You're real funny, BFD. I know that.
Who sets the standards? Well for one, the reader. Something that would have been boring would not have been so successful (Dracula is not boring). Then there is tradition and literary history that give you an idea of how a character was created and how it developed. Of course, literary freedom is privilege of any author and they can do whatever their fantasy and creativity allows them to do.
Vampires are also part of east slavic mythology and Bram Stoker did not invent the whole concept. He studied mythology and folkore for years before he wrote his book. And in mythology, vampires are creatures of the night, monsters with supernatural powers that live off blood and rise from their grave. There are studies to the origin of such beliefs (how monsters are created in general) and it's mostly a personification of the unknown, of everything that is not allowed - a figure that can be blamed for unexplained accidents, tragedies etc.
Monsters are beings that are not held by societal standards, they do whatever they please. That is one reason why they are popular because they are not restrained by any rules. If you lived in a time and society that had a lot of restriction (especially sexual ones) it was very appealing to write about a monster that simply acted above all that - victorian gothic literature in a nutshell.
I rewatched the movie last night. Count Dracula in the movie is not always acting like a monster. I felt compassion for Dracula even though he is evil and kills babies among other things. That was a stroke of genius by Coppola because in his interpretation Dracula became a monster due to a broken heart, and in the very end love gives him back his soul and he rests at peace. An ambivalent Dracula, evil but not despisable and not beyond redemption - definitly not boring.
And it is very boring and dull to read a book or watch a movie about a monster that isn't interesting.
I thought the vampires in "Twilight" are stupid, riddiculous and boring. That's my personal standard - it really annoyed me. It was written in first person narration, and I could only take so many versions of "I couldn't believe that this perfect creature was interested in me" "He had such a perfectly sculpted body" "His eyes were piercing me" etc. before it became too much. Honestly, I don't think you would make it as far as I did. I dare you to read it. (kidding)
There is no such thing as a "true vampire" - there are many variations in the genre. But what the successful ones all have in common is a certain character depth, a personification that keeps you as the reader (or watcher) interested in them. It has to be entertaining which does not exclude complex topics like morality and love etc. I really do not understand how that series became so popular, not from what I've read.
On the other hand, I can understand why it might be fascinating for young woman and girls to read the series. It is about otherness, about experiencing something extrodinary, knowing things nobody else does.. it is probably a dream many have, to be special in that way. Then there is first love, it appeals as well. And if millions of young people started reading because of it, it is a very positive thing. Reading is important and to interest young people in books is always good. Maybe they pick up another book after finishing that one - reading broadens your horizon. And there are many many great books out there.