In the way of all things, history especially, things do seem to turn in full circles over a course of time don’t you think?
Many topics, questions and subjects that have been visited in the past seem to find new life breathed into them from time to time and this is not necessarily a bad thing. Fresh eyes, looking at old problems, or questions, can very often see things that may have “slipped through the cracks” previously.
The subject, or rather subjects, of this editorial are twofold; firstly, the consideration of a perception that has been called “Med-Sang”, or Medical Sanguinarianism which engenders a proposed re-definition of “Vampire types” and, secondly, the renewed calls for “separation” from the overall culture by specific groups of real living Vampires.
It is sometimes difficult, given interactions and exposure to certain groups, to maintain a strictly neutral air when attempting to present information but I would like to assure everyone reading this that neither I, nor RVL, have a vested interest in these issues. We simply wish to bring the information to light so that our readers are in a position to make informed decisions about which sides of which fences they may wish to stand.
Having said as much let us turn, initially, to the matter of a relatively newly coined phrase, “Med-Sang”. That is not to say, of course, that the concepts behind the “Med-sang” term are new, quite the reverse in fact.
From reading an article entitled, “Consider the Med Sang Point of View” presented at website The Red Cellar, we are given to understand that, quote, “Many blood drinking “Vampires” are turning their eyes towards possible medical explanations for their conditions, disregarding the glamour of the vampire image and focusing on how to quietly and safely acquire what is for them, the only medication they know of to effectively treat perceived physical and psychological symptoms.”
This, in its turn, leads us to seek a definition for exactly what a “Med-Sang” might actually be. An explanation can be found at the web resource Vampire Network News where the definition offered is contained in an editorial entitled, “The Case for Separation Of The Vampire Community [ And Its Benefits ]”. The term “Sanguivore” is contained in a list of “types” of Vampire created by the author of the work. These types are,
“Cultural vampires, or people who choose to ingest blood, or energy but not in order obviate medical or psychological complications. These people are held to be such that practice vampire lifestyles and envelop themselves in the cultural aspects of the Vampire.”
Next are the Energy vampires, described as those “who must intake energy (in various forms) in order to avoid potentially life-threatening medical complications and enhance their physiology”.
The third offered definition is “Sanguivores”, these Vampires are held to be those ingest blood so that they can avoid, “potentially life-threatening medical complications and enhance their physiology.”
The final definition is that of Hybrids, or, Vampires who must ingest “both blood and energy in order to avoid potentially life-threatening medical complications and enhance their physiology.”
The Suscitatio Lexicon  provides some further delineation of types in its definition of Sanguinarian where it records that, “Sanguinarian vampires can vary in their experience of blood hunger and in how often or in what quantities they need to feed, but the unique craving for blood and the physical symptoms associated with neglecting to drink blood are unifying features of sanguinarian vampirism.”
It goes on to say that, “there is a popular but not universally-held theory within the Community that the life force energy or “prana” contained within the blood is the source from which they feed, rather than any physical component of the blood itself. This theory is supported by the notably small amount of blood that vampires consume to alleviate their hunger, but challenged by the fact that vampires who consider themselves primarily blood drinkers often do not display as many or any of the psychic tendencies that psychic vampires do, and more often report more physical symptoms, such as sense acuity and physical strength, than do the psychic vampires.”
Indeed, it can get confusing, even, we suspect, within the Sanguinarian population.
From the articles at both The Red Cellar and The VNN we are led to understand that the Med-Sang is of the “Sanguivore” type of modern living Vampire, i.e. one who MUST ingest blood to stay alive, to avoid threats, possibly fatal, to mind and/or body and who experiences “enhanced physiology”.
This distinction raises several unanswerable questions and the first and foremost of these is, “What, exactly, is the component in blood that keeps modern Sanguine Vampires from becoming physically or psychologically unwell?” Of course, at this time, there is no identification of that component available so the effects of the blood intake can’t be gauged because there are no indicators to measure against. There are a great many reports, some from very creditable sources that describe what a “lack of blood feeding” can lead to. The problem is that these are anecdotal evidences, not empirical and although these sources are impeccable in themselves the shot that the hard-line sceptics will fire off with, every time, is, “Prove it”. The truth is, at this point in time there is no “proof” available, there is no “empirical evidence” in support of the Med Sang point of view, however, consider this, as of 2012, 2.2 billion Christians believed in God… 
I haven’t seen any proof of him around the place, have you? However, the faith and belief in this deity provides the inspiration for millions upon millions to “get through” life. Belief can be a very strong ally indeed.
It would do everyone well to remember that modern Vampires, of any type or description, are NOT obliged to “prove” anything to anyone, no more than a Christian has to “prove” their God exists and the naysayers should accept that they have no right to demand such proof, much less to feel they are owed such proof.
The Med-Sang cultural element are, as is anyone else, perfectly entitled to their beliefs, perceptions and their own places to discuss such, what they do not have the right to do, however, is to attempt to impose; either directly, or indirectly, their cultural sub-set labels on anyone else and this is where any appeal for wider recognition of their existence can fall through. Somebody once commented to me, roughly, that, “words don’t always mean what they mean in the dictionary, they mean what the majority of people understand them to mean.” In essence, if I convinced enough people that the colour of a summer sky was actually green then blue would become the new green… only one problem, where would that leave poor old green?
Med-Sangs employ the term to describe, within their own faction, the meaning of their perceived, and believed, condition or their “normal” state of being. Outside of that environment the term has little meaning to anyone who is not a Med-sang but it does, however, identify a person as being from that particular cultural group – whether we understand it or not and at this time, to all intents and purposes, that is the aim. Another issue may, and has done, raise its head, what about people who don’t agree with the “Med-sang” perspective? What’s to be done with them?
