greysweater

I keep seeing that repeated that they only dated after both were adults, and went to look up their ages-- this dude was born in 1988! And she was born in 2000! She's only 24 at the time of her death. He's 37. So messed up-- even that statement is gross because even if they did date after she was 18, he still would have been in his 30s smh

Whoah, what happened??

edit: Okay, back from googling. Welp, yet another trash actor smh. Those pictures showing him next to the actress when she was 15 literally make me want to throw up. So gross and messed up. Well, I guess I won't be seeing my beloved Jo Bo Ah back on screen for now

This grandma is cartoonishly evil. Who with a brain blames a child because the child's parents died in an accident on the way to an event? With her behavior, I would bet 100% that she and her son didn't have a good relationship while he was alive

Ugh, I just wish they had written the reason for her anger better. It even more doesn't make sense since technically her grandson would eventually inherit the company even if his parents lived, so all of her "It shouldn't be you, it should be my son!" is even more silly

No one click these links please. Pretty sure they are scam links (this account posted them under several different dramas)

You really need to study history. I don't know if you're faking it or seriously believe what you wrote. Men have been able to vote way longer than women. And even when the right to vote and govern was limited to a small group of men, guess what? They are still MEN. So ultimately some group of MEN made the laws.

In the US, for example, conscription was used during the Civil War. So c.1860s. Guess who could vote and had government roles during the 1860s? MEN. Guess who didn't? Women. Women could not vote in the US until 1920. So my point remains-- the conscription law YOU brought up is one ultimately made by MEN. So men are responsible for each others misery in that capacity. Like I said before, one of the lasting ironies is men not realizing how their traditional/patriarchal views hurt themselves.

Traditional men are not the greenest flags. They are the worst flags. If they were so amazing, women would not have fought so hard against the traditional structure. You must really love men. You should probably stick to dating men since you're so enamored by them. You live in a fantasy world where the world has not been f'd up by the actions of men throughout history. I guess you just ignore that traditional men also cheat, lie, steal, fight, abuse, and worse.

Anyway, I'm done with this conversation. Clearly nothing I say will help you see reality.

Expecting sex doesn't make him a rapist. He expects it will happen, finds out it won't, and deals with it like an adult? Okay. He expects it will happen, finds out it won't and feels ENTITLED or that his partner is OBLIGATED to do it? Yeah, he's 100% a rapist. Simple

How about you tell us which scene that it shows the FL led him on and tricked him into thinking she loves him? They don't show any of the meetings or set up before the wedding. That means you ALSO don't know whether or not the FL led him on. For all you know, she could have made it clear that it's a business arrangement and he just went forward with it hoping she'll eventually change her mind.

Regarding conscription, yes, MEN MADE THE RULES!!! Men are the ones who were allowed to govern and rule most civilizations since civilizations first began. They are the ones who made the rules about who gets conscripted. It's fairly recent in history that women are getting more say in government in a lot of places. I mean, women couldn't even have bank accounts in the US until the 1970s-- and you want to tell me it was women who made the conscription laws? Bro, please crack open some history books. Men are being conscripted against their whim by laws made by OTHER MEN.

Again, if you want to get angry at a group of people over conscription laws, then you need to get angry at powerful men. One of the most ironic things in the world is men not realizing or refusing to admit that patriarchy HURTS THEM TOO.

If men are going to be traditionalist and anti-feminist, then they need to do it all the way and not pick and choose. If you wanna be anti-feminist, then don't complain about only men being conscripted.

You keep making really bad claims and weird arguments. Women who divorce men fall deserve some of the wealth from the marriage because they put work into the marriage. Usually these women take care of home affairs, raise the children, and take care of family members. Even just one of these things is a lot of work. They deserve the wealth after because they put effort into the marriage.

This has nothing to do with se. I don't know why you're equating sex to all these things that have nothing to do with it. I think you must have a sex-obsession and a hatred for sexual women. You should fix those things along with your rapist mentality

Yes, the abrupt cuts and pacing! I wasn't sure if it was just me. And sometimes the music comes in in a really random way and throws off the tone for a scene. At times it feels like dark thriller and suddenly goes into comedy, or vice versa.

