#// discussion of sa

[throwawayforanaskcauseanxiety]

Some long thoughts on Angel Dust, "Poison" controversy and "Loser baby"

It's kind of incredible how divided people are on Hazbin. Two creators I follow for various animated media reviews have such different takes it's a bit surreal, but their arguments on SA and Angel Dust are wildly different, even though technically coming from the same place.

First things first, disliking a character, a ship, a song in the show or Hazbin hotel as a whole is fine. Yet, some arguments are better structured than others. There's a lot of discussion and some bizarre misinterpretations.

People who have been victims themselves have quite the different opinions on both "Poison" and Angel dust, and it's fine, as long as the topic is handled seriously and with respect. A lot of people loudly praise it and point out that "Poison" doesn't shy away from showing reality (coping via disassociating), while graphic, the abuse is shown in a 100% negative light, not pulling any punches (regardless of who was one of the storyboard artists). Others say it's gratuitous and uncomfortable. Regardless, Valentino IS an absolute bastard, the abuse is horrifying and its impact is immediately clear.

We can't have any kind of representation if we're too scared to be uncomfortable. Not everything has to be scrubbed clean and palatable, it can be nuanced. Hazbin hotel discusses some very adult topics in an adult way.

It's not "a weird choice for "Poison" to be a catchy pop song" or a mock music video, knowing most of what we were first shown as Angel's persona. Listen to the lyrics, he's literally having a breakdown. It's sugary catchy pop because Angel is trying very hard to disassociate. Just look at how "Angel Dust" acts throughout the series and how "Anthony" does, in most scenes he's scared, panicking or crying.

Secondly, "Loser baby" is very important to both Angel and Husk - it's Husk being both in your face honest, talking about himself, and playful (and self-deprecating). All bark and no bite, a taunt to drop the act cause Husk sees through it, worries about Angel and can relate. Angel doesn't have to pretend like everything's fine and he's this untouchable famous pornstar. I love how Husk is reaching out to Angel and then waiting for a response to take his hand, it's really all in the subtle details.

They're "both losers", however, Angel is not a loser for being assaulted and abused (Husk isn't a loser for being an alcoholic or a gambler), it's about identity. How others identify him, the mask he puts on, and how he should accept who he is on HIS OWN terms. Just as importantly, know that HE'S NOT ALONE.

The song is not comparing "their traumas, SA to a gambling addiction" (obv paraphrasing, still, what...?). Angel and Husk are in the same boat because they sold their souls to people who have disturbing amounts of power over them. They both have to dance to their whims, albeit in different ways, and come to terms with who they are in spite of it. Does Husk's silly song break away their chains? No. Does it help Angel find courage to stand up to Valentino and create some well-needed boundaries? I'd say yes.

Thirdly, twitter is a disease and media literacy is dead. In more ways than one, keeping in mind the countless debunked "accusations" and people getting harassed over valid criticisms (f.e., the pace, progress shown on screen and not or just not liking the show). Things are easily misinterpreted in worst possible ways, the mob mentality around it. Where people take the line "[Alastor] fled with his tail between his legs" and interpret it as "Alastor has a tail CONFIRMED". Goodnight sweet prince, rest in peace.

[suguruslut]

Still think it's super fucked up that all the sexual assault scenes againat males in the DC universe (Nightwing, Green Arrow, etc.) are completely normalized in the comics. Like, imagine what kind of message that sent to young male readers (and even adult aged male readers) when they saw and continue to see male victims being blamed for their own assaults, writers shrugging off the assault/writing it as no big deal, the assailant getting away scotch free, never even being dubbed an assaulter because they're a woman. The male characters are never seen as victims, never asked if they're okay after being SA.

Idk, just something that always bothered me. Kinda sad even the modern comic writers never point it out or try to correct it...

[millermenapologist]

"How did we not see this?" "How did we not know that what Ariana Grande/Jamie Lynn/Amanda Bynes were doing was a sexual reference?"

Because that is part of the appeal, guys. The fact that you're part of an unwilling, not-understanding audience exposed to metaphors of sexual acts performed by unwilling, not-understanding actors.

You were not supposed to get what "Taynt" was supposed to mean, or what milking potatoes was a nod to, or what a pickle being passed through a hole in a bathroom door was meant to be.

It's all part of the fantasy, pushing children so, so close to the edge without "ruining" them, without giving them access to enough information that they turn into adults.

Wonder why Ariana Grande, in those internet skits, kept repeating "Can a teenage girl do this?" and "Can a teenage girl do that?" This is why. She's supposed to perform sexual adjacent acts, but constantly remind her audience that she's just too young to know what she's doing.

