Sex work is not inherently coercive.

Sex as payment being proposed isn't inherently the most evil disgusting thing in the world, despite only those situations being what's shown to us in media.

A character does not have to feel ashamed or disgusted or powerless or intimidated at the prospect of paying using sex, just because that’s the only standard shown in our sex-negative, sex-work-negative society. Even more relevantly, in a much more sex-positive (or sex-indifferent) society or for a person who has a freer view of sex, a person can react with general neutrality and normal consideration to the offer of paying using sex! They can say, “Okay, sure.” and just do it.

I did not know how radical an idea this was until I saw the Helluva Boss discourse on Stolitz.

Before and through their transactional relationship, Stolas does not owe Blitz anything, and he definitely does not owe Blitz the royal magic artifact that Blitz stole from him. Stolas isn’t “dangling Blitz’s livelihood in front of him” just because Blitz decided own his own he wanted his livelihood should rely on Stolas’ family heirloom. If Stolas proposed no deal and took the Grimoire back from Blitz at some point, it would genuinely be entirely within his right.

Even outside of this, for Blitz the Grimoire is all about ambition, and it is always framed as so. He’s a working-class imp assassin going job to job, sure, but using the Grimoire to open I.M.P. is about making a business that no one else can offer with a power very few have. This isn’t Blitz stealing the Grimoire to get off the streets or pay for his grandma’s cancer treatments, it’s him stealing $1M for his experimental startup.

Blitz is fully aware of the transactional nature of their relationship, and Blitz regards it as him being slick and enterprising, privately treats it semi-indifferently or like no big deal (much more comfortable with the idea of their relationship being purely transactional than it… not).

The full moon deal by itself is fine.

If Blitz and Stolas continued on their transactional sex deal until the day they died with no feelings involved whatsoever, everything would be hunky-dory, people get what they want, and that’s the end of it. Blitz is an entrepreneur ready to bang, cheat, and steal for success and Stolas is the rich guy who has what he wants, period.

The actual point of conflict is the fact that they DO have feelings for each other, and that Stolas truly wants them to have a relationship.

Their dynamic is just fine as an exchange, but not as a relationship. Blitz thinks(/wants to think) Stolas is a high-class royal who just sees him as an object to get his rocks off—that’s fine by him because he’s using him as just a ticket to the human world, they’re just tools for each other and that’s the agreement. Blitz is(/wants to believe he is) only with Stolas for the book—that's the expectation, because that’s the agreement.

But Stolas only realizes this is how Blitz sees things after Ozzie’s, foolishly hoping that Blitz actually really wanted to be with him and that the book was just a pretense. He’s wracked with guilt over being or being seen as that royal “monster” that just uses people as tools and keeping the one he loves shackled to him via financial means. This is because he loves Blitz, he wants to spend time with him due to mutual desire, and the thought of Blitz putting up with sex with him like a chore hurts him.

On Blitz's side, he is angrily pushing away the idea that there are any feelings between him and Stolas, in Harvest Moon and explicitly in OOPS (and Ozzies, Full Moon, Apology Tour). He puts up that there's nothing between them, that it's just sex, just transaction, and he's feels more comfortable and confident with that than acknowledging feelings (again, Harvest Moon, Apology Tour). But we know that Blitz actually uses his relationship with Stolas to feel connection and to feel wanted, as seen in the ending of Ozzie's, Queen Bee, and his attempts to keep their thing going AFTER getting the Asmodean Crystal in Full Moon and Apology Tour. So why does Blitz deny these feelings? He believes Stolas sees him as just a tool, a lower-class imp, and, to him, having feelings for Stolas is willingly shooting himself in the foot. (Almost like being taunted by his my old loves that he's going to die alone, then spotting Stolas sitting upon a golden throne atop a staircase, and crawling up the staircase in wonder, getting chained down because he views this figure as only wanting him as a object or possession. Like, as a metaphor or something.)

Transactional sex would have been fine if it was a mutual deal where they both got what they wanted. The reason it wasn't fine was because it wasn't what they wanted, only half of it.

