#I wanted a dust cover | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

velvette-hussle · 1 month ago

Text

HAZBIN HOTEL’S MESSY HANDLING OF THE NATURE OF VICTIMHOOD & SEXUAL MISCONDUCT (a probably incredibly nitpick-y rant, but I don’t give a fuck)

⚠︎TW: Discussions of Sexual Assault & Sexual Harassment & making rudimentary comparisons between Angel Dust and Valentino. ⚠︎

I really wish that the show had allowed for more nuanced discussion when it comes to the topic of victims and victimhood.

Like, victims can also be wrong, they can be perpetrators of crimes and violence also. People are allowed to dislike a victim of something; no one should be obligated to tolerate someone else’s bad (or even just annoying) behavior because that person has also been hurt. Victims can be depicted and portrayed in a bad light and still have their victimhood acknowledged and empathized with while also still being “bad people” or having done something to victimize somebody else in their pain or trauma, and having that be acknowledged also. Neither of these ideas automatically cancel each other out, they more so exist in a forever winding feedback loop (at least that’s how I see it) until someone is able to “healthily” unpack their trauma.

Then, on top of the show just completely not treating victimhood like a scale, the narrative also can’t decide when it wants to treat abuse and/or sexual assault or harassment as a serious topic that it wants to respectfully address or if it wants to treat these things as something to laugh at and find funny or make brief gag jokes out of that diminishes the potential seriousness of a scene.

EX: Valentino licking Charlie in “greeting” during their first meeting is played as a funny gag joke (like the music beat doesn’t turn sinister until he looks back at Angel because Val technically wasn’t on the defensive yet since he didn’t know who Charlie was there for) BUT how Valentino purposely decides to touch Angel Dust on his chest after he explicitly says not to touch him is treated as disrespectful and disgusting as it is.

Like, these are the same fucking disrespectful behaviors. But anytime Valentino does some fuck shit to anyone other than Angel it’s played for a joke (outside of when Angel was worried for Nifty, kind of), despite the fact that when Val does it to Angel nearly the exact same thing is played seriously.

PART ONE: STATIC VICTIMHOOD

When Valentino first meets Charlie and licks her arm he’s pushing a boundary for his own amusement - and, given the theory(?) that his saliva produces some sort of aphrodisiac, probably attempting to “mellow her out” so to say as well. He can’t kill Charlie, he’s smart enough to know that at least, but apparently everyone knows that she’s a pushover and so he can assert a level of dominance over Charlie by licking her to make her uncomfortable, and to lord over the fact that he was able take some tiny bit of her autonomy away like that, then verbally flustering her (further knocking her off kilter so she’s easier to manipulate) by propositioning her.

There is a direct parallel in this type of boundary pushing behavior (specifically of a sexual nature) that Angel does as well, it’s just not born of the same thing that Valentino’s is. Where Val makes people uncomfortable and domineers them as a way to disarm them and make them easier to manipulate for his own satisfaction, Angel does it as a form of deflection so that he feels like he has more power than he actually does. It’s a defense mechanism, but an incredibly unhealthy one (which is normal).

The show had an opportunity with this parallel to comment on how both versions (albeit to different levels) are bad, but it didn’t. Now, you can certainly infer that Angel was being incredibly rude and inconsiderate when he was constantly coming onto Husk despite the other’s clear dislike for it and how uncomfortable it made him by how once they become friends in “Masquerade” that harassment just stops, but forcing an audience to infer character development and story messages is not good writing the way it’s done in the show. Angel just stops entirely without any discussion or hint at the unfavorable parallel which means that there is no lesson to be learned from its existence. The emphasis on “this is a bad action too, despite Angel being a victim” is not there, it’s only treated like incredibly unacknowledged character development that’s only actually considered as legitimate because the fans are over-analyzers. How quickly his behavior is brushed aside without proper (or any) acknowledgment is ignoring an actual issue instead of addressing it and then acting as if the issue was never there in the first place.

We know why Angel stopped harassing Husk but not why his harassment was bad in the first place. The audience knowing about a topic that’s briefly touched and filling in blanks does not mean that the show was written well. The harassment is played like a joke until it disappears, not played like a joke (specifically when Angel is the harasser) until someone calls him out on it fully and he apologizes and then he stops.