[whitegownsandflowercrowns]

Hey, so just with some of the discourse floating around this site, I just wanted to remind people of one thing:

It does not matter if you’ve been dating for a week or have been married for twenty years, being in a relationship does not and never will mean that you owe your partner(s) any form of intimacy. You do not owe them sex, you do not owe them xyz type of sex, you do not even owe them cuddling. Being in a relationship does not change the fact that you have bodily autonomy.

[cupcakeslushie]

I sincerely see little issue on you coping like that, as long as its not, you know, graphic

Would i be uncomfortable? Very. Im still not quite over my own experience

But I'd be lying if i said i hadnt thought of putting some characters i relate to in such things and having they deal with it and feel like i did (as much as they can in the circumstances)

Yeah as long as this stuff isnt fetishized im on full support of it

Okay I feel like I’m stuck in a loop where the target is still being just slightly missed. I appreciate your intentions with this ask, and I can see where you were going. But “as long as it’s not graphic” and “as long as it’s not fetishized” are still putting qualifiers on art.

Art has no bounds. As long as triggers are tagged properly, and put behind a “read more” for the visually graphic images, any art can be created. When we start requiring stipulations for artists to meet before making art, we start the process of sanitizing it. If you read the warnings and still click on the post, then your discomfort is on you. If you aren’t mature enough to know your own limits in what you can handle, the artist shouldn’t have to issue a statement decrying their art, and listing all their traumas for some kind of purity tribunal to then decide it’s okay, and only when it’s being used as a coping mechanism.

It’s kinda funny, after all this, I likely wasn’t even going to actually DRAW anything sexually graphic, and at most, simply hint at it. But it doesn’t matter. If I wanted to, I should be able to, as long as it’s given all the warnings required. If I don’t like certain triggers, I avoid them. I’m not delusional enough to think that in all the whole, wide expanse of the internet, people will pander to my specific icks, likes and dislikes. I curate my own internet experience.

I can only hope, as I go about my day, that I am given the same courtesy of being warned ahead of time in the summary and tags, that I’m giving. But if another artist does want to draw that, I’m not going to request to see their trauma resume, just so I can approve of what they made. If I clicked, after reading the warnings and knowing damn well I would be triggered, I’m not going to be mad at the artist. That’s on me.

[heycrymeariver]

five and many more: a timeline summary

(For legal reasons, all of this is alleged.)

Ref. links: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

1984, is the first time Neil Gaiman released a book. 

In 1985, he got married and started his career as a comic book writer and in 1986, he assaulted Julia Hobsbawm.

This took place in Chalk Farm, London, where he forcibly kissed her and shoved her down on the sofa at her own studio flat before she escaped. According to The Crown Prosecution Service, “sexual assault is where one person intentionally touches another person sexually without their consent. The touching can be done with any part of the body or with an object.” In her own words, she described it as “an aggressive, unwanted pass” and that she still remembers it even now. 

Through 1987 and 2002 he progressed his career and published the famous book Coraline. A new year happens and he is in his early-forties and is thriving off of the success of his several money-making works, at a book signing event in Sarasota, Florida. There he hits it off with a young 18 year old (K) and they start dating. Two years later, in 2005, with two more awards under his belt, he forcibly penetrated that young twenty year old who told him not to because of a painful infection.

After another two years, he and his first wife divorced.

It's 2012, five years later and one year into a new marriage and at another book signing, Neil, age 52, immediately assaulted Claire (pseudonym) with a non-consensual kiss. Throughout keeping contact Neil had escalated this with video and phone calls that had a heavy sexual connotation where he appeared to either be naked or tried to instigate something. All of this accumulated into sexually assaulting her on a tour bus. Neil’s contact with her lasted until 2014 where he had promptly accused her in a text message that she had used him for sex.

Within the same year, Neil had enough money to buy a property, and met Caroline Wallner, 55, and her at-the time current husband. With a deal to do odd jobs for Neil and his wife to live there until she could own a five-acre plot, it wasn’t long before things turned sour. A divorce in 2017 sent everything spiraling, with her former husband fired, she in a once financially stable position, was now completely dependent on Neil Gaiman who used that to his advantage. Using her lack of financial stability to get himself sexual favors, he coerced her into a sexual-only, notably uninformed BDSM-entering territory while she was emotionally vulnerable, not accepting denials. This lasted until the summer of 2021, and in December of that year she and him went to court, what awaited her was $275k of compensation and a non-disclosure agreement (nda).

It wouldn’t take long for another woman to experience Neil Gaiman’s repeated offenses as well because in February of 2022, Scarlett (a pseudonym), age 23, a newly hired nanny, was sexually assaulted in the bathtub at his house. Neil, age 61, climbed into the bathtub with her and coerced her into having sexual relations. He too, in his coercion of her, made her financially dependent on him and brought BDSM elements to an inexperienced young woman who could not say no.

