Interview: Ossivorous Oose of TRC

TRCLampreyLogo
The Red Cellar Logo

In our last post, the GrumpyVamp team brought you the official statement from Alexia of The Red Cellar. I’d like to take a moment to thank her for providing clarification of TRC’s stance on these issues. It’s an important counterpoint to my last article and I hope everyone will take time to read it. But she’s not the only person on the TRC staff who was called out in the document presented in The “Med” Sang Menace.

I reached out to the TRC admin team for their comments and I was fortunate enough to be able to interview Ossivorous Oose, who is the other leader referenced in the infamous document. It is my privilege to be able to present their take on the situation to the GrumpyVamp audience.


Sylvere ap Leanan: Thank you for taking time to speak with us. Please introduce yourself.

Ossivorous Oose, affectionately, though misleadingly, called Leader No.2 in the document.

SAL: As we know, nothing happens in a vacuum. In your own words, please describe the events that led up to the creation of the document authored by Spooky, Jamie and the Unknown Editor that claims to be for the purposes of “Addressing the Internal Infrastructure, within ‘The Red Cellar’ for the Support of Sangs Reflections, Discussion and Future of the MedSang movement”.

OO: What tied the proverbial knickers in a knot? Well, to be honest, the actual moments of catalyst are severely disappointing when paired against the ridiculous level of outrage implied by the writers of the document. Ultimately, I think those involved with this repulsive word salad / shit bomb had the wrong idea of how TRC is run, what it’s actually about, and also of their own importance within the group itself. Perhaps they were disappointed that it’s not some sort of elite social club of selective sang supremacy?

SAL: It has been suggested that one author is primarily responsible for the content of the document and that the others contributed very little, if anything, to its content. Do you believe that suggestion is accurate? If so, who do you believe to be the primary author of this document?

OO: I feel that Spooky was the main culprit behind the whole ridiculous affair, from initial instigation, to the actual drafting of the document. That being said, however, I do believe that Jamie was in complete compliance with the disturbing stance and what was eventually written down. Going back in the chat logs of our server, I can see the hate filled gospel begin churning months ago. With both of them. If Jamie didn’t significantly contribute by way of actual conception, she was certainly down with and willingly subject to indoctrination.

SAL: How large a contribution do you think the other authors made to the document?

OO: Without further evidence, it would be difficult for me to make clear judgement on the amount of content contributed by the individuals involved. That being said, however, a good amount of guilt by association is reasonable, I think, especially when one considers the inherently offensive and hateful bile that made up the core of the document.

SAL: One of the co-authors has claimed that this document was stolen, edited, and subsequently leaked by a third-party proofreader for some malicious purpose. Do you believe this claim has merit? What are your reasons for that belief?

OO: To be honest, I don’t buy the “document was edited!” shtick. They released the document to several themselves in failed pursuit of finding support for their agenda. I believe these claims to be a desperate attempt at saving face and back-peddling, which is a tactic they both employ often when confronted with any sort of push back. The document was meant for circulation. I think that’s quite clear to see.

SAL: According to one of the co-authors, this document was created because the TRC staff has an obligation to listen to any and all suggestions, concerns, and other feedback from the general membership, otherwise, they are dictators. This same author insinuated that the TRC admin team is also obligated to implement policies based on that feedback. What are your thoughts about this?

OO: We are not under strict obligation to listen to all grievances and, furthermore, retain the right to moderate our space as we see fit. We don’t make decisions lightly, bow to so-called popular opinion of the GVC, nor operate out of any attempts at being oppressive overlords. We hold the right to judge situations & people through personal interaction, and deal with dangerous content / individuals in ways we find appropriate.

Contrary to what the document wants people to believe, our actions are decided as an administrative team and stem directly from the need for fairness, accuracy, and safety. If a member becomes abusive, supports an unsavory agenda, or spews hateful propaganda, how can they logically expect us to be receptive to what they have to say?

SAL: In her guest post on GrumpyVamp, Elizabeth Hopka included a statement of apology attributed to co-authors Jamie and Spooky. Do you accept the apology? Since the apology extends beyond the borders of TRC, do you think the GVC as a whole should accept it? What is your reasoning for this opinion?

OO: I acknowledge the attempt in atonement, however, considering the character of those involved, I find neither sincerity, nor comfort in it.

Honestly, I’m not interested in shotgun apologies. I just hope that those involved with this deluded vitriol take a very good look at who they are, what they’ve done, and why they did it.

SAL: As a member of the TRC staff, you are expected to uphold the established policies of the server. However, in your personal opinion, do you agree with the current direction of TRC or would you prefer it to go another route?

OO: I agree with it entirely. Our current direction is something the administrators have come to collectively after a great deal of toil and dialog. Admittedly, we haven’t always been easy to get along with. Many of us come from difficult GVC situations that, I think, negatively skewed our overall point of view in the past. Being decent to others in no way challenges our core concepts or integrity. If having people with different beliefs around challenges your own self-image, I think that’s a personal issue, and need to evaluate your true motives at that point. Our current direction, if anything, makes it easier for us to help those who are in need.

SAL: What do you want readers to know about TRC, in general?

OO: Our mission is to support blood drinkers, not be judgmental, hate propagating piles of stinking excrement.

So there you have it. The two leaders who were called out have spoken. It sounds to me like TRC is just as horrified by that steaming pile of bovine excrement as anyone else. And it also sounds like they are genuinely attempting to do something positive for the GVC, regardless of how an individual self-identifies. For those who perceive a need to consume blood for the health benefits it gives, The Red Cellar is one of the top resources for information and support. Check them out.
Editor’s Note: Previously, this article mistakenly used incorrect pronouns for Ossivorous Oose. It has been updated to correct this error.
Advertisements

Guest Post: Alexia of The Red Cellar Speaks

TRCLampreyLogo
Official logo: The Red Cellar

Greetings, Gentle Readers. Today, GrumpyVamp has the pleasure of bringing you a guest post from Alexia, founder and administrator of The Red Cellar website and Discord server. As promised, this post is the official statement from TRC addressing the recent attempted coup on their Discord server, the document presented in our previous article The “Med” Sang Menace, and clarifying TRC’s position.

By now, Gentle Reader, you know the drill. Long post is long. Long post needs to be long to do it justice. Long post is well worth your time. Read it. You won’t regret it.

In truth, GrumpyVamp is delighted that Alexia was willing to make this guest post, and would like to extend Grumpy’s sincere thanks for taking time out of her busy schedule to draft it. Note to readers: Alexia is originally from the U.K. so there are a few words spelled in accordance with British English rather than American English conventions. It’s not a typo and, therefore, has not been corrected. So let’s get to it, shall we?

Want to write a guest post for GrumpyVamp? See our Contributor Guidelines page for details.


TRC Official Statement

Where do I begin? It’s hard to know where to start with such a dumpster fire as the document shown in “The Med Sang Menace”.

