Eaten But Not Useless

        I have chosen chapter three for my second blog, and my first self-chosen chapter. Nice to Eat You: Acts of Vampires is a splendid read, at least for me. Chapter three brings up one of my favorite topics to discuss; purity.

    The way society is treating and has treated the idea of the supposed “purity” or virginity makes me at, the very least, a little sick and at the most outspokenly frustrated. Of course virginal purity is not the only kind of “purity” that people feel should be protected. It is merely the most scandalous, most talked about and the most widely relatable scenario.

    Victorian literature, which Thomas C. Foster brings up in this chapter, expresses the wrong doings of people who use others and pity for victims. He calls these people vampires. This is an alright theme for a book, but the real issue is old society’s (and modern cultures) willingness to think of non-virginal women like they do used cars.

    I haven’t even touched on the other half of this discussion. Vampires, leeches, those who place their own personal gain over the wellbeing of others. I don’t want to focus on the evilness of vampires, but the power that society has given them and that they have given themselves. Now obviously literal vampires, of the blood sucking variety, d

o have the power to damage a human beyond repair and doom them to pale and sickly eternity of their own. However, the archetype of the male who spoils some young maiden is given the power to spoil. As if the woman he “spoils” had no say in the matter (rape excluded). As if the woman is some helpless creature who cannot resist being charmed. The “vampire” in this scenario gives himself too much credit.

     In short the innocence of the heroine and the charisma of the “vampire” are both overestimated. Which brings me to my favorite point, sex or lack of purity does not make a woman (or man, or anyone, really) less valuable. This is a ludicrous notion. If worth were measured in such a way than the woman should already be counted as worthless, if the maiden is willing to have sex (in this sex/worth scenario) then it does not matter if she has or not. Her mind would already be too far gone for the physicality of it to matter. She is already, by these standards, impure. Or would be if it was thought of logically, which it isn’t.

    The point I’m trying to make is this particular type of vampire (the deflowering type) is only an idea. And it’s not even an idea that society places on the vampire. The power of the vampire is solely determined by the value or lack of value that society places on his “victim.”

    Even though the community I live in is mostly open-minded about a lack of “purity,” there is still a reluctance to do things that may be irreversible. For example, tattoos, piercings, relationships, even cutting off your long hair. There is too much worth placed on past actions, and not enough credit given to current present behavior. This classic human belief conflicts so deeply with another very human hope, redemption.

   Besides, I find that the definition of purity is wrong. To never have experienced is not innocence, it is ignorance, but to have experienced and then chosen a path is purity.

*disclaimer, sex and sexuality are not immoral, neither are piercings or tattoos, these are all things that humans do and unless done to harm others or themselves, are not things we need to be forgiven for.

--As for the images I have chosen, I found both of these postcards at an estate sale I was working at last week,the image to the left (a photo of a fellow named Antonin Artaud, by a photographer named Man Ray in 1926) I chose because he reminds me of Dracula. I chose Eleanor, 1947 by Harry Callhan,(above) because it depicts a woman who looks like she can handle herself but, she is depicted in a somewhat vulnerable position. I have selected both of them because they depict humans that should only be valued for their talent, humanity and present actions.