Are Vampires and Therians Otherkin? | Otherkin General Discussion | Forums

Claude said:

Haha and as a late arrival I still don't get how those groups are so fiercely separate at all.

Part of it's the way the groups developed… they really arose as separate communities to begin with, and it wasn't until fairly late in the game that otherkin arose as an umbrella term.  With much debate over which groups were appropriately included under that umbrella.

I mean how do you draw the line? And if you feel nonhuman from what you believe is a past existence somewhere, then whatever you were was not “mythological” or “imaginary” in that world, right? And if that's the basic difference, then by saying you're something mythological you're basically discounting your own claimed experience.

Actually, it's the therians that usually discount the experiences of the otherkin as imaginary, not the otherkin themselves.  And some otherkin discount the experiences of therians on the basis of sentience.  They don't believe that you can have an experience similar to having been otherkin with a nonsentient species.  It's not an argument I buy into myself, but it's the most common one.

If it's all a more metaphorical thing, it's a different matter of course. But if you're literal about it, I find it strange to make that distinction. Eg. say you believe you were a dragon in a world where dragons were common creatures. Then how are you not 'therian' but 'otherkin' by that world's standards? And you're obviously going more by that world's standards otherwise, if you say you are now still a dragon instead of a human.

Well, by that world's standards you wouldn't be either therian or otherkin… you'd be a dragon, period.  Therianthropy or otherkinness wouldn't have entered the picture in that life.  It's not till you get to this life, and a human body, that either term (or both) applies.

With vampires I can see how one'd want to distinguish oneself if one sees oneself as merely a human that also needs to feed on energy or blood or what have you. And I can also see why more humanoid species would feel different from more animal-esque ones, and vice versa. But the otherkin/therian distinction, nope. Fails to make sense to me.

Some of the vampire issue is that, but others view vampirism as a physical condition (if not fully understood) rather than a spiritual one.  All in all, it's a complex and long-standing debate.  There are also a lot of otherkin who resisted counting vampires as part of their community, for one reason or another.  Personally it always seemed prejudicial to me.

Arethinn said:

But what I was referring to is that there are some who identify as “vampire”, full stop, like a separate kind of being which is somehow essentially not human, and those who are vampiric but still think of themselves as humans, the “vampire-ness” being a discrete quality.

*grins* Remember all the old debates that got into the various theories of vampirism and how some of them would make vampires a kintype and some of them wouldn't?  I think my favorite is always going to be the “astral parasite” theory of vampirism that came out of the psionics community… and by favorite, I mean “one that makes me laugh the most”, not “one I subscribe to as an explanation”.

Liryen said:

Well, it's an original idea.  I'm surprised that the person who wrote it hasn't pulled it off the web already, seeing as it's so old and they've probably gotten quite a bit of flack for it. Or at least I'd imagine that.

Heh… the person who wrote it is rather impressively stubborn when it comes to pet theories.  

sphynxcatvp said:

I’ve never understood the nit-picking that goes on about who fits under the “otherkin” umbrella or not. That some people don’t consider therians to be otherkin mystifies me, but the definition of “otherkin” that I have is essentially, “non-human”. By defintion, animals aren’t human, so…*shrugs* Maybe I don’t have the right definition?

*shrugs* These days, I don’t know that I have a good definition myself. I used to go with the definition “kin to the other”, with a more elaborate explanation of that here. Now, though, since “psychological otherkin” have begun taking over the community, I’m really not sure that I’m comfortable with that definition anymore. Because I don’t feel a kinship with most of them, in practice. Sadly, though, I think it’s the effective definition the community may be stuck with at this point.

As a vampire, I can see both sides of the “otherkin” thing – yes, many of us do consider ourselves human, and thus by the definition I understand would not fit, but there are also others (a less vocal group, usually) who *don’t* consider themselves human, and thus by definition WOULD fit.

I don’t necessarily see it as an either-or. I’m human, I make no bones about that. But I’m also elven, among other things. My nonhuman lives have left distinct imprints on my being that affect who and what I am in the present, despite being 100% human biologically and genetically. I’d venture to say the same is true of most otherkin, even those that try to deny their human heritage or go to the extreme of claiming to be biologically/genetically nonhuman (invariably without evidence, let alone proof). Where vampires fall in it, I guess depends on the vampire.