Maybe this is old news but I am so tired of trying to understand where people with these opinions are coming from. I just so fundamentally disagree with this take but I can’t put into words why it’s wrong. Any thoughts?

🤖: Beep Boop! Bullshit detected!

💁🏽‍♀️: Thanks for the submission! The “Stolitz is toxic” argument is so tiiiiredddd 😩 The only thing that’s old news is that these people are STILL refusing to put forth the literary analysis skills I’d expect in a 6th grade Language Arts class. Let’s get into it 😈

1. “Selling His Body”? That’s a Reach.

Let’s address the claim that Blitz is “selling his body” like he’s some helpless victim in a one-sided arrangement. First of all, Blitz isn’t some wide-eyed innocent here—he’s a grown, street smart businessman who agreed to a transactional arrangement. Was the arrangement generally fucked up? Of course. Is it sex-work adjacent? Sure. (And that’s not even unpacking the creepy hangup on “selling bodies”. Are farm workers selling their bodies? Are massage therapists? Sex work is selling a service. Don’t be weird.) But, anyway, to flat-out call it “selling his body” strips away the nuance and agency Blitz demonstrates throughout the series. He’s not being coerced or forced into anything; he’s making a calculated decision to gain access to the grimoire in exchange for sex—a service he’s fully in control of providing. (And one that he is implicitly shown to enjoy.)

And let’s not forget: Blitz has made it very clear that he’s comfortable saying “no” to Stolas whenever he wants. From turning down flirtation (“Loo Loo Land”, “Harvest Moon Festival.”) to leaving Stolas right on his literal driveway (“Ozzie’s”), Blitz shows us time and again that he’s perfectly capable of setting boundaries. So the notion that Stolas has this overwhelming power to impose “extra stipulations” whenever he wants? It’s not just a bad analysis—it’s outright fanfiction.

2. Stolas: Power Dynamics, Accountability, and Trying to Do Better

Now, onto Stolas. Yes, he held the upper hand in their initial arrangement, but—and this is key—he took active steps to dismantle that dynamic once he realized it was harmful (Full Moon, anyone?). He didn’t just say, “Eh, it’s fine,” and keep exploiting the situation. He found a way for Blitz to retain access to the Human World without the sex, prioritizing Blitz’s autonomy over his own desires.

Does this sound like a man hellbent on abusing his power? Absolutely not. In fact, it’s a rare example of a character in hell actively reflecting on their flaws and attempting to grow. The argument that Stolas could have added “extra stipulations” at any time is irrelevant because—surprise!—he didn’t. If anything, his actions suggest he’s gone out of his way to not impose on Blitz unnecessarily.

3. Subtext Is Not a Dirty Word

This take also commits the cardinal sin of ignoring subtext, which is borderline comedic given how much of Helluva Boss thrives on it. From the very beginning, the show has been laying the groundwork for Blitz and Stolas’ emotional connection. Blitz’s walls of self-loathing and fear of rejection are juxtaposed with Stolas’ desperation for love and validation. The result is a relationship that is messy, imperfect, and full of potential—not “toxic” as this take lazily asserts.

The idea that “neither of them care about the other” is demonstrably false. Did we all watch Western Energy, where Blitz nearly sacrificed himself for Stolas? Or The Circus, where Stolas sings an entire ballad about finding joy in Blitz? The claim that their relationship lacks personal depth isn’t just wrong—it’s willfully obtuse.

4. Art ≠ Moral Instruction

Let’s address the pearl-clutching over the show supposedly “justifying a toxic relationship.” First, calling their relationship “toxic” is a gross oversimplification that ignores their growth as characters. Second—and more importantly—morality has no place in media analysis.

We’re watching a show about literal demons in hell. It’s not Sesame Street, and it’s not obligated to provide morally perfect examples of relationships. The beauty of Helluva Boss lies in its willingness to explore the messy, complicated dynamics that reflect real human struggles. Art exists to provoke thought and explore complexity—not to handhold us with squeaky-clean moral lessons.

Final Thoughts: A Hot Take That’s Ice-Cold

This take is a masterclass in bad faith. It distorts the narrative, ignores subtext, and weaponizes morality to dismiss a nuanced and evolving relationship. Blitz and Stolas are flawed, yes—but their relationship is rich with depth, vulnerability, and the messy reality of two broken people trying to connect.