As far as the show is concerned, the problem isn’t that Angel purposely makes people uncomfortable (in a similar, but still more understated, manner to Valentino) as a form of deflection and posturing, it’s that he’s fake. There’s a difference there. What the show actually does is erase that bad behavior instead of objecting to it, which I’d be willing to bet has led to some - especially younger - fic writers copying Angels unhealthy behavior within the framework that it’s just “flirting” and not a direct crossing of other characters’ boundaries.

You have to make shit like that explicit in a show where you’re claiming to be seriously and respectfully tackling these subjects. No one should be allowed to get a pass for things that on another character would be viewed as morally reprehensible just because they’re a main character/a part of the core Hotel cast, this confuses the storytelling and messages. Just because a few people in the audience know an action is wrong and then will apply further insight onto it themselves does not mean that the show itself accomplished that same amount of introspection, and in Hazbin’s case that’s exactly what happened. The show is being praised for something that it did not do. If parts of the audience did not already know that Angel harassing Husk was bad (despite the fact that it’s played for laughs every time, and once during “Masquerade” in a way that’s supposed to make the audience feel bad for Angel alone) then they’d come out of season one not thinking twice about the way Angel harassed Husk; Husk who eventually gets so fed up with Angel’s constant barrage of unwanted advances that he began dreading anytime Angel would say something even remotely suggestive and so tried to anticipate his innuendos so that he could cut Angel off before he could even start. The people who couldn’t understand past what the show was telling them (through its framing of characters and their actions) was “right” and what was “wrong” wouldn’t’ve picked up on the fact that Angel is being a problem when he harasses Husk because he’s sexually harassing him and that it’s not cute or proper flirting or just “wrong” because it’s a negative coping mechanism for Angel to have or any of that shit.

Also, the overall issue is framed as if Angel’s actions are only self destructive and that’s why they’re bad: Angel acting “fake” as a defense mechanism in order to give himself some semblance of power and autonomy back over to himself because of how thoroughly he frequently gets it stripped away by Valentino. That self destruction is only shown through the lens of pity though, there is no mild scolding involved outside of telling Angel he’s got issues. Him harassing Husk and Alastor is never framed as a problem specifically because you’re meant to laugh every time it happens and because Alastor shoots him down immediately afterwards. The narrative never scolds Angel for harassing Husk because it’s not written well enough to be able to handle both issues, so it just erases the bad thing that doesn’t fit within its narrative that “every victim is a good person” and only focuses on the ways in which Angel’s unhealthy behavior impacts him and puts him in danger and is unhealthy and unfair to him.

Acknowledging the fact that self destructive behavior isn’t good or healthy, especially while also still validating whatever circumstances led the person to such behavior, is great! Now just also acknowledge that that self destruction is not without its risks to the people around the victim as well. If Husk wasn’t the way he was, and the show wasn’t the way it was, he could’ve come out of his interactions with Angel having been victimized by Angel, and he wouldn’t be fucking wrong in not wanting anything to do with Angel after he’s become Angel’s sounding board to lash out at and sexually harass to make himself (ie: Angel) feel better.

This is coming from someone who has experienced both sexual harassment and assault and who has non-“good victim” tendencies as a result of those experiences and a few other things too, by the way. In my experience, verbal (sexual) harassment is not given the same weight as physical harassment and sexual assault or rape. It just isn’t. Most people can’t even see verbal abuse as anything but a mild inconvenience and, while they will scold and be disapproving of the perpetrator, the majority of the weight of ending or not “encouraging” the harassment is still put on the person on the receiving end to be able to “rise above” and ignore and “get over” everything, or to “stop enticing” their harasser. Excuses for the perpetrator often sound like: “It’s just a harmless catcall they didn’t even touch you” or “well they’re going through something bad too so just give them a break” or “it’s just flirting” or “they just like you”. The mental damage that someone takes from their being verbally sexual harassed not being taken seriously at all, but them still feeling horrible about it, can cause people to feel weak for having those feelings at all and tends to lead to them staying silent and just learning to deal with the harassment; harassment that often leads to assault. An instance of verbal harassment cannot then repeatedly be played for a joke in a show that is claiming credibility and claiming that it is handling sexual assault and abuse properly and with respect. As a result people will overlook one form of harassment to focus in and condemn another, leaving the other - seemingly lesser - thing to be left up to interpretation or not internalized as also a problem as well, because that’s what the show did.

