What is the least sexual form of undead?
Oct. 24th, 2007 01:51 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jackOne of my friends likes Zombies. Too much. Though not necessarily like that. I was going to say Zombies were the least palatable form of undead ever, but then realised I hadn't yet considered the question in detail.
Vampires 5/5
Vampires are generally considered "where it's at" with regard to sexual undead. Laurel K. Hamilton, the authority on metaphysics justifying soft-core vampire porn, certainly endorses this view in the Anita Blake series.
It's not always the case, but as far back as the original Dracula novel there was a connection between blood-drinking and sex, and vampires were under the right conditions very suave and debonair. (In fact, AB had the interesting proposal that legends of vampires were based on occurrences, and vampire politics caused a shift in the prevalent form of vampires from dead-like to sexual.)
The modern trend for Vampires as another urban subculture supports the view even more.
Werewolves: 5/5
Werewolves have a unique advantage in the competition, being the only form of undead to be, well, alive. Warm-blooded. Mammalian. Physically virile. That alone wins them a top-starring role. And of course, some people don't even object to the wolf aspect.
At worst, you can lead a normal sex life 90% of the month, and indulge in some private bondage the other. Witness Oz. At best, you have an exceptional strength, endurance, and in-touch-ness with your emotions, and can morph parts of your body at will.
Ghosts: N/A
Typically incorporeal and having lost all carnal desire. Though occasionally get somewhere with possession.
Demons: 4/5
May be just disgusting, but are generally sapient and self-willed, can choose a pleasing form, and are powerful and important. The poster-child being succubi, who get like 69/5.
Liches: 1/5
Powerful and self-willed, and with a preserved body, but generally a decrepit one. Also, evil and Machiavellian. I mean, ok, so technically Demons might be more evil, but at least a demon might simply be amusing itself or trying to corrupt you with dalliance, I've never known a lich do anything at all that isn't the direct result of a baroque plot :)
Mummies, Skeletons, and other animate undead: 1/5
Much the same as Zombies, but may be less rotting.
Ghouls: -1/5
Much the same as zombies, but slightly more intelligent always cannibalistic.
Zombies: 0/5
OK, here we are. Even Anita-Blakeverse vampires think liking zombies is a terrifying perversion. I mean, ugh, rotting. And with at most two modes of conversation, standing around and occasionally hitting things or tearing lumps of flesh off things. I think the only author to rush in where Laurel K Hamilton feared to tread was Piers Anthony.
Have I left anything out? Should I have left well alone?
Friend: Sorry, just teasing you. The show in question looked interesting. Just the interest in it seemed worrying :)
Vampires 5/5
Vampires are generally considered "where it's at" with regard to sexual undead. Laurel K. Hamilton, the authority on metaphysics justifying soft-core vampire porn, certainly endorses this view in the Anita Blake series.
It's not always the case, but as far back as the original Dracula novel there was a connection between blood-drinking and sex, and vampires were under the right conditions very suave and debonair. (In fact, AB had the interesting proposal that legends of vampires were based on occurrences, and vampire politics caused a shift in the prevalent form of vampires from dead-like to sexual.)
The modern trend for Vampires as another urban subculture supports the view even more.
Werewolves: 5/5
Werewolves have a unique advantage in the competition, being the only form of undead to be, well, alive. Warm-blooded. Mammalian. Physically virile. That alone wins them a top-starring role. And of course, some people don't even object to the wolf aspect.
At worst, you can lead a normal sex life 90% of the month, and indulge in some private bondage the other. Witness Oz. At best, you have an exceptional strength, endurance, and in-touch-ness with your emotions, and can morph parts of your body at will.
Ghosts: N/A
Typically incorporeal and having lost all carnal desire. Though occasionally get somewhere with possession.
Demons: 4/5
May be just disgusting, but are generally sapient and self-willed, can choose a pleasing form, and are powerful and important. The poster-child being succubi, who get like 69/5.
Liches: 1/5
Powerful and self-willed, and with a preserved body, but generally a decrepit one. Also, evil and Machiavellian. I mean, ok, so technically Demons might be more evil, but at least a demon might simply be amusing itself or trying to corrupt you with dalliance, I've never known a lich do anything at all that isn't the direct result of a baroque plot :)
Mummies, Skeletons, and other animate undead: 1/5
Much the same as Zombies, but may be less rotting.
Ghouls: -1/5
Much the same as zombies, but slightly more intelligent always cannibalistic.
Zombies: 0/5
OK, here we are. Even Anita-Blakeverse vampires think liking zombies is a terrifying perversion. I mean, ugh, rotting. And with at most two modes of conversation, standing around and occasionally hitting things or tearing lumps of flesh off things. I think the only author to rush in where Laurel K Hamilton feared to tread was Piers Anthony.
Have I left anything out? Should I have left well alone?
Friend: Sorry, just teasing you. The show in question looked interesting. Just the interest in it seemed worrying :)
no subject
Date: 2007-10-24 08:07 pm (UTC)