to make a website? There are networks that offer free websites.

[LadyOfPales]

To LadyofPales, "just being honest" with me isn't a rational reason to get out of being responsible for how you speak to or treat someone else.  Furthermore, your analogy of crackwhores as opposed to a scientist is not realistic or relatable to this argument.  It's also basis circular reasoning, and an easy copp-out.  The details of this situation do absolutely matter.  I also like how you spoke for "the people"...speak for yourself. 

I don't think you know what "circular reasoning" is
   a use of reason in which the premises depends on or is equivalent to the conclusion, a method of false logic by which "this is used to prove that, and that is used to prove this"; also called circular logic
for example,

A: He is mad right now.
B: How do you know?
A: Well, because he is really angry.

Basically it's not circular considering that the scientist and the crackwhore were independant of eachother. I could have changed either variable of the analogy and still got the same point across. What you were doing was simply Ad Hominem.
And you know what, sometimes I really just don't care about what others think. But that's being human, it doesn't make me any less able to be nice. She didn't say she was speaking for everyone else. It was a proposal. A sanguinarian treatise. A treatise from 1 sanguinarian. She's not speaking for so much as speaking to other sanguinarians.
Care to tell me where I said I was speaking for other people?

[LadyOfPales]

Why do you need a car or job to make a website? There are networks that offer free websites.

I mean, if anything were to be carried out say a clinical trial. As far as networking goes, i just don't have the knowhow. I suppose that doesn't make it impossible for me to learn, but regardless.

[Rav]

Nice to see you actually read what I wrote which you didn't. I was addressing sangs needing a place of their own. Having a place that was only for sangs so that they could talk about their issues and support each other without the interference of spirituality or metaphysics would more than likely require a website dedicated to sangs and only them. Personally, I have no problem with this. But I do think instead of whining something should be done to make this happen, it should be done. I live by the philosophy of put up or shut up. Either do something or quit whining.

[LadyOfPales]

Nice to see you actually read what I wrote which you didn't. I was addressing sangs needing a place of their own. Having a place that was only for sangs so that they could talk about their issues and support each other without the interference of spirituality or metaphysics would more than likely require a website dedicated to sangs and only them. Personally, I have no problem with this. But I do think instead of whining something should be done to make this happen, it should be done. I live by the philosophy of put up or shut up. Either do something or quit whining.

Stop saying how everyone is whining. We're still trying to find enough support to even get the idea off of the ground, and at this rate, it ain't goin' at lightnin' speed,
also define whining. At the moment, we're just talking. There's not much to be done when only about 3 or 4 people are defending the idea and the others practically are "whining" about the proposal, trying to find faults in it and keep it grounded  :<

[Cheri]

I only have one part of your reply to my question to comment about. As to the rest of it, well I hope you can find the answers you are looking for. I would also love to know that the many Sang friends I have made over the years have a choice that is not making them choose between remaining sick, and hurting a friend. I just do not agree that society will be as open to the idea as you seem to think it will.

I have maintained for a while that as long as the sanguinarian is happy with his/her self and is able to stay lucid and manage their sanguinarianism on their own they should be left alone. However I think options need to be made available for those who are having a hard time managing his/her symptoms or just wants to be free of the extraneous need. Also if the proposed treatment appears to be worse than the status quo of being sanguinarian it may affirm sanguinarian as an identity.

The issue I take with that idea is that if there is a cure, or treatment found that eliminates the need for blood or a donor, society will pressure anyone that is not interested in taking it to "Be cured". I will have to look up the actual situations that demonstrate this trend in our society, but in general you can look at how society treats anyone that chooses to not get a vaccination,even if that vaccination is not yet proven to be safe or effective. This is a very mild example, but it is still the general idea. If someone chooses to not take the cure or treatment for something already so distrusted in society, well they will be in a much greater risk of being labled mental, sick in the head and /or a danger to society. A diabetic that chooses to not seek treatment is seen as someone mentally ill. And while I myself would choose to seek treatment if it were me, I value the personal choice of the right to not do so.

I do agree that there should be options to those that want them. I just feel it should be very carefully considered as to the impact it will have on more then just the lives of those that want to be cured. I know some that would love to be cured, but I also know many that have no intrest in changing what they see as a big part of who they are.

[sphynxcatvp]

I had a ginormous reply originally typed out. But after sitting on it for a couple days, I decided it would be better to keep it (relatively) short and to the point.

So. Point ONE.

Those of you who think that this psi-sang conflict is new? It's not as new as you think, it's been going on, in various venues, for over a decade, without any real significant progress over the years (as evidenced by the rampant butthurt in this thread alone):

http://www.necronomi.com/users/akrieytaz/real/social.html
http://sphynxcatvp.nocturna.org/articles/anon-s-history.html
http://www.sanguinarius.org/articles/history.shtml

Now that THAT is out of the way...On to point TWO!

Those of you complaining about the sanguines having their own space? Let me see if I can put it in more understandable terms, since the more vocal ones seem to be MISSING THE POINT. COMPLETELY.

Example 1:
Diabetes support groups. Generally, these are open to diabetes patients, and family members of same, and not always to anyone else.

Example 2:
Medical conferences. Generally open to doctors and medical staff only, rarely open to anyone else.

Example 3:
Chronic pain support groups. Generally open to patients with chronic pain issues, and rarely open to anyone else.

Would you say that any of these groups consider themselves "superior" to anyone else? I wouldn't. People who are not in any of those categories just DON'T have the frame of reference needed to understand the issues at hand.

As an aside, anyone with chronic pain will understand what I mean when I say "People Just Don't Get It" when you say you're unable to do something. I know when the pain gets bad enough, you don't WANT to walk from the far end fo the parking lot, much less at all - the pain-free people just DON'T understand how bad pain can get if someone's not continually whimpering in pain, and don't understand why the pain sufferers want to be dropped as close to the door as possible.

Now....on to point THREE! 

For those who are still insisting that "you're all saying psis don't exist"...

Why do Sanguines want a space of our own?

Because we want to understand what makes us tick.

Once we understand what makes US tick, then we can figure out how to (or if we should) get medical research done, like CJ! was referring to.

Am I saying we're sick or ill? No, definitely not. (Though others likely will be, if only because of the rampant butthurt. *shrugs*) But if this is something that can be medically defined, wouldn't it be nice to have that information? Something definite to point to when people say "you're nuts"?

Clinical researchers in this (western) part of the world do not count anything metaphysical as something they can measure. If they did, then it wouldn't be as imperative to have sanguine-only spaces.

Say you wanted to study diabetes patients. Would you also include patients who have multiple sclerosis? Not if your goal was to understand diabetes, you wouldn't.

This is not about "Keeping out the psis" or saying that "psis aren't real" - This is simply, "Let's find out if being sanguine is due to something clinically measurable".

If you seriously want to whine about being left out? Set up your own study groups and your own studies - we're not stopping you!