Recently, The Red Cellar had to deal with a coup attempt. The authors say it was not a coup and that it was to trigger discussion. If it was just for discussion, why was a manifesto spread in secret to many people including the line “this can be spread to the GVC”? Further, what makes the authors think that they have a right to try and force the hand of the administration team? The individuals involved were told the issue had been discussed, decided, and to drop it. They chose not to and instead disseminated the document in secret. The attacks on vulnerable people and bigotry is not what TRC is about.

Before I get into the body of the document and make my comments, I first want to clarify the position of The Red Cellar. This has been discussed and agreed with all administrators present in our Discord server, so I am not speaking only on behalf of myself. TRC was made to be a welcoming space. The division of opinion on otherkin and therians, along with supporting those who are vulnerable, is what led to the creation of the document to begin with. One of our administrators identifies as otherkin and runs a therian/otherkin group. Those who know me recall that Syrf was one of my close friends before she passed; she identified as a cat therian (as well as med sang) and helped me to understand these different identities. Simply put, psi, otherkin, therian, whatever, it isn’t relevant to TRC. If you feel you need blood, we are here to help. We have no place commenting on other aspects of your identity – it’s your business how you identify, not ours. Considering any group a “cancer to be purged” goes against all we stand for. It reeks of hate and fascism. No sentient being should ever be treated that way. Respect and approaching from a place of mutual understanding is key.

Given the amount of content I have to get through, I’m going to go ahead and get started.

No one is a ‘torchbearer’. To call oneself that and to tell everyone to sit down is in itself narcissistic. No one is required to listen. Someone is not required to sit and have a discussion. The Red Cellar operates in a democratic fashion, with key decisions being discussed and voted on by our group of administrators. I am more than happy to listen to concerns; however, decisions are made as a group and when someone is told to DROP an issue after repeatedly breaking server rules, that goes well beyond what is appropriate.

I have never heard the term “EMWs” or heard it used to identify psi persons. As for Species Dysphoria, this part of the document essentially dismisses half of the GVC and all Otherkin. TRC’s Discord server does have a rule to not discuss metaphysics except for in Off Topic. That is not because TRC discriminates against psi. It is simply because there are many other servers for it and it is not the focus of the group – the focus is sanguivory, blood drinking and anything and everything to do with blood drinking from a medical, physiological perspective. Metaphysical issues are outside the scope of TRC, and we are simply not equipped to provide proper support for them. That said, there is NO rule banning anyone of identities beyond ‘med sang’ joining the group. The core focus is to support blood drinkers. Sanguivory is not a medical diagnosis. The only thing we have to go from is our own anecdotal experiences. If this is a physiological issue, people can still interpret that in many different ways. Some may practice some form of magick or have esoteric/occult interests. Some may hold a belief in metaphysical energy. Some may do neither. The point is, it is not someone’s business what someone else believes, practices, or identifies as. If they need support with sanguivory, we will provide it; be they Otherkin, med sang, sanguinarian, hybrid, whatever. We are also human beings. We do not turn away those who are questioning. We do not turn away psi who have come to our server and enjoy the human support we can provide. We can still maintain our focus while staying true to our core focus of support for physiological blood drinking. Sanguivory isn’t easy to deal with. Many of us grew up with it alone and suffered greatly for it. Now, people don’t have to. I don’t give a sh*t what their identity is if we can contribute to make things safer for both blood drinkers and donors thanks to our own experience; then we’re doing things right. I will not segregate TRC and section ourselves away from those who can benefit. That is a mistake I believe we made years ago.

Given the document was written by a self-admitted sociopath, I am not surprised that the next part of the document then proceeds to blame YOU for your feelings of disgust and outrage when reading it. The author is willing to take no responsibility for the utter garbage that proceeds to flow from their mouth despite being the one writing it. There must be a ‘rational reason’ for your outrage. Not because, y’know, you’re a human being with feelings. I can smack someone in the face and call them a c*nt; if they get upset though, it’s on them because they are the only one controlling their body. Right? *eyeroll*

I do not need to elaborate too much on a sociopath’s view of altruism. Of course, if you don’t understand or feel emotions well, you may assume everyone is doing things for personal gain because it is a projection of the sociopath’s own inability to connect to any motive except selfishness.

The document then proceeds into psychobabble. I’m not going to go too deeply into this. The author of this document likes to play armchair psychologist despite having no understanding of human emotion on a personal level. TRC is a support group. We offer peer support for blood drinkers. I grew up dealing with my sanguivory on my own. I was isolated and it was absolutely terrifying. I’ve lost a best friend to suicide. This is not an easy thing to deal with at all. It is my passion and deep care for blood drinkers that pushes me to do what I do – and to stick with it despite t3h dramaz. As such, that is why I am so focused on a caring, warm environment. The GVC can be harsh. We need a safe space for physiological blood drinkers to be. We have plenty of channels – there’s enough space for everyone. That’s why TRC has a ‘support chat’ and ‘off topic’. There are a lot of places for blood drinkers. We even have a private room for long-time members. The intent of the document was to challenge our focus of support and say we should be restricting our ‘borders’ to ‘true sangs’; whatever that is.

I do not care for segregation. There can be boundaries, certainly, and there should be. But we share people, we are neighbours. Without that, people don’t find us and our resources become useless. As I mentioned before, people who drink blood come from many practices, identities, and beliefs. All are welcome. A lot of people come in to simply learn about sangs. We have all kinds of people coming in, from those who are questioning whether they need blood themselves, to those who are simply curious. We have rules that maintain the focus of physiological and medical blood drinking. We do not need to play gatekeeper and kick people out for not having the same beliefs or views as us. Doing that leads to an echo chamber. It does not represent who I am as a person. I am a tolerant, inclusive person. I no longer want conflict with the GVC to turn me into something I’m not.

That’s not to say we keep people who are toxic. There have been incidents where an individual turned every issue to be about them, threatened suicide, among other things to the extent where members didn’t feel comfortable or safe discussing their own issues. That person was removed in time. That decision rests with the administrators of the server and it is up to us to decide where that line is. Members can have and can raise concerns, but there are boundaries. When you are trying to force someone’s hand and make personal attacks on the group and its members, that is far beyond what is acceptable.

Medication

The author of the document is not a doctor. Note the document says ‘prescription’ drugs. If a doctor has deemed it necessary for their patient to be on a certain medication, that person should not be shamed for it. Mental health is a sensitive issue. No one should be shamed for needing medication to manage their health issues. Medication can be life saving. This paragraph only seems to further illustrate the callous nature of the writer. It speaks to their views about tr00 l33t sangs – “contributing to the illusionary inclination of blood need”. Who is *anyone* to tell someone whether they need blood or not? That is down for the individual to decide. Sanguinarian is defined only as someone who ‘needs’ blood to maintain their health. If someone feels they need it to maintain their mental health, I do not feel they should be degraded or treated as lesser than someone who needs it to maintain their immune system. It is quite possible that mental health issues or medications can exacerbate or suppress sanguinary symptoms. That is one thing we endeavour to find out. The brain has significant physiological side-effects on the rest of the body. Mindfulness meditation has benefits that can be seen on an MRI.