Since July 3rd of this year, 2024, five women have come out with sexual assault allegations aimed at Neil Gaiman. They all have several things in common with each other: either being young and naive, a fan of his, or put in a vulnerable spot financially or emotionally. Throughout the years and according to the stories, Neil progressively gets more bold and aggressive in his attempts for sexual gain. There are many more stories out there and whispers on the internet of how predatory Neil Gaiman has been in the industry. However, focusing on the five women who came out to speak and pushing their voice is an important part of the discussion.

Staying silent will only protect his peace.

(If you want to help keep this topic alive, please check out this post by @taraljc to see what steps you can take.)

[aroaceacacia]

as a general point of etiquette i dont really think it's appropriate or helpful to make comments about hermitcraft when other mcyt communities are going through scandals or anything else of the sort. and i think people should not do that

[gasolinerainbowpuddles]

Okay, let's talk about NC/Ra*e Kink

disclaimer: Thoughts are under a cut due to the sensitive nature of the topic.

disclaimer: This is not a post endorsing or condemning the kinks. It is simply a discussion about them.

Some kinks are more niche than others. Some kinks aren't widely accepted. Some kinks are very nuanced and will elicit contradictory or confusing feelings.

When I first came across non-consensual (NC) and rape kink fics, I was a little bit jarred. I couldn't understand why someone would want to write it or how someone could enjoy reading it. To me it was very triggering and upsetting, so I didn't interact with "dark fic" like that.

Still, I had a genuine curiosity as to why people were attracted to the kink even if I didn't enjoy it myself. Sexuality is a very broad spectrum, and I try to be open minded if not for just gaining the understanding of a different point of view.

I wanted to ask questions to readers and writers of the kink, but it's such an inflammatory subject in fandom that I couldn't figure out how to do it without it coming across like I was being rude or condemning. Eventually I was able to talk directly to people about it who knew I wasn't coming from a place of judgment. This was on top of looking into things on my own (like reading articles, think pieces, historical/social takes on it, etc.).

Here's a quick list of what I learned:

SURVIVORS: WRITERS — Many of the writers of the kink had been subjected to sexual violence. When you're writing, you can dictate the characters, the dialogue, the plot points, etc. You are in control of what happens. For some survivors, it is a therapeutic exercise in "rewriting" an experience where they had zero control into an experience where they control every facet of what happens.

SURVIVORS: READERS — Readers of the kink have the buffer of a fictional exploration of it and can choose to exit out of a story if they no longer enjoy it or it becomes too much for them, which was not an option in their actual lived trauma. There is also the distance between themselves and the story, which creates a safety buffer where they can engage with the sensitive topic in an indirect way if they so choose.

SEXUAL AUTONOMY — If you pick up any given romance novel, there's a decent chance the kidnapping trope is in there. This roughly entails some physically bigger/stronger man whisking a woman away against her will and then forcing her into a sexual situation where she ends up enjoying it despite it not being consensual. There might even be bits of "this isn't supposed to feel good" and "why do I feel like I'm enjoying this?" sprinkled into it. This trope is in large part due to the limited sexual freedom of women in the past (and present, but notably in the past). Because the woman wasn't initiating or even agreeing to the sexual act, she is relieved of the responsibility of said act. She didn't ask or choose for it to happen, so she does not have ownership of the sexual act. (I know this isn't reality because unfortunately many women are burdened with the "responsibility" for their assault, but please keep in mind I'm speaking on the fantasy/fantasizing aspect of this.) Because of historical and social expectations of chastity in women, one of the few ways that it was even "acceptable" to explore sexual acts was through means of coercion. The fantasy that you don't have to endure the societal repercussions of your sexual act because you didn't initiate it or execute it is sometimes the only way that women knew or felt comfortable in accepting a sexual experience.

SEXUAL DOMINATION — For some people, the idea of being completely sexually dominated and controlled is their biggest fantasy. There's a thrill to not knowing what will happen or when it will happen or how it will happen. Having zero control is akin to being able to turn their brain off and just exist and feel. This bleeds into consensual non-consent (CNC) kink and domination/submission kink as well with NC kink being the more "extreme end" of the spectrum imo.

These points do not exist in a vacuum, and it is not a comprehensive list of factors. Again, this is not an endorsement or a rejection of the kink. I am simply sharing my thoughts on what I have learned over time in the hopes that it can clarify things for others who maybe were curious like me but weren't sure how to learn or where to start.

[messiahzzz]

the IGN article has already been addressed by several users, but imo the points of critique raised by others were still often misinterpreted, or ignored entirely.