Oh goddd-- I remember that. Literally banging my head against the table as he goes from amnesia-that-makes-me-a-20-yr-old to amnesia-that-makes-me-my-current-age-but-still-don't-realize-I'm-not-in-love-with-the-evil-SFL. It's a miracle that the amnesia didn't spread

Bro, you make no sense!! You're the one who said women not fighting is because they have more rights or some shit, and I pointed out that it's actually MEN who make those rules and it's women who have to fight to even have the right to fight for their country. So you can complain about women not being conscripted, but remember that it's MEN who made that rule. That was my point which you seem to not comprehend. If you're going to be angry about inequality re:conscription, then point your anger at MALE-LED SOCIETY because it's the men who made those rules.

In fact, feminists generally fall into two camps when it comes to conscription: 1) if they are anti-war, they want conscription to be ended for EVERYONE (meaning also for men), or 2) they want women to be included in conscription. So the feminist point of view is actually towards equality unlike the patriarchal reality.

Law does not equal morality. We already went over this before-- it used to be legal to own slaves, do you think because it was a law means it's right? In many states in the US it is currently legal to marry CHILDREN (with their parents' permission). Does that mean you think it's okay to marry children?

It used to be illegal to use marijuana but now several states have chosen to decriminalize it. How do you explain if marijuana usage is good or bad based on the law? Clearly the law/enforcement of the law changed because people realized it was stupid to jail people just for using marijuana.

To spell it out so you don't misinterpret again: A law existing DOES NOT suddenly make something good or make it bad. You have to be able to explain why OUTSIDE of the law existing.

I can easily explain why in marriage NO ONE is entitled to sex. The whole point of marriage is joining in union together and supporting each other through the good and bad times. You respect each other and care for each other. You can't do any of that if you are literally RAPING your partner. Everyone has ownership of their own body. You don't have any right to someone else's possession without their permission. Additionally, what in the world would feel good about using your partner's body just for sex? That means you don't really care about them. Because if you genuinely care about them, then you would care that they are having an enjoyable experience too.

A man being denied sex is not cruel. Especially in a freaking BUSINESS MARRIAGE! You know what's would be cruel? If she took scissors and cut his dick off. Or if she locked him in a cage and starved him. There's a million things she could be doing that classified as cruel.

You keep saying "No one is entitled for sex. sure but marriage entitles expectation of sex." Sir, that means you DO believe that people are entitled to sex. You can't say no one is entitled to something EXCEPT-- that means you believe there are people who are entitled to sex. Which means you have a rapist mentality! That simple

And guess what? Your point about it's like a man saying "we are married but I am not entitled to provide you food, shelter, security etc...and if you get pregnant, you and our kid is NOT my responsibility" is also rapist mentality. Since when is sex food? Since when is sex shelter or security? You can live without sex. You can't live without those things. And for the record, there are many men who get married and DON'T provide those things to their spouses and don't take any responsibility in raising their kids.

I think you live in some fantasy world where all men are good, responsible human beings. I know several men in real life who are married and suck-- they don't work, don't raise their kids, and just bring headache after headache to their wives.

Just like you asked to show the scenes where the husband was told it's only a business marriage, how about you show the scenes where he's told she's marrying him for love? From the conversations the elders had, it's clear that they were set up by the elders in the families. That means he does know, to some extent, that this marriage is part business. Otherwise he'd be a stupid fool. He clearly knows there's something between the ML and FL, and he chooses to stay with the FL. That's on him.

I don't disagree that the FL is terrible for her actions, but your rapist mentality is really not it. I hope you are not having the mentality that if you get married you get endless sex or can force your wife to have sex with you even when she doesn't want it.

Actually, one of the things that women fought for in countries like the US and Korea is the right to fight for their country in wars. It is because men have negative perception of women that the same is not true in countries like Ukraine-- it's men and their viewpoints keeping women off the battlefield and not conscripted.

Denying sex is not extreme cruelty. Grow tf up. If someone wants sex that bad they just divorce and find it elsewhere instead of acting like their leg has been cut off.

Your comment about the rapist is deranged. My argument is nothing like that. You're the one with a rapist mentality. Anyone who does not want to have sex, no matter the circumstances, cannot be expected to have sex. It's that simple.