Blood *is* a medication to some and many perceive it that way. It isn’t a panacea. However, it is taken regularly to prevent health degradation which manifests various symptoms. If you only use it for additional nutrition, can it be said that perhaps you have an illusionary inclination of blood need because you don’t truly need it? I don’t personally care why someone says they need it, but those in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. Blood is nutritous and is used around the world, both in cooking and as a health supplement. Nutrition IS medicine. In fact, blood has been used as medicine for a long time. A great book on the subject is “Mummies, Cannibals and Vampires: The History of Corpse Medicine from the Renaissance to the Victorians”. That said, blood in my view is a desperate measure and it is dangerous to suggest people take blood in lieu of following up with medical professionals. One should never stop following up with medical professionals because something insidious could be lurking under the veil of ‘sanguinarian’. If that makes us pill-popping because we continually seek to learn more about our condition and do follow up through the correct channels, perhaps the disdain for networking with doctors is far more dangerous than someone off-the-cuff referring to blood as ‘medicine’. There is nothing wrong with saying what medicine worked for you and recommending someone look into it. That person is not a doctor. The individual cannot access the medicine unless it is discussed with their doctor and their doctor believes it is right for their situation and treatment plan. This goes on in peer support groups for all manner of things – from sanguivory to MS and fibromyalgia. This further demonstrates the author’s social ineptitude and lack of understanding of how peer support works. If a doctor’s prescribed medication causes someone to be hospitalized, that is the result of an incompetent doctor. Also note that the authors disbelieve that any sanguivore should need medication if they have enough blood. Blood to them is apparently some miracle cure-all for all ailments.

As for Huel, is there a problem with that? It is called a POSITIVE PRODUCT REVIEW. Google it. Many sanguinarians experience digestive maladies and cannot properly process food, leading them to be malnourished and consequently causing a worsening of their symptoms. Huel was recommended to provide something that a sanguinarian could digest but still meet all of their nutritional requirements leading to improved health. If they think that this is malicious ‘suggestive’ behaviour, it only goes to demonstrate how sick the writer is. Oh wait, that’s right – there is no altruism, everything is selfish in the eyes of a sociopath – not trying to improve the sanguinarian’s quality of life through enhanced nutrition.

Soft language comes next. I do not believe this is a ‘problem’ in TRC. It is basic human decency to watch what you say to people and avoid offense when possible. That is the cornerstone of respect and human kindness. To someone without empathy, I can see where this could be seen as an issue. In a support server, people can be in bad places. Members will not feel comfortable expressing themselves or seeking help if someone constantly jumps down their throat and is rude. That is something I personally don’t tolerate. People don’t need a ‘blanket’. If someone wants to support a member, that’s on them. If you don’t like it, don’t get involved. If it becomes excessive, the admin team will address it. Not your call to make.

“Woo” hasn’t been used by TRC for a good while. It is seen as derogatory and condescending to some of our members and their beliefs. Perceiving your blood need as physiological isn’t mutually exclusive with other kinds of beliefs and practices. Talking down to others in such a way makes med sangs appear hostile and disrespectful. It alienates a good portion of our member base.

Again, it is down to TRC to decide what the scope of support offered by TRC is. If you don’t like it, look away. There haven’t been instances of something not being ‘contained’; rather, there have been instances of someone seeking support, an admin taking time to try and calm them down, and then the two authors of the ‘document’ being condescending, rude, and callous. I shit you not when I quote “I will send digital roses to your grave” when someone was trying to get help. Not only cruel comments like that, but trying to psychoanalyze with Wikipedia level skill and questioning/doubting people’s experiences. If you want to act like a c*nt, go do it on your own servers and see how well it goes.

Peer support doesn’t require ‘skills’ – that is the nature of peer support groups. The biggest liability comes with trying to psychoanalyze people without qualifications as the main author of this document likes to do.

Ref:

https://www.samhsa.gov/recovery/peer-support-social-inclusion

I will not elaborate too much on the ‘Species Dysphoria’ comments as this has been expanded upon by Blacklight in his excellent rebuttal article.

TRC does not ‘play doctor for political standing’. Anyone who perceives TRC to be about that is clearly projecting their own agenda. TRC has *never* been about that. We are there for support for blood drinkers, for information, and for scientific inquiry into sanguivory. Political agendas have never been part of what we do; to the contrary, that is the objective of the authors of ‘the document’ and they have been playing political games for many months now. The decision to be more inclusive was after much soul-searching and a realization that past approaches were not conducive to our overall goals. That we alienated people who needed our help. That people did not feel safe referring people to us. Again, we are a support group. We do not offer medical advice. We share experiences and are a shoulder for anyone going through a rough time. We are one of the few specialized groups for blood drinkers and the role we play is crucial. I will not have our support compromised for anyone. As for ‘grave legal ramifications’, it is funny that the author talks of liability yet they are clearly not an attorney. We do not diagnose. We do not contradict medical diagnoses. We do not offer step-by-step recovery programs. We listen and we share experiences. You know, like every other peer support group in the world.

The Direction of Med Sangs

Past

Infamy was never the intent of previous debates with the Vampire Community. The med-sang ‘movement’ or ‘community’ has changed a lot over the last few years. Nor was the intent to show psi that ‘they lacked rationality’. Let me clarify that the two authors of the ‘document’ were not part of the med-sang community during the time that they are talking about. They are in no position to talk about our history or why we did what we did. They entered the community in 2018 after our ‘direction’ had already changed. The justification for our arguments with psi in the past was that many of us felt it was omnipresent, that non-metaphysical methods were traditionally shouted down and that we had to show that it was okay to see your condition from a physiological perspective and not practice any metaphysics. Some argued that proximity to the Vampire Community made us less credible to researchers. Others wanted little to do with self-identified vampires and so the decision was made to separate. It was never about division and hatred; we simply wanted to do the best for ‘our people’. Despite how wrong I believe it to be now, back then, I felt I was genuinely doing the right thing and fighting for our right to be heard, to let others know it was okay to perceive their sanguivory that way, and to build a safe space for them to do so. In the end, I still feel that was accomplished, but that the approach taken did significant damage to our ability to help blood-drinkers overall.

Present

The creation of the TRC Discord did not mark a new approach, nor did it mark us for the first time as a quantifiable group. We had been known for years already (how could we be infamous if we weren’t a quantifiable group?) and the Discord server was simply another avenue for us to provide outreach and support. The new approach was already adopted at this point. For reference, please see this article which clarified the new approach and when (and this has only continued to evolve):

Ex Meis Cineribus Renascor – Sanguivores, Med Sangs & Vampires

The focus of Sangs getting support in TRC has not changed. It is for blood drinkers by blood drinkers. That doesn’t mean we will shun anyone who is not. There are plenty of outlets in the TRC Discord server for sangs to talk about their issues. “General-Sang”, “Lampreys” and “Support” being but a few. Just because other-identified persons sometimes need support does *not* mean we have lost our focus; just that we are decent human beings who want to help other people if they come to us.

We are not in a position to judge who is a ‘genuine sang’ or not. Who is anyone to judge who is ‘legit enough’ to be allowed in? None of us have any evidence that we need blood. None of us know why we are this way. Playing ‘more sang than thou’ is exclusionary, elitist and undermines the focus of supporting blood drinkers.