— so i’d like to talk about it.

beforehand, it is important to mention that it remains everyone’s respective responsibility to curate their own online experience. you shouldn’t purposefully expose yourself to topics that cause you distress or trigger you. however, general discussion should always be valid and welcomed. you have every right to voice your opinion on the matter and to be upset about this. please don’t feel guilty about venting and expressing your emotional response.

we also need to differentiate this specific interview from the fandom’s overall treatment and interpretation of gale. several of the posts i’ve seen on the subject tend to derail into the latter, without addressing the valid points many have raised or glossing over them entirely. this isn’t about the usual “haha gale eats shoes” joke or whatever new meme fandom comes up with. this is solely about the developer’s treatment of gale, the character, and about a specific, internal bias that has been prevalent throughout the entirety of the game, as well as their social media. this particular interview merely adding to the amalgamation of points mentioned.

yes, it is certainly unrealistic to expect larian to address every single companion in detail and to touch on every nuance possible, in an interview that broadly focuses on the game’s narrative and gameplay. there are, however, specific character sections. each companion received a headline that was reflective of their overall character archetype or provided quick insight into their development.

Karlach: 'The Labrador of the Party'

Lae'zel: 'She's So Young'

Halsin: 'A Creative Risk'

Shadowheart: 'The Jason Bourne'

Wyll: 'We Lost a Little Bit of Narrative Room'

Astarion: 'Much of What He Does Is Out of Fear'

Minthara: 'It's Not a Redemption Arc...But She's Got a Lot of Love'

and last but not least:

Gale: 'The Guy Who Starts Off Annoying Everyone'

what followed was a brief discussion about their respective storylines, each being addressed with a certain level of respect, empathy, and consideration. except for gale. all that was mentioned in regard to his character was the narrative impact of gale’s suicide. talking about the overall logistics of this ending, the visuals of the cutscene, and how, to them, his sacrifice felt like the right ending and how in many ways, it is.

Chrystal Ding, Lead Writer: On a very human level, you have the guy who starts off annoying everyone, he's constantly asking you to give him your most treasured possessions to eat, otherwise he's in trouble, and at the end, he gives himself for the world. Sven Vincke, Founder: And he had the choice already once before where he wasn't ready for it. So it's a very powerful ending, and it comes in different permutations.

gale is the character who is initially annoying companions and players alike. he is verbose, enthusiastic and has a tendency to break out in long-winded rants. he repeatedly asks for your assistance, to help him manage his condition. to spare himself and his surroundings from an untimely, explosive death, he must consume items that you’ve carefully collected. gale is, essentially, a liability. a ticking time bomb. he already had the option to have his life be a meaningful sacrifice, but he wasn’t ready to die yet. now, that the party has reached the end, he has another chance to give himself up for the world.

short after, gale’s section of the interview quickly diverts into a more general discussion about the difficulties of playing as a wizard and other classes.

larian claiming that there is a universal “right ending” in a game with many branching paths and choices very much contradicts the definition of a role-playing game. where it is solely in the player’s hands to decide what direction to take and what outcome they deem to be the right one. moreover, it is important to remember that the interviewees weren’t just any developers, but consisted of two lead writers and larian’s founder himself. some of them industry veterans who are, to an extent, pr-trained. we all know that fandom often sees statements from developers synonymous with word of god. as such, the implications and impact are truly unfortunate.

if larian was referring the SA survivor and stated that “the right ending” for him was to return him to enslavement or to hand him over to the gur. that for all the death and misery he (involuntarily) assisted, his sacrifice would at least grand them a slither of justice.

astarion caused death, perpetuated racism, and now that you have handed him over to the gur hunter, he is offered a chance to give himself back to the world.

it is then deemed the right choice for him because it is the most narratively satisfying/impactful/powerful outcome in the context of the overall story. the majority of us would agree that such would be a rather tactless statement, no? not specifically for mentioning it in relation to astarion as a character or his influence on the narrative — he is fictional, after all, but because of the real-life implications and the very real stigma the affected face. we can't deny that it would be hurtful to irl victims. maybe we would even fault the writing altogether for such biases. after all, why should astarion be the only character whose redemption and healing are considered to be significantly less important in the grand scheme of things?

fiction functions as an abstraction and simulation of our social experience. we are supposed to get invested, to explore the meaning, examine the parallels, or maybe just to enjoy stories for the sole purpose of indulging in the occasional escapism. perhaps a way to temporarily forget about one’s limitations and the prejudices we face. in many ways, chronic pain/impairment, suicidal ideation, and autistic traits appear to be disorders & symptoms that are perhaps less relatable to some, and that they are maybe not as sympathetic to.

it truly would’ve been nice to see larian approach this interview with more professionalism. opting for a simple, diplomatic “actually, there is no right ending. the sheer variation in choices makes such a distinction impossible” would’ve more than sufficed.

this isn’t asking for larian to touch on every nuance possible, in an interview that largely resembled the flow of a regular conversation. it’s about asking for the same level of consideration and care that was granted to the rest of the companions. it’s about addressing gale’s particular brand of trauma with the same level of basic human decency. maybe we even could’ve received some new bits and pieces of insight on gale’s development, rather than the regurgitation of every shallow reddit/tiktok take we’ve seen up to this point. alas..