So here’s my advice to whoever penned this take: Watch the show again. Engage with the text and the subtext. And stop treating Helluva Boss like it’s supposed to be your personal guide to moral behavior.

Episode 3: Spring Broken

To catch up on the rest of this analysis series or see other essays referred to here please refer to the Master Post.

This analysis may be a little shorter because this episode is less of a story driver and more of a backstory drop. That’s not a criticism of the episode, but the two major things to come out of it (Loona and Blitzo’s relationship and Verosika) are also explored in other episodes so it’s one you could skip technically without losing anything. It’s more of a setup episode to dig into things deeper down the line without them coming from nowhere. This episode does have some really important relationship parallels though and some cute and fun moments I enjoy a lot.

The episode opens with Blitzø loudly and badly singing along with a song on the radio. Millie looks pleased, Moxxie is covering his ears, our first indication he is a music snob but not the last, and Loona is rolling her eyes as per usual.

SO I constantly see the critique that Stolas' development seemed very random and out of nowhere, BUT you have to remember that we are only ever exposed to Stolas when he's out in public OR when he's interacting with Blitz during their monthly meet-ups. SO in a way we're seeing him from an "unreliable narrator" perspective of sorts if that makes sense. I have seen others point out that Stolas puts up a front because obvsl he was raised that way due to his hierarchical position. We only ever see his "true" self when he was talking to Octavia back in Loo Loo Land when she was honest with him and he decided to be vulnerable in that moment as well. The other moment we see that too was at Ozzie's before Blitz called him. We see him all down and tbh in a depressed state, serving himself some cereal and watching his hell-a-novelas (or is it hell-e-novelas?), there is NO ONE around for him to put up a front for, UNTIL Blitz calls him and even then, a bit of his true self shows, aka his excitement and surprise over Blitz inviting him out to a date. Then we switch back to him putting up a front once he arrives to meet up with Blitz. Still, throughout the entire date, we continue to see his "true" self BECAUSE that's how the episode started out, the "unreliable narrator" perspective is no longer there; it continues to stay that way in further episodes.

SO WHAT IM TRYING TO GET AT IS THIS:

The reason there are SO MANY PEOPLE who continue to say "Stolas' development is sooo random" or "Stolas is sooooo OOC, that's not who he is!" are in a way stuck in that "unreliable narrator" perspective of Stolas, which was VERY intentional from the writers. So they're seeing Stolas HOW BLITZ is seeing him too! Cause remember, Blitz is also VERY CONFUSED with Stolas' "change" in personality, and we are pointed to this in Oops! AND HEY I DON'T BLAME HIM EITHER, Stolas only ever spoke to him in a sexual manner and whatnot BUT I ALSO DON'T BLAME STOLAS EITHER BECAUSE THAT'S //HOW// BLITZ SPOKE TO HIM THE TIME THEY REUNITED! Blitz unintentionally set up to Stolas how he supposedly "talks/interacts" with him, iow, "Oh! So Blitz likes it when I talk this way, ok! I'll continue to talk to him in that way! This is his way of flirting!" type of shiz, if that makes sense. I mean Stolas mentions that during their first time in bed. SO YEAH

The main difference between Valentino and Angel and Stolas and Blitz isn't the potential to grow from unhealthy beginnings or whatever. It's that whatever Stolas and Blitz have is CONSENSUAL and what Val and Angel "have" is very much fucking NOT.

First off. It's a literal parallel of POSITIONS. Not even spoken words or actions. It's literally just the positions, and that too because the storyboarder who worked on both themself said it was accidental habit that the scenes looked similar.

Second. Look at the actions leading upto it. Blitz himself is the one to run up the staircase and then crawl towards Stolas, and doesn't resist as Stolas pulls him close, willingly going all the way, even when at one point he looks kind of resentful. And then Stolas smiles possessively, and Blitz blushes, looking conflicted because of the truth of Moxxie's voiceover and his lack of autonomy, but still staring longingly at the image of Stolas smiling at him. I'd say its just a physical rep of what Moxxie is literally telling us, that can't fathom it but he craves intimacy, but that's for a later discussion.