We are not searching for ‘credibility as med sangs’. We are not out to prove what we are or to justify ourselves. We aim to maintain an open mind and perform scientific inquiry into the nature of our condition. Confirmation biases undermine this goal completely.

Nor do we have to keep a ‘diseased identity’. This shows utter callous disregard for people’s mental health issues and general health problems. Nutrition and medicine is part of our approach to sanguivory. We have people with knowledge of supplements, nutrition, and biology. If people voice a complaint, we share what advice we can. That’s not a race to see who is the most diseased; it is simply trying to HELP.

I will address an issue with the two authors of this document with regards to ‘complaining about any effort to get blood’. The authors are ableist, judgemental, and condescending people. They have said before that those who are unable to get donors deserve to starve. Not everyone is able to get donors that easily. Some have anxiety disorders. Some are physically disabled. They like to play ‘more wampyr than thou’ by comparing how sick they get without blood, how much blood they drink, and how many donors they have – like some internal circle jerk confirming how l33t sangs they are. If you can’t get donors, fuck you, you don’t deserve it (essentially).

Yes, there is a need to compare the need for blood in terms of need, symptoms among other things. For basic scientific inquiry, this is necessary. You need to have people who are alike to have any frame of reference. This has always been the case. However, it’s not to decide who is genuine enough to be allowed in or who is credible. It’s not our place to decide that, or to talk down to people whose need may differ from our own. There is a lot of space on the internet for all types of people.

I have no intention of ‘kissing VCN ass’. Saying that, I do not think there is a problem with having allies. I do not think that proximity to the VC is harmful. The VC can provide referrals, leads, among other things. Some cross-over is necessary so people actually find us. Locking ourselves up on an island means we are in a position to help precisely no-one. Removing ourselves from these spaces meant that we hardly helped anyone for a period of almost two years. More people have found us and reached out for help than ever before. Medical research is a long-term goal, but support is something we can offer right now.

The author then goes to say that my nature has been taken advantage of and repurposed. I am not some tool to be repurposed for political agenda. I care deeply about what I do and the people I serve. I try my best to do what I think is the right thing and for the greater good in every decision I make. I do not do it for appreciation; I do it because of what I went through growing up alone as a sanguivore. It was deeply traumatic for me and almost cost me my life when I was 15 years old. I am driven with great passion to do my best to provide for sanguivores and advocate for us publicly. I do have purpose and I do feel a sense of urgency and need on my shoulders. That is simply because I care. I honestly have no desire or interest for anyone to kiss my ass. To the contrary, it makes me extremely uncomfortable. I seek to serve a cause I care about, not to have people brown nosing me. With regards to the, ahem, ‘EMWs’ in TRC, I am simply happy they feel comfortable to share their experiences and can seek us out for blood support. We do not need to be an echo chamber and it makes me truly happy when people find what they need in us. Non med-sangs are not ‘junk food’ or a cancer that needs to be purged from the ‘TRC body’. I’m also not a ‘head of the body’ – we are not an autocracy. We are a horizontal organization with a collective of leaders. The Discord server has 5 admins, all of whom vote on our direction, rules, and all key decisions about the server.

Conclusion

To wrap this up, I want to say I regret that this vitriol came from within the TRC server. We do not support bigotry, hatred, or abuse. It is not our place to criticize your personal gnosis or how you choose to identify. Our focus is on those who blood feed regardless of how they identify or practice. We will continue to inquire about the nature of our condition, to provide a safe haven for those who perceive their condition from a physiological lens, and be good neighbours and allies to those who have different life experiences from us.

Guest Post: Addressing a Weak Attempt at Sewing Hatred and Division in the OVC/GVC

ExpandedMind

 

Greetings, Gentle Readers. Today, GrumpyVamp is pleased to bring you a guest post by Blacklight. This post is a response to and rebuttal of the manifesto presented in our previous post The “Med” Sang Menace. GrumpyVamp was impressed with how thorough and well-researched Blacklight’s post was and Grumpy hopes our Gentle Readers will take some of their valuable time to read and carefully consider the points made in it.

However, GrumpyVamp would be remiss if Grumpy didn’t offer you, Gentle Reader, a warning: Long post is LONG. This is not the sort of post you can skim quickly. This is the sort of post that requires you to set aside a block of time to contemplate it in order to do it justice. There are also a fair number of citations that ambitious readers may want to look up for further research.

GrumpyVamp is also aware that one of the co-authors of the manifesto, Jamie, has publicly apologized for her role in this debacle. However, other sources inform GrumpyVamp that her behavior since then appears disingenuous and insincere as she has not apologized for the content of the document or for the attempt to undermine the authority of the Red Cellar admin team on their private Discord server, only that the document was revealed before it could be sufficiently whitewashed. Is she sorry she was involved in writing it and for the hurt she caused, or only that she got caught at it? It remains to be seen whether or not she is truly remorseful or merely attempting to cover her backside. GrumpyVamp suspects the latter, but will reserve Grumpy’s opinion for the time being. Ms. Jamie’s actions will absolve or condemn her in due time.

Want to submit a guest post to GrumpyVamp? Visit our contributor guidelines page. And now, without further ado, GrumpyVamp yields the floor to Blacklight.


Addressing a Weak Attempt at Sewing Hatred and Division in the OVC/GVC

A response to: “Addressing the Internal Infrastructure, within ‘The Red Cellar’ for the Support of Sangs: Reflections, Discussion and Future of the med-sang movement.”

Blacklight
2018

This paper is written to address divisive behavior and the use of pseudo-intellectualism and pseudo-science in an effort to cause unnecessary infighting and hurt those with different beliefs. As is known, the VC has long seen heated disagreements between psi-vampires and sanguinarians/med-sangs, mostly for superficial reasoning or disagreements in personal belief. And although much of the conflict has passed, there are some individuals in the community who wish to reopen old wounds and harm others for blatantly asinine reasoning.

Spooky, Jamie and an unnamed editor have attempted to create an outline for (what can hardly be called) a ‘paper’ titled “Addressing the Internal Infrastructure, within ‘The Red Cellar’ for the Support of Sangs: Reflections, Discussion and Future of the med-sang movement.” It is little more than a loose collection of disordered thoughts for an imaginary ‘manifesto’ that seeks to discredit and harm both psi-vampires, otherkin and therians. To avoid the potential harm even this imaginary ‘paper’ might create, this disordered mess of an outline will be thoroughly refuted and taken to task. As we, the community, have a moral obligation to squash this divisive nonsense as soon as it rears its ugly head time and time again.

Quotations will be pulled directly from the outline and addressed with bullet point arguments.

Quote: “Everyone needs to sit down. I am the torch lighter..”

1. This is exactly where damaging behavior in our community starts. Too many individuals aggrandize themselves as some kind of bloodied martyr. They lie to themselves that they are starting a movement “for the good of all”. Which should be a red flag if we’ve ever seen one. Such twisted perceptions have resulted in real damage and loss in our world, outside of these communities. Really, it is nothing more than a crusade against individuals they disagree with by someone who has a savior-complex. What the authors seem to want is “revolution” and many ethicists have weighed in that revolution generally harms all and isn’t justifiable if there are civil means of resolving disputes. It is clear civil means are not what is desired here. (It’s really a joke to call this little game a revolution.)