[clangenrising]

If you don’t mind constructive criticism, I just wanna say, outright using the word “sex” is a bit inappropriate. Like, you mentioned this blog will never depict sexual content on screen, but stating that word onscreen seems a bit…much. I know the header states that there might be some content of that sort but I still think it would be better if you refrain from directly stating that word, since a notable number of your fans are minors.

I disagree. Strongly.

First of all, having frank discussions about sex is not inappropriate. Sex is a normal part of human life and the more taboo we make it the less prepared people are for actually interacting with it. Saying I shouldn't mention sex outright because some of my audience are minors is like saying there shouldn't be sex ed in schools because it would be inappropriate and that's just not true. It's been proven over and over that sex ed and discussing sex with minors in a responsible way leads to them having safer sex when they do decide to become sexually active. So no, it's not inappropriate for me to mention sex.

Secondly, how is saying the word sex any worse than strongly alluding to the fact that Razor has sexually assaulted Scorchplume? Is the latter fine just because I never say "sex" outright? Because I would argue that THAT is probably the thing that edges closest into being NSFW and it's still not inappropriate and I'm not going to stop doing either of those things because this is a story about human connections (told through cats) and that includes how they engage with sex. That's the story I want to tell and it's resonated with a lot of people and I'm not going to censor myself.

Thirdly, even if there are minors in my audience, it's not my job to control the content they engage with. Like I've said, I'm never going to depict sexual content on screen so I don't think I have to cordon my work off just because some of the characters have sex lives and talk about them sometimes. My stuff is no worse than most teen dramas anyway. If my work makes a minor uncomfortable then thats on them to stop engaging with my work. I'm not going to stop making what I want to make bevause some minors found it. Its not like i cultivated a young audience on purpose so I could show them something inappropriate. I don't think my work is inappropriate in the first place and just because it's mature doesn't mean I should change its content so its more "kid friendly" or that I need to police who is reading it.

So I won't be taking that piece of criticism. If you take constructive criticism, I would urge you to re-examine why you think saying the word sex is inappropriate and then educate yourself on why sex ed and frank discussions of these kinds of topics is important.

[cyanide-sippy-cup]

Okay now that Anissa is in the show, I have to talk about THAT storyline. There's not much particularly new I can say that hasn't already been discussed but I need to gather my thoughts on what the show has to do to be successful in this regard. With that being said,

Spoilers for things the show has not covered yet

And massive Trigger Warning for discussions of sexual assault and post-assault trauma.

So first things out of the way, I do not believe they should cut it. The changes the show has made are ultimately pretty minor. A character change, order of events swapped. With them sticking as close as they are to the comic, I think it would be a massive problem to skip over it from a story telling standpoint.

From a real world standpoint, it's even more important. Male sexual assault is something that rarely gets depicted properly. It's usually a joke or a moment of triumph and that very much has had an effect on the way we look at it in the real world. And since Invincible is now a show pretty much everybody has their eyes on, choosing not to talk about it would be missing an opportunity to have a very real, very important conversation that very well could educate men on how to navigate and survive what they are going through.

I'm also worried that they'll be too afraid to actually say the word "rape". Lots of modern adaptations delete important discussions like Sokka's sexism or the gender discussions from Cowboy Bebop in order to avoid properly handling them and usually replace them with something worse in a sort of "all bark and no bite" liberalism. Directly saying it as it is is incredibly important to showing that talking about it is not only NOT shameful, but also necessary in getting the help you need and the healing that is necessary to survive.

And from a storytelling standpoint, saying it is important too. The moment where Mark tells Eve what happened is not only great in showing that telling someone is important but is also the moment where Mark is forced to admit the truth to himself. "She raped me." Those three words are a massive turning point for the whole story. Character dynamics change, this becomes a focus for most of Mark's loved ones, and it fundamentally changes his life.

