barf

Outlast as a series has never shied away from exploring sexual abuse, and the systems that permit it to keep happening. Furthermore, concepts of victimhood, perpetration, and cycles of abuse are expanded on in an admirably nuanced way. Outlast 1, and whistleblower analysed male victims of sexual violence. Meanwhile, Outlast 2 highlighted sexual abuse within religious institutions.

What does the trials choose to explore? Sure, sexual assault and sex-based violence is very prevalent within the game, but I hold the belief that trials is primarily exploring incest; both literal and metaphorical, and the power structures within it. This is shown through Easterman (both his personal family relations, and the way he engages with the reagents), and all of our prime assets’ backstories. Without the sexual abuse all of our prime assets received from their respective family members, they would not be who they are; and it is, in my opinion, a core value of what actually makes them a suitable candidates. As for Easterman, his own victimhood is why he is so attached to Project LATHE, and why any incidents within it affect him so personally.

It’s hard to dismiss the evidence of such abuse in characters such as Gooseberry or the Kress twins. Phyllis was sexually abused by her father, and still suffers with several mental illnesses because to it. As displayed in her prime time dialogue, and the mentions of her having sexual relations with several guards at the Holmesburg prison, Gooseberry most likely struggles with hypersexuality. Victims of long term child sexual abuse are also more likely to develop dissociative disorders, which Phylis does in-fact have too. (I personally find some parts of the fandom have an issue of dismissing this for the sake of humour, but that’s a discussion for another time). Her alters include Mother Gooseberry, who is known to age regress to a much younger Phyllis Futterman, and an introject of her abusive father Doctor Futterman. Within his dialogue, Futterman refers to reagents multiple times as “Chomos”, a slang word to describe Child Molesters, meanwhile Gooseberry seems fixated on the concept of adults invading her spaces and harming her children in multiple ways. This establishes the idea that the threat of molestation or being incapable of preventing it happening to someone else is a trigger for her. This idea is strongly reinforced in Pervert the Futterman, where we are provided with a whole other batch of voice lines wherein which all alters display unwanted arousal and/or distress at the concept of a figure representing her father being used in a sexual way. It’s hard to ignore the obvious storytelling presented in her dialogue and trials themselves, Gooseberry was a victim of her father.

In comparison, the Kress siblings, despite seemingly consenting to their relationship, are being abused by each other. They’re both metaphorically and literally dependant on each other, despite how much this bond hurts them. This is shown in their dialogue exchanges within the mall, Otto describes several features of their anatomy (her colon ending in his sinuses, her vagina visible on his neck, etc) and Arora discusses the pain she is in (her suicidality, how Otto seemingly starves her due to the effect her eating has on him, their inability to have children). Otto is criticised and insulted for his mistakes by Arora, and based on their framing in both the comic- and him referring to her as “sister” compared to her calling him “lover” within their introductory trailer, it’s safe to assume she is the one who most likely instigated their sexual relationship. Otto, on the other hand, holds much more control over Arora’s life as both the man of the relationship, the one with an entire body, and the one capable of easily accessing her genitals at any time. Others have mentioned feeling sympathetic for the two of them, often citing their conjoinment as a reason why they had no other choice but to date. However, part of the horror of their characters is how they explore the facist concept of incest as a way to ensure the “purity” of a bloodline (often found within the upper class). Their codependency was inevitable, but the presence of sex workers within the comics, and their prime time dialogue referring to “boy whores” and the consideration of Gooseberry as a sexual partner (albeit drugged) does prove that both parties are capable of engaging in sexual activity without the other being directly involved. Their relationship developed from their mindset, and I am strongly inclined to believe it still would have occurred if they were separate people.

Franco’s abuse comes from his step-mother. Despite a lack of blood relation, as found in our previous primes, Angelina Barbi is still considered part of the family unit when their relationship commences. We don’t learn details surrounding his age nor how this was initiated, however we can assume he was most likely in at least some form of early adulthood for this era- as an underage Franco would be very unlikely to be sent to Miami as punishment. Salvatore expected his son to run the business whilst away, and a man smart enough to be an asset to the CIA would have more than enough sense to not place such responsibility on a teenager or child. Unlike Gooseberry, wherein which her sexual abuse occurred in her childhood and began the chain reaction of other issues, Franco’s seemingly served as the crescendo of his psychological issues. A dead mother, and lack of consistent maternal figure through his childhood, and an abusive father likely meant Franco desired emotional connection with a parental figure. Combine this with his impotency issues, and it places him in a very vulnerable position when his father introduces Angelina. I believe there is most likely a lot of nuance not presented to us about their relationship, but due to Franco’s Oedipal complex and sexual fixation on the inherently motherly gesture of breastfeeding, to ignore the incestous layers would be to neglect vital parts of his character and backstory.

Liliya, is our most complicated case, with her abuse (as detailed in the documents “the Feral Girl” and “the Orphan”) including imprisonment, being blindfolded in the presence of her mother, and being forced to be breastfed until her discovery by the police around the age of 11. Studies on breastfeeding a child past the appropriate age to do so show that this behaviour is strongly linked towards pathological mother and child relationships. Furthermore, the choice to blindfold Liliya during her feedings feels like an attempt to disconnect the act breastfeeding from a maternal figure, severing the familial bond. We’re not certain of Liliya’s mother’s motives for raising her child in this way, nor what her end goal was, but I believe by looking at this dynamic from a factual standpoint (and the previous thematic establishment of breastfeeding as a sexual act, as found in Franco Barbi’s characterisation), I can label this as an incestous dynamic.

