This fandom's whole tendency to write Valentino off as a one-note, not very interesting character is so frustrating because they're just... objectively wrong.
Val has demonstrated that he is more than a one-dimensional character.
He has actively gone against his initially established personality traits and actions. He's cruel and treats others like objects to be used for himself. On the other hand, he is the most loyal and family-oriented of the Vees. He's violent and sadistic, but is also vulnerable and emotional.
This is called "dimension" in a villainous character and you know what? It's fucking awesome! You don't have to like Val. Far from it, but don't just lower him down to "just a rapist" when the writers actively give him different aspects to his character. Just because it's easier for you to ignore it.
The thing is that a story for me, at least, is a two-way street. And a lot of the time in fandoms, the audience is not putting in the work.
When Valentino is shown doing anything in the show, such as singing and being vulnerable in small moments of S2, a large portion of the fandom cries out "EW! Why is Vivziepop and crew making us feel for an abuser? Why are they woobifying him???"
When that happens, I wish... I just wish the fanbase would pause for a second and ask themselves: "Is Vivzie trying to make us sympathize for an abusive rapist? Or is she trying to make me understand that he has these humanizing traits? And if it's the latter, why does that bother me? Why does it bother me that I might find a horrible character funny or sad? Could it be... that the writers want us to recognize sympathetic traits in horrific individuals because that's how real life abusers are?" I want people to understand how critical thinking works. People need to ask themselves more questions about the media they consume and not jump to the most insidious conclusion. What is the creator or writer trying to convey by saying something? What did they actually say? Where did they fall short? That's where you find the issues in a narrative, not with all these disingenuous, surface-level assumptions about the creators.
Valentino is a character who is charming, funny, high-energy and flirtatious. He has a lot of charisma and he's attractive. Look at his character design.
And there is a reason for this. Abusers are highly charismatic people. That's how they draw you in.
But the unfortunate truth is that abusers are still human too. They get sad and they can love and they can have best friends who enable them. They often are another cog in a cycle of abuse too which could, for Valentino, be the nature of the sex/porn industry itself.
Does this excuse them? FUCK NO.
But you, as an audience member watching a rated 16+ series, should not need hand-holding to know this. You shouldn't have to diminish Val's entire character to "just a rapist" just to justify your misreadings of a narrative and what it is saying.
Tl;DR: Valentino is a compelling character and I'm sick of the fandom pretending otherwise because of purity culture plaguing their critical reading skills.