There could’ve been discussion about how even as a victim people’s unhealthy coping mechanisms can still pose a problem to others. Being a victim of something or someone cannot excuse that person themselves’ bad behavior, and that’s a dangerous mindset to not dissuade and to subconsciously push. We can empathize with Angel (since this is an adult show all of us should have the ability to understand this duality) and still acknowledge, with the same weight that we do his abuse, Angel’s own messy behavior. You can’t just be allowed unchecked to show sexual assault as bad and then leave the clear sexual (albeit verbal) harassment that’s being shown without a moral, because then the issue just gets dropped and you’re ignoring another (even more common) form of abuse.

My first time watching “Masquerade” I found myself empathizing with Angel even though I hadn’t (and still haven’t) attached to his character in any significant way; I’d also long since grown uncomfortable (and felt stupid) about not feeling good when knee jerk reacting to Angel harassing Husk by laughing at my tv though, and neither of those feelings cancel out the other. Around the time that you could tell that Husk was genuinely bothered when they were doing the trust fall exercise is when the joke fully stopped being funny for me. I know that Husk cutting off Angel to say: “I swear to fuck, if you say dicks…”, wasn’t meant to be Husk feeling uneasy around Angel (it was just to show him being fed up with Angel’s hyper sexuality in a “funny” way) but that in no way stopped the reaction from pinging uncomfortably in my mind regardless. It stuck with me so well, even, that when Vaggie told Husk that he had to be the one to deal with Angel after Angel’s outburst/breakdown I instantly objected; as far as I was concerned after Husk (even after repeatedly being harassed after expressing his dislike for said harassment) asked Angel if he wanted to talk and then Angel not only went to harrass Husk again but then also lashed out at him after Husk rightly rejected him Angel was no longer his problem anymore.

That’s not to say that I don’t think Angel deserved to be given some leeway or deserved not to be forgiven or that someone shouldn’t have gone to make sure he was okay in general, but even now I still don’t think it should’ve been Husk that had to go run after him and cheer him up. Especially considering the fact that Husk isn’t the one sponsoring Angel, and Charlie actively says that she’s to blame for Angel’s sensitivity at that moment; Charlie’s a big girl I don’t see why, even with her feelings being a little hurt, she couldn’t have gone and made an actual effort to make amends then, and when I first watched the episode that’s what I though was going to happen. Husk did not provoke Angel there on purpose or with malicious intent after he realized Angel wasn’t doing well, Angel just did not want that kindness at the moment in the way that it was being offered (which does happen) and maybe he didn’t trust the kindness due to trust issues he has from Valentino either, but that does not excuse his behavior and only serves to explain it. Forcing Husk to then go deal with and cheer up the dude that’s been repeatedly harassing him and not taking him up on his offers to connect didn’t rub me the right way. Yes, people shouldn’t give up on their friends or loved ones too quickly when they’re lashing out after having gone through a rough event, but 1.) Husk and Angel aren’t friends and Husk is in fact only at the Hotel at all because he’s being forced to stay in the first place, and 2.) other people are not obligated to put up with someone else lashing out at them regardless of if that someone else is hurting, period.

If we were to be given backstory on Valentino that shows that he was a sex slave worse than Angel is when he was human - no freedom from his “work” ever, had to sleep in a cage, was treated like an animal, and was constantly literally shackled and shit - none of that would suddenly erase what he’s done to Angel or spontaneously make it “okay” because Valentino’s only acting out due to trauma, no matter how much you might feel for him after learning that. That’s not how that should work, where because you’ve been a victim once you can now never be held accountable for any wrong actions you perpetrate again or some shit.

Like, Angel Dust is still a bad person, he is just also a victim of abuse and rape. He fully, alongside Vaggie, was more than prepared to murder Sir Pentious despite the fact that he was no longer a threat by the time that he’d been found out as a mole and they all saw him be left for dead and then begin to cry, and despite what the Hotel was even made for. This is a character trait of Angel’s (ie: how easily he’ll kill & the few hints of his past in the mob) that’s presented pretty neutrally though, and is never really something that Charlie or the show paints as bad within the context of the show’s morals (or even as something the characters should stop doing in order to be able to repent).

All of which just kind of add to the show’s (and all Vivziepop properties in general) tendency to mix messages. When Angel does something bad it’s funny because the narrative said so, but when a one off character does something similar to what he did (because that character isn’t supposed to be liked) now all of a sudden that same action from earlier will be framed as horrible. This back and forth then directly leads into the show framing rape and sexual harassment and abuse as bad only until they can be framed as funny.

PART TWO: ARE RAPE JOKES FUNNY OR NOT?

