Hm. Edison Marshall wrote a fictionalized account of Lola Montez, published in 1950, titled "The Infinite Woman." She appears as Lola Montero.
I was thinking about the question posed by VJ concerning the Victorian origins and the reversal of male-female in fiction. Certainly that strand is there, but this is exactly where the latent sexism shows itself, namely in the consequences. For the most part, a man getting involved with the "wrong kind of woman" risks only his heart (and possible his money), but a woman getting involved that way risks everything. I'm thinking not just of fantastic fiction, of course, but you can see it plainly in something like Dreiser's "Sister Carrie." Too, consider the literary work of De Sade. He wrote two novels, "Justine" and "Juliette." They are a mirrored set, the first about a girl of high virtue who is subjected time and again to abominable sexual abuse but retains he goodness and subsequently perishes, while the latter is about her sister who lives as she pleases, has the sexual morals of a bonobo, and not only survives but flourishes. It has been debated which novel caused De Sade more trouble, but both of them were regarded as grossly obscene, even though the original edition of Justine had very little described sex in it.
What infuriated society most was not the sex but the proposition that virtue did the one no good at all and vice not only saved the other but left no apparent degradation upon Juliette, who not only survives but triumphs. This ran afoul of the profoundly puritanical morality of French society then and continued to be problematic since. The works of literature of this sort that have had the hardest time with censorship have always been those that called into question the standards of the times (Lady Chatterly's Lover was not, I believe, banned because of the sex depicted but because the shattering of class barriers and a suggestion that aristocracy was obsolete and impotent), usually in suggesting that women were not only fully sexual but had a right to it, just as men do.
Translated into horror, namely vampire fiction, consider how this plays out in terms of "the wages of sin" wherein even in "Dracula" we see the adventurous, flirtatious, unabashed Lucy torn down and ultimately killed after her association with the Count while Minna is "saved" because her motives were pure and asexual. The subtext is fairly plain since---women who seem to wish to live with the same assumptions of sexual option as men can do so only if they are willing to stop being human and associating with "decent" society. But in the lesser examples, what does this mean? Immortality, the assumption of the role of predator, and an essentially uninhibited sybaritic lifestyle as long as they stay in the dark. In "Dracula" Lucy is finally caught because she's messing with children, something she is forbidden to do by virtue of her "choice" to live a certain way. As long as they're careful who they dally with, this is not such a bad life, and since they're "dead" morality is meaningless (another subtext of dubious import, but there nevertheless---sort of an antithesis to the idea of "being alive in Christ" that signifies a "pure" life, and since this is very much a Victorian and profoundly christian conceit, the whole range of "dead in sin" metaphors play out at different levels).
While psychologically and sociologically interesting, I personally have no use for this kind of stereotypic moralizing, but it underscores Stephen King's assertion that 99% of horror is basically conservative in the extreme and serves to maintain the status quo.