Markus. This is a piece of the puzzle I don't see many talk about. While the rest is a showcase of what to do, Markus as a character is a showcase of what not to. It is so, so rare that a child conceived of a rape is properly depicted, nevermind discussed. From Mark's POV, he holds no ill will towards his son. He simply wants him to live a life on Earth with his family like he did and just can't be with him because he is needed in space. But to Markus, his dad hates him. He thinks his father keeps him on Earth so that he doesn't have to think about him. And this idea of his father's disgust contorts his image of himself. He begins to feel self-hatred, hatred towards his mother for making him this way, and hatred towards his father for abandoning him and leaving him to despise what he sees in the mirror. "You made Terra with love. I was made with hate."

Whether Mark meant it or not, his neglect of Markus ruined his early life. No matter how many friends he made, what groups he joined, they could never fill that hole. He idolized his father. I mean, how could he not? His father was, IS a great hero. A man who was out at that very moment leading the movement for universal peace. But because Mark barely visited him, he only had an idea of what his father was like. A man who sacrificed so much to help the world, who fought in space and yet still managed to save the Earth dozens of times. A man who had the time to help everyone and yet couldn't make time for him.

(Important edit: in no way do I mean to say Mark is obligated to be a part of his son's life, I meant that Mark chooses to be there but ultimately fails to do so and that causes issues)

And don't get me wrong, this story has some pretty glaring flaws. For example I think they tried a little too hard to teach Mark that the person who hurt him is human too and has positively affected the lives of many. Like absolutely there is a conversation to be had there but because they had to move on with the plot they kinda just went "HEY MARK DON'T BE SAD SHE'S COOL NOW AND ALSO SHE'S DEAD SO THERE'S NO POINT IN LINGERING OKAY BYYEEEEE". But I think instead of these flaws scaring the show away they should invite the show forward. It's an opportunity to improve on the story and discussions rather than shy away from it.

Oh and also harking back to my previous point in paragraph 2, there's another aspect that makes it stand out in an important discussion. If I'm remembering correctly, the comic makes it pretty clear that Mark could have overpowered Anissa but didn't for a couple of reasons, namely not wanting to hurt her. And that is SO important and SO rare. A discussion surrounding an assault victim who could have fought back but didn't where the victim is NOT portrayed as in the wrong and in fact just as worthy to be traumatized as any other victim is SO DAMN IMPORTANT and could legit change a lot in the way we look at these topics.

So yeah, I think the series should adapt it. Also I think it would be great if they brought on actual victims and experts and whatnot so their depiction could be just that much more focused around what needs to be said. Sorry if all this read as klunky, I have a lot of thoughts bouncing around up here that I kinda just spewed onto the page with no particular order. I'm also obviously not the most educated on the topic. My personal experiences with this were relatively minor and not something I've ever felt comfortable addressing. And yeah I know it's important no matter how "small" or "minor" it seems and I'm not trying to downplay any of that but I just don't really have the words to phrase that differently. Which is exactly why I think we NEED education and discussions about this stuff so that we DO know the words to navigate the topic.

[angel-archivist]

It's so interesting and so exceedingly frustrating how agab is being utilized now within the queer community as a way to isolate and sort nonbinary and genderqueer folks into binary boxes that determine their moral purity levels, and their authority to do and write and exist.

The way nonbinary writers are being put under accusation of fetishizing gay men while their AGAB is continually brought up in a way that feels like queer-space-approved misgendering.

The way feminist circles that are supposedly trans-inclusive will use the word AFAB in a way that implicitly but intentionally isolates nonbinary people who aren't AFAB from joining. It's for women*.

The way the language is already flawed and leaves out intersex folks from the conversations while focusing on a binary of sex that isn't truthful.

The constant obsessing over whether someone is AFAB or AMAB and whether or not that gives them the privilege to join, do, write, or be present in certain spaces really really concerns me. How are we supposed to dismantle a binary system of gender if we can't even move past forcibly assigning and focusing on people's genders assigned at birth?

[local-redhead-bookworm]

One of the few solid critiques I’ve seen of Helluva Boss and Hazbin Hotel is that the shows pick and choose which moral failings to depict as bad or as just funny.

Essay-length rant under the cut, also Hellaverse-typical TWs for abuse, SA, and general lack of morals

Disclaimers:

I’m not hating on these shows. I love both of these shows, but I’m an English major so I think it’s important for me to be able to analyze what exactly I think is not working. I’m interested in a discussion, but if all you’re here to do is spew hate with no good-faith criticisms, I will block you.

These shows do not need to teach morals. These pieces of media are both intended for adult audiences, and adults should be able to understand that a depiction does not equal support. My criticism is that this moral inconsistency is sometimes to the overall tone’s detriment.

These two shows are both set in hell. Following the usual rules of hell, you wind up there regardless of what you did, so all sins should be considered equal in that regard. Of course, we as people tend to think of some sins as less forgivable than others—namely abuse, SA, and murder. I’m making broad generalizations here, but please roll with me.