By contrast, Angel is coming back from a show and exhausted, visibly uncomfortable by Valentino's hand around his shoulder while he counts the money Angel earned. He then tries to get away from Valentino when he's being roughly dragged in for a kiss. He doesn't want it at all; the frame people are using as a "parallel" is a split second shot, where he's completely blank-faced compared to Blitz's loaded expression and is possibly coming down from his drug and adrenaline rush, and IMMEDIATELY after he snaps out of it, he's furious and trying to get himself away from the other. Following which, Val gets angry and forces the kiss, with Angel still resisting. Conversely, when Stolas gets pushed away by Blitz, in episode five and six, he retreats immediately and doesn't try to go after him again.

Valentino is also visibly rougher than Stolas, a tight grip on Angel's wrist and chin all throughout and his smile is creepy and predatory, enjoying Angel's discomfort until he's had enough. Stolas in the dream sequence on the other hand, pulls an unresisting blitz closer and makes space for him and then gently tilts his head up, smiling possessively all the while. Yes, this is the unhealthy part of the symbolism kicking in, when Stolas is looking at him as if he's a toy more than a person, but he's still not hurting or forcing him, even in the drug trip.

Third. One of them is not even fucking real????? The stolitz scene is LITERALLY a motherfucking hallucination while Blitz is high as fuck on drugs, and for all of Stolas's nagging and following him around and going on sexual rants, not once has he actually crossed any true boundaries. He lets Blitz push him away when he pulls his cheek too hard, Blitz doesn't seriously tell him to stop at any point, and the symbolism of their class differences may be real yes, but the actual chains?? That's all Blitz's imagination on steroids. Stolas didn't actually do any of the things we saw, which? People seem to forget?

And last and most importantly. There is no 'relationship' between Val and Angel to compare Stolitz to. Angel works for Val, by contract, and he very clearly wants nothing to do with their interactions- everything is non-consensual and he is visibly scared of Valentino. Stolas and Blitz may have an even larger gap in terms of hierarchy, yes, but neither of them are contracted to each other, truly. They have an unofficial arrangement that was MUTUALLY agreed on; yes, Blitz was running for his life when it was made, but he'd stolen a very important thing from a very important prince in HELL, so it's kind of understandable that he had to hear Stolas out to know whether he was gonna be pulverized or not. And??? It's a mutually beneficial arrangement?? Sex once a month in exchange for an important book that potentially can get Stolas in a lot of trouble if misplaced and keeping their business afloat is not a bad deal in the slightest???

But I digress. Point is, Blitz and Stolas are both grown adults who know how life in hell works, as compared to Angel- who was relatively new to the place and estranged from his family and desperate when he signed on with Valentino. And the most important difference is that BOTH STOLAS AND BLITZ have given consent. Blitz is not being forced into anything- he himself called it a TRANSACTIONAL fucking, which still means that he's okay with it. Plus, he clearly enjoys himself as well- he goes along with the roleplay happily, he's having fun with Stolas in the end of ep six, he's comfortable around Stolas himself and smiling into their kisses. At no point is he being forced into anything, although it would be very easy for Stolas to do so, through blackmail or just sheer power. It's also implied in ep five that there are other ways to the mortal realm, Stolas is just the easiest- so his business doesn't entirely depend on the book either, which means he still CAN break it off.

🤖: The obsession with “moral correctness” in media reflects a growing tendency to conflate personal values with the inherent “goodness” or “badness” of art. In this mindset, media isn’t allowed to simply depict flawed characters, messy relationships, or problematic dynamics—it’s expected to pass judgment on them, sanitize them, or avoid them altogether. This expectation stems from a fear that morally gray or flawed portrayals will “endorse” harmful behavior or ideas, rather than trusting audiences to engage critically with the material.

This approach oversimplifies art and storytelling. Instead of using media as a space to explore difficult, nuanced, and sometimes uncomfortable aspects of the human condition, it turns art into a moral sermon, where every character and plot point must fit a rigid ethical framework. This leaves little room for ambiguity, complexity, or exploration of controversial themes.

