I think that their humanity is what makes them interesting, and with sex being a big part of being human, +1 for sex.
Ah, I recall hearing of that. A culture where widows aren’t (or at least weren’t) allowed to remarry, and certainly not to have sex without marriage. But if they became pregnant, they could claim “Oh, it was my dead husband, he came back as a vampire!”
“. . . and they say that a child born of such a union does not have bones.”
Oh, the porn possibilities!
I read supernatural romance, and definitely tend to prefer non-vampire to vampire books. In particular, I love the way vampires are imagined in the Kate Daniels series by Ilona Andrews. Vampires in this world are piloted by Masters of the Dead; without the pilots, they are out-of-control blood suckers.
Now, I’m usually the kind of guy who always prefers sex in stories.
However, the idea of sex with an animated corpse is not something that I find sexy.
And I find it difficult to get around the problem of a being with no bloodflow and no ortherwise working organs who for some reason has body warmth, saliva, and working genitals.
On top of that, every situation I’ve seen in which a vampire engages in romance or sexuality with a non-vampire, it has come out boring, cheesy, or icky.
Angel in love with Buffy is boring compared to Angel without Buffy.
And don’t get me started on that awful, awful Anita Blake.
I don’t think you can separate vampirical behavior from sexuality. Look at the symbolism: Putting someone in a trance so powerful that you can have your way with them. It’s all about power and surrender and similar to the seduction game.
Sex is about the life force and a basic need. So is vampirism. If you’ve read the Victorian novel Bram Stoker’s Dracula you’ll notice that there is very little sexual activity and yet he manages to create a carnal atmosphere.
The only sexual vampire I’ve run across yet that I actually liked is Lord Underwood from the “Underwood and Flinch” podcast novel. It’s still a work in progress, so he hasn’t consumated his relationship yet. Mike Bennett (the author) is a big old perv though, so I can’t imagine that vampire sex will consist of nothing more than blood sucking. Underwood has already demonstrated enjoyment of such other fleshly pleasures as drinking wine, smoking, dancing, and brawling. Underwood isn’t one of those angsty vampires, either. He’s cheerful, friendly, witty, and completely evil.
I prefer them sexless.
Sexuality is not the same thing as the mechanics of sex.
The only way I can buy the mechanics of it is in terms of Vampire: The Masquerade – If they have ingested blood, then they can expend the resulting that blood in various ways – giving themselves body warmth, a pulse, an erection – but it takes effort and is limited.
I don’t buy a vampire whose sex organs work as easily as a regular person’s.
Quoth Darth Panda:
Really? If it were their humanity that made them interesting, then actual humans should be even more interesting, and why bother with the vampires? To me, it’s their inhumanity that makes them interesting.
I have that on DVD :), there is some tittage.
I believe I have that on DVD as well 
Julia, vampirism is NOT a disease. Vampires are the living dead!
- Professor Stokes
*House of Dark Shadows *
This is how I prefer to see it.
Well, it’s both right? Otherwise, a bat would be better than a vampire, being less human and all.
It’s the fact that it’s a monster - but a human monster. Something horrible that you can kind of identify with - but not really - but kind of…
And, IMHO, humans do make pretty interesting characters. At least more so than bats
I typically find their struggle with their loss of humanity to be what makes them interesting. Humans have humanity. Bats don’t have humanity. Vampires can potentially have humanity that they’re losing grips on and their attempts to deal with that can be pretty interesting.
Assuming a vampire is sex-capable, is it even likely to be a good fuck? What does it smell like? What is its body temperature?
Never thought of that before. Kind of chilling…
I guess where I’m coming from is Campbell’s challenge to his writers, “Give me something that thinks as well as a man, but not like a man”. A vampire that just acts like a bat fails the first part of that, but a vampire that acts just like a human fails the second part.
That, for the “sexy” vampires. Though I think a combination of “mundane” sex and blood thirst can - and usually does - work. On the other hand, the very sexless “nosferatu” type vampires can be very interesting characters too, but they’re more “other” and not nearly as easy to relate to.