Refs:

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/revolution/#SomeMajoFiguViewMoraRevo

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/papa.12021

2. If people looked at themselves realistically, without grandiose over-inflated egos, they would recognize that all individuals have something valuable to contribute to the community at large. Med-sangs, psi-vampires, otherkin and therians may not all get along, but we all have something of value to contribute. Especially to one another. We all engage in discourse. We present different viewpoints. Being able to civilly engage with different views is how we all grow and learn. Recognition of dignity, equality and cooperation across differences of belief, being and culture is necessary to foster growth, self-awareness, and a healthy community. It doesn’t matter whether we are spiritual, atheists, believe in spiritual or psychological causes. Time and time again reality has shown that growth of people happens by encountering beliefs other than their own in a civil environment. Tolerance of differences is an essential step before you can have any civil dialogue. The content of the document clearly represents the opposite of this fact.

Refs:

https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ903804.pdf

https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=2568&context=dissertations

Quote: “This document is to be allowed to be spread to the GVC, please remove any content that is in italics (that is not a famous quote). Not all content will be received well and the creators of this document do not wish to have the Therians, Otherkin, Mystics and Energy Manipulating Witches having alarming issues with their storytelling identities. There is not enough certified therapists on staff in the GVC to assist in the crisis this document could potentially create”

1. The author here directly admits that they have intentions to harm others. They are attempting to cover themselves through a plea to remove incriminating opinions which serve as evidence to their internalized hatred and bigotry. The italicized sections represent notes to themselves and are a glaring indicator as to how warped their perceptions are. The so-called ‘paper’ is being written with intent to invalidate and harm those who hold different beliefs than said author. The obvious method behind it is to spread misinformation about otherkin. The second part of the plan is to invalidate psi-vampires and attempt to further faction the med-sang community, and other parts of this community, who are a valuable part of the whole VC.

2. Now, it is hilarious that they use the phrase “storytelling identities.” It has been shown in contemporary research that ALL identities are narrative in structure: they are autobiographical. In fact, the whole paper is self-contradictory. Shocker. Personality psychology, which is based upon how levels of narrative identity form is a part of The Big Five personality theory. A theory which the author is not qualified to put to use, nor does their explanation of the theory demonstrate more than a layman’s understanding of psychology which can be found on Wikipedia. All identities are narrative in structure, including the martyr-complex present in the document. It is incredibly hilarious too that they constantly refer to the Big Five throughout the outline, not realizing that it means that all med-sang identities are also ‘storytelling’, because all identities are narrative within human psychology. In fact, having a coherent ‘life-story’ is shown to be the foundations of well-being, and so all identities in the VC, whether spiritual, psychological, nonhuman, religious, etc. do good for the individuals in helping them to understand their lives.

Refs:

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1995.tb00500.x

http://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2F0003-066X.48.1.26

https://www.jbe-platform.com/content/journals/10.1075/ni.9.1.05bae

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.0022-3506.2004.00273.x

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0963721413475622?journalCode=cdpa

3. What is also amusing in this is that they seem to think otherkin and therians are some kind of pseudo-scientific storytelling, as if their subjective experience is somehow superior. Actually, more scientific literature by researchers has been written on otherkin and therians than the med-sang community. This literature unanimously concludes that these identities are healthy and not delusions, and there is support for the identity in a broad range of fields, from psychology, philosophy, critical theory, social theory and others. They inform the individual’s lives and help them understand themselves. Dr. Kathy Gerbasi, a social psychologist, is currently conducting research with Dr. Elizabeth Fein to study otherkin and therians including collaboration with members themselves. One of many groups focused on exploration the notion of the non-human experiences.

Refs:

https://www.furscience.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/Furscience-Furbook-First-5.pdf pp62-65, 78-79, 111-116

https://furscience.com/publications/

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15283488.2014.891999

https://www.animalsandsociety.org/society-animals/therianthropy-wellbeing-schizotypyand-autism-in-individuals-who-self-identify-as-non-human/

https://publications.lakeforest.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1064&context=seniortheses

https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1525/nr.2013.16.3.7?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

https://www.academia.edu/26751121/_To_be_human_nonetheless_remains_a_decision_Deciding_to_be_Human_in_Contemporary_Critical_Political_Theory_Contemporary_Political_Theory_

https://www.academia.edu/24718674/Doctors_Herding_Cats_The_Misadventures_of_Modern_Medicine_and_Psychology_with_NonHuman_Identities

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMEkuOW5pjs

http://theweek.com/articles/552648/meet-peoplewho-dont-identify-human

Dr. Jan Dirk Blom in the above writes:

“As regards the existence of [otherkin] communities, online or otherwise, where like-minded people join each other to exchange experiences and ideas on their affinity with animal or supernatural identities, I can only say that we cannot have enough of those groups,” he wrote.

“Human experience and behaviour is so diverse, and only so little of it tends to be presented as ‘normal’ in the media, that communities such as these should be embraced and encouraged by us all.”

Quote: “Psi’s will be referred to as Energy Manipulating Witches, or EMW’s. Otherkin will also be used as Species Dysphoria.”

1. First, a culture or group of people should be referred to by their own designation. Calling Psi’s “EMW’s” or otherkin “Species Dysphoria” is some real divisive bullshit, as if calling it will make it so, when the best they can do is some Wikipedia hack-job of pseudo-science. Referring to people by their self-label is literally step one to intercultural communication and not being a douche-bag. It also is a necessary form of respect in healthy forms of communication with the intent of sharing culture, ideas and beliefs.

Refs:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/17475750701737181

https://www.cambridgescholars.com/download/sample/61851

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17475750701737181

2. Species dysphoria is not yet recognized by the wider scientific community, so this is not an accurate label. Dr. Gerbasi, like many others, have observed and documented it. And not all otherkin experience dysphoria. PubMed Health defines dysphoria as “a profound state of unease or dissatisfaction…it can also mean someone that is not comfortable in their current body, particularly in cases of gender dysphoria.” But most otherkin are quite comfortable in their bodies, living human lives, or they find healthy ways of coping. It is blatantly false to label otherkin as “Species Dysphoric” when it is a condition, a trait (not an illness) of only some otherkin. As well, dysphoric experiences are had by a wide range of individuals for a multitude of reasons, not just those within the OC.

Refs:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMHT0024720/

https://www.bustle.com/p/the-world-health-organization-will-no-longer-classify-gender-dysphoria-as-a-mental-illness-9557139

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/where-transgender-is-no-longer-a-diagnosis/

https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1gxxpvf.23?seq=2#metadata_info_tab_contents

Quote: “It also need to be noted the Altruism is a philosophy thoroughly analyzed by Ayn Rand, that is strongly believed and proven to not to exist in humans.”