The biggest problem with Hellaverse writing is that the writers aren’t consistent on what is considered morally bad in the show. These shows both center around complex, deeply flawed people, and I find that really enjoyable from a storytelling perspective because I love nuanced, flawed characters.

There are a few notable instances where this moral ambiguity works in the storytelling’s favor. Stella screaming and throwing things at Stolas (Loo Loo Land) is something the audience is primed to see as a joke, but it is used to set up the later reveal that she is in fact highly abusive (The Circus) and attempted to have him killed (Harvest Moon, Western Energy). Stolas being casually condescending to Moxxie and Millie (Loo Loo Land) and his imp servants (Seeing Stars, Full Moon) is not heavily remarked upon, but it is later used to set up his classism being a point of contention between him and Blitzø.

However, the protagonists often exhibit similar behaviors to the villains and this isn’t treated as morally wrong, or sometimes an incident is treated as minor. This problem is most glaring in cases of sexual harassment or SA. Blitzø’s repeated stalking of Moxxie and Millie, including watching them have sex without their knowledge or consent, is treated as a joke. Moxxie being kissed by the incubi and succubi (Spring Broken) is treated as a joke. Likewise Sir Pentious being dragged into the sex room in Welcome to Heaven is also treated as a joke, in spite of the episode’s b-plot being Angel Dust confronting Valentino, who is primarily shown to be bad through his sexual abuse of Angel Dust. Angel Dust harasses Husk at the bar from episodes 1-4, and while this is connected to Angel’s porn star persona and I do seem to recall it stopping after “Loser, Baby”, it’s still not treated as a problem, just as Angel Dust being Angel Dust. Other incidents of note are the running so-called joke of Loona fat-shaming Moxxie not being a problem, whereas when Mammon fat-shames Fizzarolli it is used to signify Mammon as a bad person.

I would also like to highlight the nature of Blitzø’s and Stolas’ full moon deal. In my opinion it is a running problem of dubious consent and poor kink negotiation. Let’s cover this in chronological order for sake of ease. In The Circus, Stolas starts out describing a sexual fantasy of Blitzø, his former childhood friend and first love, sneaking into his house to “ravish” Stolas. However, when Blitzø reciprocates and feeds into the fantasy, Stolas becomes hesitant. I believe this is intended to read as him being flustered, but he is extremely hesitant until Blitzø bites him. Stolas later forges the Full Moon deal with Blitzø while Blitzø is, to keep things to the point, under duress (Murder Family). Neither of these circumstances show both parties giving full consent. Hence, dub-con. Furthermore, as per The Circus and “we don’t do words, we do sex” (Apology Tour), Stolas and Blitzø have a strong precedent for poorly negotiated BDSM and lack of proper kink safety. However, the show’s inconsistency with how it handles sexual harassment and power imbalances weakens the impact of the Full Moon deal’s transactional nature on the relationship.

I greatly enjoy Helluva Boss and Hazbin Hotel, as I enjoy flawed and complex characters. I do not expect the show to address every issue raised here with the care that should be used in real life, as this is a fictional story set in hell. However, the writers’ inconsistency, particularly when it comes to depicting power imbalances and sexual harassment/SA, leads to a muddled tone which confuses the audience to a point where it is not beneficial to telling the story.

Because I’m a nerd but can’t be bothered to format 100%, here’s my works cited:

Danny Motta. “I Was WRONG About Blitz | Blitz Vs Stolas Debate.” YouTube.

Sarcastic Chorus. “STOLAS DID EVERYTHING WRONG - Stolitz Analysis.” YouTube.

Vivziepop’s Helluva Boss playlist. YouTube.

[queen0fm0nsterz]

Ended up pirating all of Hazbin for the sake of my younger days (used to be a fan when I was around 14/15, before all the stuff with Viv came out) and I am so surprised by how I felt... nothing for the most part. Like a lot of the show's storylines feel like they was crammed in there with no real pacing. A lot of this should have been season 2 territory, which is a sentiment I've seen echoed around, but also... it feels as if the show is trying to be episodic while also having a long narrative thread, which just doesn't work with just 8 episodes. Especially not when paced like this. So I kinda ended up feeling nothing for the most part. All the events got a "Oh, great, so what?" reaction out of me because there was little to no buildup to most of them.

Sir Pentious was always a fave of mine so I was glad to see they kept him around and, though I think we should have had more episodes with him as a villain, I think how he ended up was fitting for what little of an arc he had. I am livid about what they did to Cherri and Mimzy.