Leland Coyle currently has little to rely on to explore his upbringing, other than a few voice lines within the files, and a mention of sexual assault within his childhood. The comic, in it’s current form, does not choose to expand upon that, however it is incredibly rare that a child would be the perpetrator of sexual assault without previously being a victim of such too. Our limited dialogue within the files paint a rather unfavourable picture of his family life too (note; I am aware Coyle is an unreliable narrator, but with little to no other details about his upbringing I have to use this, and simply take it with a grain of salt). His father is an army veteran, seemingly affected by his experiences and now lacking the ability to care for others. His mother, on the other hand, seems overly-attentive, overly paranoid- and most likely projected a lot of that mindset onto her son. I’m of the opinion, due to both a lack of other potential candidates, and a prevalent theme of especially mothers as abusers within trials, that Coyle’s sexual abuse came at the hands of his mother. He detests Goosberry due to her “hysterical” behaviour, yet goes onto express how he finds her incredibly arousing too- he describes his mother as equally emotionally unstable. It’s “Momma Coyle” that didn’t raise a sissy, not his father. He has an electro-stimulation kink, yet in datamined dialogue he describes how his mother forced him into the bathtub as a child despite his anxiety around being electrocuted in it. Any other anecdote could’ve been chosen for this, this is an intentional connection between current sexual pleasures, and past parental trauma. Pain combined with a story, a psychological complex.

In the document “Latent Agency Design” (parts 1-3) Easterman discusses psychological complexes with Scarfiotti, and uses an anecdote about mothers. He describes a beautiful, voluptuous, busty mother, with her blouse one buttoned down and sweat-damp strands of hair plastered to her brow on a warm day. She burns you with cigarettes and tells you how she loves you, but the doughnuts make you fat. And in doing so he introduces us and Scarfiotti to the concept of what he calls “the extreme contradictory taboo”. The intensity in which Easterman describes this hypothetical example leads me to believe this is a real annecdote of his. Ms. Easterman considered Hendrick as her golden child, and yet subjected him to multiple forms of abuse- her burning cigarettes on him doesn’t seem too far out of the picture. Furthermore, his treatment of gooseberry, the mother figure present within the trials, is a drastic contrast to Coyle- our father figure, and Franco (whom I believe Easterman sees a lot of himself in). Gooseberry’s trauma is thrown back at her repeatedly, and Easterman describes both her and concepts of motherhood with such disgust and vitriol. There’s a connection between motherhood, and chaos, contradictions. “Mothers are poison, toxic swamps in which families suffer and drown”, or “no love is as pure of as selfish as a mother’s”, or even “my mother used to wrap a towel around my head and say you would have make such a pretty girl.” He even refers to Amelia as the “archetype of a young mother” during one of his many rants, projects so much of his insecurities and anger onto her, and chooses to express that anger in the outlet of putting a cigarette out on her comatose body. He loves her, but the doughnuts are making her fat.

I don’t believe Will was truly mourning Abigail’s death. There, I said it. I think he believed that was the source of his grief, sure. But in reality, he barely knew her. Their dynamic was fraught with discomfort; she was wary of him, and he was largely awkward around her. They didn’t see eye to eye, and more than anything, he projected onto her relentlessly.

From the very beginning, I think Will clung to the idea of Abigail because of Hannibal. "Feeling paternal?", and Will responded, "Aren’t you?", only to dramatically nod in agreement when Hannibal said yes. Both of them felt a pull toward each other. Hannibal more consciously so, but both used Abigail as a tether, a justification, a way to hold onto one another. The fandom often frames this dynamic as Hannibal using Abigail to baby trap Will, but the truth is, Will was just as complicit. They were both using her as a baby trap.

The evidence is there: Will lets Hannibal into his home, allows him to care for his dogs, despite barely knowing him and, more importantly, despite his instinctive wariness of him. Logically, it makes no sense for Will to be so trusting of Hannibal that early on. He even calls Hannibal out for subtly trying to isolate him from Jack, only to dismiss far worse and more overtly suspicious behavior later. The argument that Will’s illness clouded his judgment is flimsy at best: he was still solving complex cases, demonstrating sharp deductive reasoning throughout season one. His blind spot for Hannibal wasn’t due to sickness; it was due to something else.

Will was feeding into several illusions during that period. The illusion that he could maintain a normal relationship with someone like Alana. The illusion that he could bond with someone genuinely good and benevolent—someone who would accept him for who he was. The illusion that Abigail could be redeemed through guilt and coercion, and that if she could be saved, perhaps he could be too.

So, he ignored everything that contradicted these fantasies.

When Hannibal “killed” Abigail, he severed the one excuse Will thought had for maintaining their bond. And, crucially, he did so after Will felt betrayed by him, not by being a killer, but by lying to him personally. That was the real betrayal. It wasn’t about murder, or even morality; it was personal. And while Hannibal understood the depth of their connection beyond Abigail, Will needed the illusion of her to justify it to himself. That’s why, when Will mourned her, he wasn’t mourning Abigail, he was mourning what she represented.

Hannibal, on the other hand, had no such illusions. He might have used Abigail as a means to draw Will closer, but he never saw her as the glue holding them together. He believed in their bond beyond her, which is why he was visibly hurt, even teary-eyed, when Will turned on him both before and after prison.

Will Graham might play the victim well, and Hugh Dancy may have an achingly beautiful face, but let’s be honest: Will is worse than Hannibal. Hannibal is, at the very least, honest about who he is. Will is a hypocrite, a killer masquerading as a reluctant bystander. A borderline, sociopath draped in the skin of an awkward, introverted, misunderstood man. And yet, he fooled most of you, just as he fooled the other characters. Just as he intended.