1. This is probably the most hilarious sentence in the whole ‘outline’. First of all, Ayn Rand is widely known in the academic community as a hyper-capitalist hack, who fronted a self-contradictory philosophy called “egoism” which extolled “the virtue of selfishness”. It has been utterly destroyed time and time again by nearly everyone working in ethics and psychology. In fact, people who read Ayn Rand are the subject of some studies in the psychology of selfishness. Her logic is terrible and self-refuting to the point that philosophers don’t even take her seriously. She is considered the pseudo-philosopher of radical extremist groups such as neo-nazis and anarcho-capitalists, not exactly something you would want to align yourself with.

Refs:

http://www.rotman.uwo.ca/the-system-that-wasnt-there-ayn-rands-failed-philosophy-and-why-it-matters/

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/good-thinking/201602/what-happens-when-you-take-ayn-rand-seriously

https://www.iep.utm.edu/rand/#H4

https://www.salon.com/2014/12/15/one_nation_under_galt_how_ayn_rands_toxic_philosophy_permanently_transformed_america_partner/

https://newrepublic.com/article/69239/wealthcare-0

2. Actually, altruism is scientifically proven in not just humans but other animals too. It’s such a basic and universally accepted fact in the scientific community that it is pretty hilarious for someone even to claim that it doesn’t exist. Maybe it doesn’t exist for a pair of people trying to tear a community apart and cause irreparable harm for no reason.

Refs (altruism in humans):

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/08/human-altruism-traces-back-origins-humanity

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264247774_The_Evolution_of_Altruism_in_Humans

https://global.oup.com/academic/product/altruism-in-humans-9780195341065?cc=us&lang=en&

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090513802001575

Refs (altruism in other animals):

https://press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/041612.html

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/altruism-biological/

https://owlcation.com/stem/Altruism-10-Examples-of-Wild-Animals-Caring-For-Their-Own

https://www.livescience.com/19987-altruism-animals-varies-based-environment.html

http://www.australasianscience.com.au/article/issue-june-2016/necessity-kindness-altruism-animals-and-beyond.html

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237123215_Altruism_in_human_and_non-human_animals

3. Altruism is not “a philosophy.” They apparently seem to think that all ‘isms’ are philosophy. (I guess onanism is a philosophy then because it sure strikes me as the author’s philosophy.) Altruism is a concept in biology. It is also a basic practice of decent people. Here is an author who claims altruism doesn’t exist, and yet they simultaneously claim to want to improve the med-sang community from the bottom of their (empty) heart. How impressively self-contradictory! I don’t think anyone who extols the monstrous selfishness of Ayn Rand’s philosophy and claims altruism doesn’t exist can even remotely have the best interests of anyone but themselves in mind. Furthering the notion that this ‘paper’ exists for a singular purpose. And that is to incite conflict in the greater community.

Quote: “When to be a Social Justice Warrior and When not to be.“

1. There seems to be this idea that ‘social justice’ is a horrific concept and is used, often, in a derogatory manner as if the term only exists to give a spotlight to the attention seekers and extremists with which we are all familiar. This is not the case and highlights a clear lack of understanding in the author. Social justice, which was originally a Catholic term coined in the 1840s, is a very important concept in the study of politics and ethics. It is not just an agenda of a certain political party in the U.S. Social justice issues range from land rights of Indigenous peoples, sexual abuse, sexism, workplace discrimination, religious persecution, economic disparity, workplace opportunities, racial discrimination, among others. The author presents this terminology in your typical internet-user fashion, showing that their understanding of the framework behind this is severely lacking. Their use of “SJW” is not only inappropriate but a testament to their inability to seriously host a discussion on this, or any, topic. They shouldn’t be using it as an argument against the behavior of other individuals in the VC. The author completely dismisses the necessity for exploration of Social Justice. Go figure. Social Justice in reality is a non-partisan issue dealing with ethics and law. Law-making and enforcement constantly involve Social Justice scholars, concepts and professional consultants. To present the notion in such a fashion unequivocally shows the sheer level of misunderstanding peddled by this would be ‘do-gooder’. Theories on Justice involve Social Justice, as in all theories of Law. If anyone partaking in this discussion wishes to have a clearer understand of what “Social Justice” actually means, consider picking up A Theory of Justice by John Rawls and Anarchy, State, and Utopia by Robert Nozick.

Refs:

https://americanhumanist.org/key-issues/social-justice/

https://www.heritage.org/poverty-and-inequality/report/social-justice-not-what-you-think-it

https://www.iep.utm.edu/dist-jus/

Quote: “At this point you might be inclined to pull out your social justice angel sword and create a new orifice into random on their body of text. Careful now, when you do this, you have just become what you hold in contempt, and just as guilty.”

1. Well, actually, formal discussions on Social Justice involve a high level of scholarship, discipline, and civil debate. Social Justice is a sensitive topic in academia and its application in law requires a keen understanding of political philosophy, legality, and statistical information concerning demographics, distribution, and sources of inequality and inequity. Furthermore, such commentary like this displays a lack of maturity. Perhaps, the greatest irony in all of this is that, if the author actually had a shred of decency and were actually engaged in this project with the interest of the ‘good of others’, they would be engaged in Social Justice.

Quote: “Words like Canuck and Woo are designed to designate inferiority. But owning the words people can reclaim the power that was intended initially be taken from them. “

Quote: “Psi’s will be referred to as Energy Manipulating Witches, or EMW’s. Otherkin will also be used as Species Dysphoria.”

1. Reclamation of terms in Social Justice discourse always involves a powerless or disenfranchised group reclaiming a discriminatory insult as a positive social identifier. A good example of this is how the Gay community reclaimed the term “gay,” which used to be derogatory slang. Another example is the word “queer,” which is now even a respectable field of academic studies called Queer Theory. Reclamation of terms is NEVER used to harm others. It is only ever a positive means by which a previously suppressed group can develop self-acceptance and recover from harm.

2. What the author is urging us to do is extremely unethical. They want to “reclaim” identity terms as insults so that they can denigrate and put down others. In other words, they want terms like “otherkin” or “psi-vampire” to designate “an inferior person” by definition. This is an attempt to dehumanize these groups, a ploy to “reclaim” positive terms as something negative. This would be the equivalent to a homophobe attempting to reclaim the word “Gay” as a means of controlling the narrative of people who self-identify with “Gay.” The author also is urging “reclaiming” the power of derogatory insults such as “Canuck” and “Woo” to put others down. How they can claim to be “doing good” by this is absolute lunacy. Their entire motivation is clearly to embolden prejudice and to rob people of meaningful and positive identifiers in order to harm them at a psychological level.

Refs:

http://www.iowastatedaily.com/news/homosexual-community-reclaiming-queer-as-political-statement/article_6e6da7eb-203a-5af0-8efa-17ca473643e4.html

http://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/bodenhausen/reapp.pdf

https://www.advocate.com/arts-entertainment/2017/8/02/21-words-queer-community-has-reclaimed-and-some-we-havent#media-gallery-media-0

Quote: “Know what you are supporting in detail. As well as understand those that are in need of redirection from the story-telling they have created for comfort or out of need for an identity.“

1. The words, “Know what you are supporting in detail” represent the degree of dissonant thought and utter detachment from the irony of the original content. Nothing presented in the original paper surpassed basic layman understanding, and several concepts have been misused in an attempted strawman of the VC. The author’s own identity falls under their own terminology.