I fucking loved Mimzy, I have no idea why they sent her away -- having someone like her at the Hotel would have been a blast considering how the others are already on the road to redemption. She would have balanced it out by being a regular sinner, someone who doesn't care about redemption and won't probably ever care unless it's in her best interests to. Plus her friendship with Alastor was quite cute, they bounce off of each other very well imo. Plus I could see her have a bit of a conflict with both Charlie and Vaggie because of her ways of acting. I'm so sorry they took that from you girlboss.

And Cherri... dear lord where WAS she? She should have been a lot more present. I used to like her relationship with Angel and I even think Cherrisnake is cute conceptually, but both these relationship had... little to no room to breathe imo.

[nose-nippin-fun]

Hazbin Hotel Episode 4 Discussion:

I’ve seen a lot of nasty posts floating around today criticizing Vivzie and the show. I’m not here to discredit your feelings, but I think that the darker tone of episode 4 merits some constructive discussion beyond a knee-jerk, pearl-clutching reaction.

From what I’ve seen, the biggest complaint from viewers, myself included, is that this emotional episode with some fairly intense depictions of SA/r*pe was not prefaced with a content warning aside from the usual small text in the top left corner. I truly do believe Amazon should correct this going forward so that viewers can feel better prepared for tone shifts between episodes. That being said, here are my defenses of the show.

Hazbin Hotel has had a huge fan following since the pilot release back in 2019, which set the tone of the show. Between the pilot and Addict music video, people had a pretty clear indication of the adult themes that would be present in the project moving forward. The show is set in Hell, the place where the world’s worst sinners are trapped in the afterlife. This is not an excuse, this is an explanation. There are going to be several characters with tainted morality, some of whom are irredeemable. That’s why they’re in Hell. This show is not meant to glorify sins, but to shine a light on flawed, relatable characters who will grapple with ethics and other struggles and come out changed in the end.

“I can’t believe Angel doesn’t leave his situation and stays stagnant.” Have you ever lived through/witnessed abuse? It is never this easy to sever ties with an abuser. They position themselves in power to control and manipulate, and many times, it’s not physically safe to get away from them. Also, this has been ONE EPISODE, you cannot expect a character with deep trauma to be totally different after a 20-30 minute episode. Angel’s character arc will take time, but his interaction with Husk at the end is an important first step in that direction.

“So Angel is supposed to just get over his trauma because he and Husk sang a song about it?” No. If that was your takeaway, I’m truly sorry you missed the point. Husk is the only person who’s been raw and blunt with Angel (on screen) about dropping the Angel Dust persona and being Anthony. Angel is used to having to put on a flawless, sexy act at all times, so much so that that’s how people really believe he is at all times. Husk sees through this mask Angel developed to protect himself and tell him through their song that imperfect and broken as he feels, Angel isn’t alone in struggling with feelings of powerlessness and addiction. He’s not comparing his loss of overlord status to Angel’s horrible SA, he’s finding common ground and empathizing (the best way a Hellbound soul can). This song wasn’t a solution, it was a gateway to vulnerability and the beginning of change for both characters.

“We’re expected to just ship Huskerdust after Angel has done nothing but sexually harass and push Husk’s boundaries?” No. That’s absolutely the wrong reason to ship anything. While it’s true that in the first three episodes, Angel sees Husk as eye candy who might be able to distract him from his suffering, episode 4 brings a necessary shift in their dynamic. Angel is used to everyone around him wanting Angel Dust, the pornstar. But for the first time, someone doesn’t want that coveted persona, and he can’t comprehend this. Angel has no control over anything except the act he keeps up, so he clings to it as a false sense of power. It’s only after Husk tells him that he likes Angel for everything he is off camera that Angel starts to treat Husk with respect, which will pave the way for any future Huskerdust shipping.

You don’t have to agree with what I’ve written, and I absolutely don’t blame you if you’ve realized this show is not content you can comfortably consume, but please understand that depicting difficult material is not the same as glorifying or excusing it. This episode was hard for me too, because I care about Angel Dust, and I am so eager to watch his growth as the show continues. My heart goes out to anyone struggling from triggering this episode caused. I hope you’re able to safely navigate away from this show while respecting the viewers who continue to watch.

[coye]

I’m a Gutsca shipper, I can relate to AsaDen shippers current situation. Picture your ship being wholesome and sweet then the author throws in sexual assault. Now everyone's turned against the ship, and you're viewed as the bad guy for still sticking with it. And to add to that misery, the author gave antis fuel to keep the fire going. Now you have to constantly see antis misinterpreting that scene to justify their hatred for the ship. It’s a never ending battle. But still, I have to question the authors - was that sexual assault scene truly necessary? It didn't impact the plot at all. So it just comes across as distasteful and unnecessary.🫠