My - and other people’s - anger and/or disappointment is not rooted in the assumption that we all missed Angel and Husk’s relationship development; and also if a lot of people/the show’s creators are claiming that a show has good representation (no matter what type) people are going to test that out for themselves, and Hazbin does come up lacking in regards to the back and forth way that it both treats SA seriously and then turns around seconds later to turn SA into a gag joke and not treat it seriously.

The issue is not that Angel was harassing people in general, but that it was not treated narratively like an issue in regards to how he continually sexually harassed Husk and the show never treated it as anything but a funny recurring joke. We know why Angel acts like that, yes, but the reasoning doesn’t excuse his behavior, it only explains it, and at no point does his harassment get properly addressed.

He never apologizes for harassing Husk or lashing out at him when Husk was not the actual source of his pain; the show decided to just forget this and have Angel not do it again - I suppose since he became more comfortable with everyone at the Hotel and no longer felt the need to act anymore - and also have Husk comfort Angel without bringing up how actively uncomfortable we saw Angel make him multiple times for reasons that we as the audience can only infer, which is where people’s problems lie. We’re supposed to laugh at Husk getting uncomfortable by Angel’s pushing unlike when we are shown Angel getting uncomfortable when around Valentino.

Similarly things like Pentious being bodily dragged away after impulsively announcing that he’d have sex with everybody - clearly regretting that choice because he didn’t mean it and as such not giving real consent - are treated like a funny gag for the audience to laugh at instead of the horrible scenario it is too.

Compare that to how seriously Angel’s possible SA at the hands of Valentino is portrayed with a fairly high level of seriousness and then wires do cross. The show does go back and forth on when it wants to take SA and SH seriously and when it doesn’t. Also, Medrano has curated a Fandom of over analyzers fairly purposefully considering all the hidden details and messages/hints Vivziepop shows tend to have in the background of their animated scenes and how often characters vocally tease the audience; just because you don’t want to think about the show that hard or that seriously doesn’t necessarily mean that everyone else is being ridiculous. Plus, the show is handling serious topics, so as such the conversation around those topics are going to be just as serious.

You can say that the target audience for the show should already know that how Angel acted towards Husk before “Masquerade” wasn’t okay, but I’d argue that Angel’s SH of Husk is a much harder thing for a lot of people to wrap their heads around as an actual problem in real life than Valentino clearly maliciously hitting, threatening, and abusing Angel is. Most everybody can clock extreme forms of abuse like that, the things that people will deny and make the most readily accepted excuses for are smaller instances like making others uncomfortable with constant advancements, unwelcome sexual comments, or catcalling and reconciling with the fact that people can renege on their consent even in the middle of a sexual act or that if someone has to wear someone down/pressure them into sex that the sex cannot then be counted as fully consensual.

Physical and parental abuse often work the same way; people can identify when watching tv shows that the over the top smashing bottles and calling kids names and running after them to beat them and break their bones is abuse, but some of those same people won’t count locking a child in a dark room as punishment as abuse or just hitting their child when ‘they really deserve it’ as abuse - or even heavily teasing them or not allowing their child any privacy as abuse. Which is then why depicting these smaller (or less conventional and readily identifiable) acts of abuse and sexual harassment and assault with just as much care as the bigger more obvious examples is so important.

TL; DR: Eight episodes or not it would’ve taken two short lines for the show to properly address Angel’s SH of Husk as a problem (then have Husk forgive Angel in the face of his regret because Husk is understanding enough about his situation, and have Angel own up to his own faults while also not treating victimhood like a ‘get out of jail free card’ to excuse any victim’s bad actions) and they could’ve easily done away with Sir Pentious getting dragged away to have non consensual sex as a joke entirely; then the show wouldn’t be being criticized for having a tonal problem when it comes to how wishy washy it is about which characters SA and SH is taken seriously and which ones aren’t and are treated like a joke, and could then accurately claim to have delved into sexual assault, rape, and rape culture respectfully even as a show focused on comedy.

Anyway, I started and finished this thing in March and April of last year so keep that in mind, I guess. Also, mind my repetitiveness; I just wanted to keep the length and not edit any more than I already had fr.

#hazbin hotel #hazbin hotel critical #tw: sa mention #tw: abuse #tw: valentino #hazbin hotel angel dust #hazbin hotel husk #huskerdust #anti hazbin hotel #hazbin hotel sir pentious #hazbin hotel valentino #anti vivziepop #hazbin hotel criticism #to cover all my bases; I don’t want to blindside anybody #anti huskerdust #anti angel dust

59 notes · View notes