Quote: “Before I get deep into this section. Redirection is a beautiful, but scary thing that unequivocally cures Species Dysphoria colloquially known as Otherkin.“

1. There is no scientifically known “disease” called “Species Dysphoria” and it doesn’t need a “cure.” This is, quite frankly, disgusting. Not only is the author masquerading as a psychologist diagnosing a cure with an amateurish grade school discussion of psychological theories, they are arguing that their “reclamation” of identity terms insults is somehow going to “cure,” “Species Dysphoria.” That is the most vainglorious dickery that every oppressive asshole proclaims, “Oh, maybe if I insult and dehumanize people more, it will cure them of their differences from me.”

2. Again, many otherkin are not dysphoric. And “otherkin” and “therians” are the terms for this community. It is not a “colloquialism.” It is the terminology. Some half-assed, self-aggrandizing, piece of shit who can’t even formulate a coherent sentence doesn’t get to decide what these terms mean. It is pathetic that they even thought to try.

Quote: “If the fictional identity is allowed to develop, like a cancer becomes malignant, and spreads, so does this harmful identity, moving from storytelling, to a socially impactful mode of story-promoting. They will being to promote part of their self-perceived identity through applying or finding ideniting element that they see as tangible in the physical body and surroundings. “

1. Here is more pseudo-psychology from the wannabe armchair shrink with delusions of grandeur. Let me rephrase what they just said. They author just called psi-vampires and otherkin “a cancer.” Let’s forget about the fact that they called it a “fictional identity” when the only fantasy here is that the author was ever going to achieve anything by this except burying themselves.

2. Here is something to consider, how is it that the author, who is assumed to be a med-sang, has any more evidence that their identity is not a fiction? By the unproven psychological theories they are ham-fistedly flailing, their own identity is, by definition, a constructed fiction. A means to explain away symptoms and experiences in an effort to promote a comfortable narrative for the sake of their own psychological well-being. What studies have been conducted on this in psychology? What scientific evidence does the author have? Otherkin, whom the author is claiming are “fictional identities,” are actually being studied by real scientists right now, not bigots playing dress-up doctor. Let’s list a few: Dr. Kathy Gerbasi, Dr. Elizabeth Fein, Courtney Plante, Stephen Reysen, Sharon Roberts, Dr. Helen Clegg, Elizabeth C. Roxburgh, Timothy Grivell, Mario Cintron, Rosalyn M Collings, Pê Feijó, to name a few.

Quote: “A good example of this is if you think of all of the members of TRC as organs inside a body. Should the mind, No.1, decide to eat unhealthily, the organs have to contend with the malnutrition that was consumed without their consent. The junk Food in this case are the EMW’s or any other irrational outcast. Considering there are precious few places for sangs to communicate. This makes the flesh walls of this imaginary body a prison. The organs (members) cannot just simply transplant themself into another, more healthy body.“

1. So, let me just say this frankly. The author here is using language that the Nazis borrowed from Plato’s “Republic” and Aristotle’s “Politics” in order to justify fascism. I fucking kid you not.

Aristotle writes, “Hence we see that is the nature and office of a slave; he who is by nature not his own but another’s man, is by nature a slave; and he may be said to be another’s man who, being a human being, is also a possession…” (Aristotle, Politics, 1254b) “For that which can foresee by the exercise of mind is by nature intended to be lord and master, and that which can with its body give effect to such foresight is a subject, and by nature a slave.” (Aristotle, Politics, 1252ab)

So, what Aristotle is arguing is that ‘the head should rule the body,’ which he uses to justify inequality and slavery, that there are those who are only bodies and those who are only heads. Fascists argue that the autocrat is a center of the strength of the people who are the autocrat’s body. The autocrat is considered the ‘mind’ or the ‘head’ of the political body.

Plato takes this up specifically and refers to the ‘political body’ as an extension of the ruler, the organs that make up the dictator or king’s body.

Plato writes, “…we say that he [the menial laborer] should be the slave of that best person who has the divine ruler within himself. It is not to harm the slave that we say he should be ruled…but because it is better for everyone to be ruled by a divine and wise ruler–preferably one that is his own and that he has inside himself; otherwise one imposed on him from outside, so that we may all be alike…because we are all captained by the same thing.” (Plato, Republic, 590d)

Here Plato is arguing that the citizen and laborer should be a voluntary slave to the State, to the “divine ruler,” who is an autocrat at the top of the state, ‘the head’. Plato seeks uniformity, that “we may all be alike” through complete submission to the will of the authority.

It is not hard to see why the Nazis liked Plato, and why talking about “all of the members of TRC as organs inside a body” is textbook fascism. Here is a quote from Benito Mussolini himself in “Doctrine of Fascism”:

“The Fascist State, as a higher and more powerful expression of personality, is a force, but a spiritual one. It sums up all the manifestations of the moral and intellectual life of man. Its function cannot therefore be limited to those of enforcing order and keeping the peace, as the liberal doctrine had it…The Fascist State is an inwardly accepted standard and rule of conduct, a discipline of the whole person; it permeates the will no less than the intellect. It stands for a principle which becomes the central motive of man…” (Mussolini, “Doctrine of Fascism”)

The entirety of “Doctrine of Fascism” is about the submission of individuals as organs within the body of the State to its head. It sees all deviations from this submission, all deviations and differences from this “code,” as a disease.

The author has already compared psi-vampires and otherkin to a “cancer” that grows within the community.

The author has already claimed to want to cure this “cancer” through suppression by reclaiming authority and power over others and forcing their submission through derogatory terms.

The author has already confessed to be against Social Justice, which is the foundation of liberal democratic society, which Mussolini also directly opposes within the quote.

The author has now compared TRC to a body of the State. They are arguing that psi-vampires, otherkin, “and any other irrational outcast” (they might as well use the fascist term “degenerates,” I know they want to deep down), are all diseases of the body politic. This is not even ambiguously fascist rhetoric. It is actually fascist. The author is literally, not figuratively, using a fascist’s justification for ‘purging’ and ‘purifying’ the sang community and TRC of otherkin and psi-vampires.

Refs:

http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/politics.html

http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.html

http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Germany/mussolini.htm

https://www.counter-currents.com/2017/03/plato-hitler-totalitarianism/

Conclusion

When all’s said and done and the dust has settled, their document provides nothing positive to the med-sang movement or the VC as a whole. There was not much in the original document that was honestly worth tackling. As much as I would have liked to go on tearing them a new one for far longer, the majority of it simply quantifies to nothing more than utter gibberish. The inane ramblings of an individual who is riddled with contempt, who is rotten to the core, and who seeks nothing more than some pseudo-authoritarian state in which they have perfect control over who does and does not enter their little bubble of ridiculousness.

Whatever constructive points of discussion this ‘paper’ might have possessed has been lost to the overwhelming stink of vitriol and bigotry. Where this might have been an opportunity to discuss relevant issues within the VC, it has been warped into borderline fascist rhetoric. Whatever grounds it might have had for justification has fallen through to the author’s own misguided hatred, self-loathing, irrational mental hodgepodge and infantile babble. Had this document been completed, it would have been nothing more than a failed attempt to drive a stake through the heart of the VC and to promote infighting among individuals who should be building one another up.