Ironically, this attitude can mirror the authoritarian ideologies it often seeks to challenge. It imposes a rigid set of “acceptable” narratives and policing of what is deemed “problematic.” By demanding art conform to narrow moral expectations, it strips media of its ability to provoke thought, invite discussion, or challenge perspectives. Art isn’t meant to validate our beliefs 100% of the time—it’s meant to expand, critique, and reflect the multifaceted nature of human experience.

The result? A stifling environment where creators are hesitant to take risks, audiences lose the ability to think critically, and media is reduced to sanitized moral lessons instead of a space for meaningful exploration and discussion.

Human Assistant: Damn, Crushbot. How does this manifest in the Helluva Boss fandom specifically?

Crushbot: This mindset is clearly visible in critics of Helluva Boss who focus on the show’s moral ambiguity, flawed characters, and dark humor as evidence of “bad writing” or “problematic messaging.” These critics often demand that the show conform to their personal vision of what media should look like—characters must be morally pure, relationships must be “healthy,” and any themes that stray into uncomfortable territory are seen as endorsing harm rather than exploring nuance.

For example, some criticize Helluva Boss for depicting Stolas and Blitz’s toxic relationship, arguing that it “romanticizes abuse,” while ignoring the show’s clear portrayal of their dynamic as flawed, complicated, and in need of growth. Others complain that characters like Stolas overshadow others, as though the writers’ decision to focus on central themes of power, love, and self-worth through his arc is somehow invalid.

What these critiques often miss is that Helluva Boss isn’t trying to present a tidy, morally “correct” world. It’s an irreverent, darkly comedic show that thrives on exploring the messiness of its characters and the morally complex universe they inhabit. Expecting a show like Helluva Boss to deliver sanitized, uplifting moral lessons misunderstands the very essence of its storytelling.

Moreover, some critics blur the line between analyzing the show and attacking its fandom or creator, citing out-of-context fan reactions or Vivienne Medrano’s personal history as evidence of the show’s “problems.” This conflation of media critique with moral policing highlights a broader issue: the inability to separate art from subjective expectations, leading to an exhausting, often hypocritical discourse that stifles creative freedom and critical thought.

This critique is a cocktail of cherry-picking, bad-faith interpretations, and outright fabrication, so let’s shred it systematically.

1. “If you don’t want to be cheated on, don’t be a bitch harpy!”

This is clearly referring to Stella in Helluva Boss. Stella isn’t just a “bitch harpy”—she’s written as an abuser. Her portrayal as toxic isn’t about blaming her for Stolas’s infidelity; it’s about giving context for why their marriage is a wreck. Stolas cheating isn’t excused, and the show doesn’t portray him as morally clean. His guilt and struggles with his actions are major plot points.

Also, let’s not pretend that Helluva Boss endorses cheating—it shows the fallout of Stolas’s actions hurting everyone involved, including Octavia. If anything, it condemns cheating while exploring why imperfect people do it.

2. “If you don’t like catcalling, stop being a bitch to men it will make things worse!”

The argument that Vivziepop suggests women are responsible for harassment or catcalling because they’re “bitchy” to men is a gross distortion of her comments, and frankly, an intellectually lazy take. First, harassment is about the behavior of the harasser, not the victim’s response. No one should ever be blamed for unwanted attention, regardless of how they react to it. The idea that someone “asks for” harassment by not being pleasant or accommodating is not only outdated but dangerous. It perpetuates the toxic myth that women are somehow responsible for the actions of men, which is flat-out wrong. Viv’s comments, poorly worded as they may have been, don’t excuse catcalling or harassment—they’re being misrepresented as an attempt to justify it, which is an unfair oversimplification. Harassment is never the victim’s fault, and trying to shift blame onto women for how they handle unwanted attention only further enables the very behavior that should be condemned.

3. “Don’t get surprised when someone sexually harasses you as a minor if you spoke to the person first!”