In one word, tolerance. It doesn’t matter how loudly someone yells to make themselves heard, it doesn’t matter what rhetoric or explanations they choose to employ, it doesn’t matter what insults they may throw at people who don’t “believe” the fact remains that anything that challenges another’s beliefs, challenges another’s perception and challenges another’s understanding will be met with various levels of resistance. The true test of the theory is whether those proposing the new theory are able, or competent, to mount a defence of their position based in logic, fact and plausible surmise. Biting back often does more harm than good and, in the case of the early reports of the ‘Med-sang’ issue this caused some great commotion, a great deal of angst and even ended up setting friend against friend. Not a great start if you’re looking for acceptance and recognition.
This brings us, in a semi-direct manner, to the second point of this editorial. By involving themselves, predominantly, in the case for separation of the Vampire Culture by Vampire type they are seeking to categorize the entire membership of the global culture according to their own definitions. This is fine within their own circles and enclaves but this, more than any other factor, could be the very thing that will see any attempt to separate the culture, ultimately, fail. Rather than separation, which has not been declared as an absolute end goal of the Med-Sang contingent, it would seem that a partial separation would be better considered. Perhaps a good compromise might be a group, or groups, where Med-Sangs can be and can discuss their own business, the business of discovering what and who they are, if that’s the case then fine but, in open discussions and multi-membership forums in combined web resources; that is websites where Vampires and Otherkin of diverse types gather, there have been instances where other members of the Vampire culture have been ridiculed and harangued for voicing their opinions against the case for separation.
Now, you might say that this is normal for the online vampire environment and that, unfortunately, is why so many good and possibly productive discussions come apart and lose all semblance of the rational. Perhaps the honoured Deacon Gray, Member of House of the Dreaming, was not so very far off the mark when he opined that a good name for a group of Vampires would be “a ‘bicker’ of Vampires”.
A question, at this point, if I may… do you think that if the Vampire culture were segregated according to type the bickering, the insults, the tantrums and the rhetoric might achieve a more rational level of productive talks? I wonder…
Forming a self-interest group to tackle such issues and questions necessarily needs to include people from ALL sectors influenced by such things so that a balanced outcome and view of the subject is achieved, without this you simply have an “exclusionist” group.
The case for separation of the Vampire Culture has been alive and kicking since the early days of the online culture when Lady Amy Kreiytaz was writing of a psi versus sang separatism, it was the topic of an article written, and presented in Lady CG’s “Smoke and Mirrors”, by CJ, then The Infamous CJ, entitled, “A Sanguinarian Treatise: An Argument For Partition From The Vampire Community”, which has been reposted at The Red Cellar, and, most recently in the previously mentioned, “The Case for Separation Of The Vampire Community [ And Its Benefits ]” and subsequent discussions held at the web resource Vampire Network News. It is, in essence, an old chestnut, it is a problem that has not been resolved in some three decades or more, thus it is not a problem that is going to go away because one group within the culture wants to break away.
In speaking of the article, “Separation Of The Vampire Community [And Its Benefits]” Lady Jane More of The Vampire Network wrote;
“the piece doesn’t actually support the idea of “us vs them”. What it does do is gently and respectively present the concept of us vs Us; microcosms based on specifically nurtured needs, catering to individuals in a way that enables them to feel safe, learn, and grow unhindered. Protecting the most vulnerable among us in a way that just might save lives, instead of risking them. It asks that we put aside any and all kinds of power struggles for collective spaces, so we may ultimately enable greater cooperation and understanding in the future. When fully developed microcosms can come together to form a non-contentious whole.”
Lady Lia Tajra of The Vampire Network, went on to note;
“By partitioning into smaller groups based on physical and mental commonality, there is a better opportunity for individuals to understand themselves, find the community that suits them best, grow there, and become ambassadors for their subtype who can THEN reach out to other subtypes and establish a clearer, stronger and more cohesive GVC.”
The situation at the heart of the problem is, indeed, far, far older than these discussions and perspectives, it comes back to the very basic of necessities for progress and improvement… one word answer…
Whether or not the Med-Sang movement decides to withdraw from the wider culture, so be it… everyone MUST respect the decision. Whether people agree or disagree with the “Separatists”, so be it but everyone MUST respect the point of view of the separatist contingent. Whether people completely without vested interest either way have questions and opinions, or not, their right to voice those questions and/or opinions is inviolable and should be respected.
For everyone who wants someone to respect their rights, they MUST, in turn, respect the rights of that someone and until that situation is resolved an “agreeable” separation of anything is never going to work.
The only remaining option then is for the Med-Sang people to leave and set up their own place. If the Psi contingent don’t want to endure what they see as devaluation and/or criticism then the ONLY option they have is to separate from the wider culture. If the Hybrid contingent want their own home place, free of interference or mischief, then the ONLY option they have is to completely separate themselves from the wider culture.
In fact, if you think about it, if you don’t have, and exercise, a level of common decency and respect then, well, you already have separation.
Copyright TB & RVL 2017
- ANALYSIS (2011-12-19). “Global Christianity”. Pewforum.org. Retrieved 2012-08-17.
“True Blood? Not Yet.” [http://www.vampire.network/community/true-blood-not-yet/]
NB: This article may be linked to but may not be copied or reproduced, nor redistributed in any manner, including electronic without the express permission of the copyright owners.
The views and opinions presented in this article are the opinions of the author and/or contributors and do not necessarily represent the views and opinions of The Owner/s of RVL, their officers, assigns or agents. RVL and its officers do not personally, individually, or jointly necessarily recommend or condone any of the activities or practices represented.
Where used, quoted portions of other works are reproduced by permission, or under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, wherein allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.
For further information please see the RVL Website Disclaimer