The VC is stronger and better than this. If we are to have discourse on relevant topics as it effects the VC, we must have them with the intent to benefit the VC and its inhabitants as a whole rather than do harm. This discourse should be left to those who want to genuinely benefit the community rather than mold it to pure insanity. Let this ‘manifesto’ be a testament, and warning, to the dangers that lurk among us daily. That no matter how much we strive to support and benefit each other, there will always be those that desire the opposite of community integrity and well-being.

Donors Are Friends, Not Food

NoFoodSign

 

Yeah, yeah, I get it. You are Teh Uber Lord McDarkity Vamp, the supreme deluxe predator, and everyone else is either food or fucktoy. But let’s get real for a minute. Donors are not cheeseburgers and chattel slavery is so 1860. If you’re dreaming of 69 red silk kitten porn stars begging to wear your pearl necklace, you’re going to be disappointed, sparky. That’s not how any of this works. You can’t head over to the nearest McDonor’s and order up a super jumbo size Happy Ending Meal. You may think you worship at the altar of the apex predator but the reality is that you’re a dick unless you give donors the respect they deserve. And that means seeing them as human beings with agency first, last, and always.

Now I know words that have more than one syllable, like “agency”, are difficult for you to understand. It’s okay, reading is hard. Think of it this way: You are not the boss of a donor.¹ Donors are independent people capable of making free choices. Donors have rights and they deserve to have those rights respected at all times. You need them more than they need you, so try not to be too big of a douchecanoe. There are no shortcuts to finding a person willing to let you drink their blood or energy. You’re going to have to take the radical approach of being a person worthy of earning a donor’s trust. Objectifying donors and referring to them as “food” or as a resource you can “farm” without their consent² is degrading. Knock it the fuck off.

Right about now you’re probably getting your panties in a twist and screaming “you’re not the boss of me.” And you’re right, I’m not. Guess what – I’mma still call you out, motherfucker. Because your attitude is fucked up. This isn’t about dictating what happens between consenting adults. It’s about recognizing the dignity of other human beings. Donors are not prey animals and you are not a wolf, a shark, a good shepherd or whatever pseudo-naturalistic fantasy you’ve concocted for yourself. But this article really isn’t for you. 

This article is for everyone else. The GVC has not cornered the market on predators. Not even close. There are predators at the library and the supermarket and in the cubicle across the office. This is for the people who think your busted-ass bullshit is normal because that’s the dynamic they saw growing up and it continues to play out in their relationships to this day. Or the ones who think it’s normal because that’s the only experience they’ve had with the GVC and they don’t know any better.

This. Is. Not. Normal. This is abuse, plain and simple.

The same goes for anyone who says donors should “know their place” or that donors have no right to speak and should not expect to have a voice in the GVC, despite the undeniable fact that what happens in the GVC impacts donors just as much as it does vampires. Someone who espouses this attitude isn’t likely to change. They’re beyond hope, a lost cause. But this attitude is all too common in the GVC and it needs to stop. Seriously, if someone you know expresses this sort of attitude, run the hell away. This is three gallons of craycray in a 2-gallon bucket and you don’t need that mess in your life.

 

¹ Even in the context of a BDSM relationship, both partners have power. Otherwise, there could be no power exchange. A partner who identifies as submissive or a slave still has the power to say “no.” Even if the individual has agreed to a total power exchange, the submissive partner can end the relationship if the dominant partner disregards or violates the negotiated boundaries.

² Consent is a mutual agreement about what will happen which is entered into without manipulation or coercion by either party.

If you or someone you know has experienced consent violations, including sexual assault or domestic violence, these resources can provide more information. Some of them may be able to help get you or your loved one to safety.


RAINN: https://www.rainn.org/articles/what-is-consent

Submissive’s Bill of Rights: https://friskybusinessboutique.com/consent-in-bdsm-the-submissives-bill-of-rights/

NCSFreedom: https://www.ncsfreedom.org/component/k2/item/580-consent-and-bdsm-the-state-of-the-law

Domestic Violence Hotline: http://www.thehotline.org/healthy-relationships/consent/

 

Vampirism? Short and Simple.

Fake fangs, contacts, outrageous dress, role playing courts, monarch titles, and of course parties is really what makes one a vampire. That is vampirism right? That is the crux of vampirism and all those who do not do all that simply are not real. How could you think anything different?

Well happy April fools to you all because if you believe that shit you are most likely not a vampire and I wonder why you even here?

Vampirism is a simple definition. The need to feed. In whatever form one feeds. If you do not then that is not vampirism. The need to feed is not just a desire for blood or a fetish or any such thing. It is a real physical need that one will get sick from if they do not get it. Just like food or water or vitamins or this or that. There are plenty of theories and reasons why we need it of course, but in the end it simply boils down to the need. That is it. Sure it is always nice to know why, but that does not change the fact of ones need.

Short, simple and to the point. I do not see that nothing else much needs to be said about it from my end.

It’s Not About You…

IfTheShoeFits

Morgan Freeman image and quote found at Memegenerator.net

It seems the content created by the Grumpy Vamp team is striking a nerve or three in the GVC. Trust Grumpy when I say I am both amused and delighted that our blog is getting so much attention and sparking discussion. This blog may be new, but the team’s collective experience spans decades in the vampire culture. Whether you love Grumpy or love to hate Grumpy, the point of this blog is to provide an outlet for “old timers” in the vampire culture to present our views and experiences so that others can learn from them. We may be salty af, but we know our stuff.

So far, all of the Grumpy Vamp team lives in the United States, so our perspective is going to be somewhat US-centric. Don’t get it twisted – we recognize each area will have its own unique flavor just as there will be individuals who have different experiences than we do. That’s all fine and dandy, but some issues are so common they’re nearly universal.

As our platform grows, we’re bound to run up against narcissistic fucks who think we’re vagueblogging about them. We’re not. We don’t call out specific individuals, we call out trends we see in the culture.

That being said, if you think we’re talking about you, well, you just might be right. Maybe you should sit with that for a minute and contemplate your life choices.

Ramblings on recent things

You aren’t leading by trying to make a donor sex cult. You aren’t leading by trying to make a private police force. You aren’t leading by trying the “agree with me or I block you” mentality. You aren’t leading if you do not care about using your ex donors image to promote yourself. You aren’t leading if you do not care how what you put out is viewed or how it will affect the community.

Most of these people lately are not leading. They are self serving and ignorant at best. Here to bleed the community of money, and manipulate at worst. What ever happened to lengthy ideas and proposals that were well thought out before even being thought of being put into action?

The quality is totally lacking these days.

What is amusing is there actually is groups and organizations for all the things these folks claim. They just do not like not being able to be incharge. Or are simply so ignorant they do not know.

Sadly this leads to others becoming ignorant of things that already exist. Sure now and then an idea or group or something may come along that does not exist and creates something to feel that void and need. But it is rare and far and few in between.