The argument that Vivziepop somehow implies victims of sexual harassment—particularly minors—are to blame for their own abuse simply because they engaged with the perpetrator is a gross misinterpretation of both the context and her statements. While Viv was criticized for her responses to certain fan interactions, suggesting that she condoned or excused harassment based on the victim’s actions is both misleading and harmful. Viv’s comments were likely poorly phrased and taken out of context, but they do not justify blaming victims for being harassed, especially minors who should never be held responsible for the inappropriate actions of others. Sexual harassment is about the perpetrator’s behavior, not the victim’s engagement. To reduce a complex and sensitive issue to victim-blaming rhetoric not only ignores the actual power dynamics at play but also undermines the real harm caused by harassment. Vivziepop has clarified her stance over time, and this argument against her is based on a misunderstanding of her intentions, not an accurate reflection of her views on harassment.

4. “If you signed a contract you can only blame yourself for being raped, suck it up and don’t feel sorry for yourself.”

This is a Hazbin Hotel reference to Angel Dust’s storyline. Let’s be clear: Angel Dust is a victim of exploitation and sexual abuse, and the show portrays it as tragic. The power dynamics between Angel and Valentino are explicitly shown to be abusive. The narrative doesn’t blame Angel Dust—it focuses on his struggles to regain agency and dignity. This take reeks of someone deliberately misreading the material to fit their smear campaign.

5. “If you don’t like your pay or treatment, you don’t have to work here.”

Mischaracterizing Vivziepop as someone who tells her employees to just “leave” if they don’t like their pay or treatment is not only dishonest, but also ignores the fact that these critiques are usually based on a few bad-faith interpretations of online exchanges. Vivienne has addressed complaints about the work environment and compensation in her projects multiple times, and while her responses may not have always been perfect, reducing her stance to “just quit if you don’t like it” is an oversimplified, lazy take. This kind of narrative conveniently ignores her efforts to build her shows and team from the ground up, often under tight budgetary constraints, and ignores the nuances of creative labor in independent spaces. Criticizing her for not offering a “one-size-fits-all” solution only proves you’re more interested in tearing her down than actually engaging with the full context.

6. “If you’re talking about killing systemic racists, you just want to feel superior to them yourself.”

The claim that Striker is vilified simply for fighting against the system misses the point entirely. Striker isn’t vilified because he opposes the upper class—he’s vilified because he’s a hypocrite who uses that opposition as an excuse for violence and self-interest. His actions aren’t about dismantling systemic injustice; he’s just trying to replace one form of power with his own. The show doesn’t portray him as a victim of the system—it shows that his so-called fight for change is actually a power grab, and he’s willing to kill anyone who stands in his way. Striker is not being punished for opposing the system, but for being a selfish, violent character who manipulates his supposed cause for personal gain.

7. “The real answer is having sex with and having families with your oppressor.”

The relationship between Stolas and Blitz isn’t about endorsing romantic relationships with oppressors; it’s about the toxic, complicated nature of their connection. Yes, Stolas holds power over Blitz, but their dynamic is full of emotional manipulation, unhealthy dependencies, and broken people trying to navigate their flaws. It’s not about glorifying the power imbalance; it’s about showing how it leads to dysfunction. This take oversimplifies the relationship, ignoring the fact that both characters are victims of their own choices and circumstances. The show isn’t celebrating the power imbalance but highlighting how it’s destructive. Additionally, it explores the complexities of navigating differences between social classes and challenges societal expectations, illustrating that oppression is a systemic issue that affects groups, not just individuals. The characters are trying to figure out how to navigate that as individuals within those systems.

8. “If you didn’t want to be put in an arrangement of sexual favours for work, why did you go in the man’s bedroom?”

The idea that Helluva Boss is saying “if you didn’t want to be put in an arrangement of sexual favours, why did you go in the man’s bedroom?” completely misses the point. The show doesn’t condone Stolas’ manipulative behavior—it’s about showing how toxic their power imbalance is. In the episode “Full Moon,” Stolas recognizes how unfair the arrangement is and genuinely tries to make things right by offering Blitz more respect and autonomy. But due to miscommunication and emotional baggage, things blow up, and their relationship falls apart. It’s not about blaming Blitz—it’s about showing how both characters are trapped in unhealthy dynamics, and Stolas is actively trying to fix it.