Expectation of sex DOES NOT mean sex has to be involved. No one is entitled to sex, does not matter if you are married. No one.

"Why marry and destroy the man?" Bro, are you even watching the drama? She married for business reasons for her family wtf. She didn't marry for love.

Also, no one is arguing that the FL doesn't suck for what she did. We're all in agreement on that. HOWEVER, the way you talk about her is disgusting and deranged. And your rapist mentality thinking that men are owed sex in marriage is even more vile.

Also a major point you seem to be ignoring in your drive to denigrate the FL: the FL did not marry for love! She married understanding that it was what her step-father, grandfather, and the groom's uncle wanted. In the beginning of episode 2 they clearly lay out this information.

Later in episode 2 they outright state that it's an arranged marriage orchestrated by the grandfather. And the uncle and aunt on the groom's side already knew about it and still pushed the marriage forward. So I'm confused why you're only hating on FL when clearly so many business factors and people were involved in setting up the marriage

No one said the FL doesn't suck for doing that. I even stated that it's perfectly normal for her husband to be hurt by her actions. And I already agreed that she should have been clear before marriage.

What everyone is taking issue with is the crazy way you talk about women (including calling the FL a c*nt, wtf) and your INCORRECT belief that withholding sex in marriage is some kind of extreme cruelty. It simply is not.

Why ff the drama if you hate it? That's what's making me scratch my head. If you genuinely dislike these kinds of dramas, then wouldn't you just not watch them?

But you keep watching them, so something is keeping you interested

Your scenario 3 makes no sense. By your own admission of scenario 2, if the husband wants sex but the wife does not then the husband can just get divorced. In fact, it's even better in Scenario 3 because he can just get an annulment and legally it will be like he never got married.

Is the husband in scenario 3 stupid? Does he lack the mental faculties to get the marriage annulled? Is he so emotionally under the thumb of his wife that he can't think or stand up for himself? Actually, if that is the case, then what's really happening in Scenario 3 is that an illegal marriage happened because husband must have the mental faculties of a child

No one's life is getting destroyed because someone won't have sex with them. How fragile are these men for their life to be destroyed by something like that? They're more soft than their partner

SEX IS NOT A RESPONSIBILITY OF MARRIAGE! You keep casually stating this with no real logic. People get married for so many reasons: love, financial stability or improvement, tax benefits, protection, etc. Again, if you want to have sex, just divorce the person and find someone who will have sex with you. If, somehow, you are never able to find someone who wants to have sex with you, well, that's just too bad. I guess it would be one of life's hardships for you, but you will just have to struggle with it because no one on this plant "owes" another person access to their body

Law does not equal basic human morality. In many countries, it used to be legal to have slaves. In many modern countries, women legally have very little human rights. So please, don't try to use law as though laws are not often corrupt or immoral.

Second, denying sex is not cruelty. Does not matter what the law says. If your partner doesn't want to have sex with you, you can be hurt about it. It's perfectly normal to be hurt by that. BUT you being hurt doesn't mean they owe you their body.

No one on earth is *entitled* to sex. That's a very basic truth. If sex is something two parties do *together*, then it should not happen on the whim of only one person.

It does not matter if people are married, not married, dating, not dating, whatever. Sex should only happen if ALL partners want it to happen.

Again, the husband can feel hurt by his wife not being intimate with him. That's normal. But she has ZERO obligation to sleep with him because sex is not an obligation. If he wants a wife who has sex with him, he should marry someone else.

Finally, something else I find disturbing about your comment is that you seem to be ignorant of peoples who genuinely do not enjoy and do not want to have sex even in partnerships. These people do exist and they do get married and many have completely sexless marriages.

Lol, you think women haven't been choosing stability over love for thousands of years? Especially considering they used to not be able to have their own money or work well-paying jobs. Modern feminism would actually be women being able to marry for love because they have more agency and (financial) independence

There must be something you love about these kinds of dramas and characters if you keep watching them

There are lots of sexless marriages in the world. No matter if you're married or not, if one party doesn't want to have sex that's the end of it. If the other person wants sex so bad, by your logic shouldn't that person initiate a divorce or not get married in the first place as well?

Your viewpoint is very problematic. It's one thing to say it's shitty that FL married for money and is not affectionate to her husband, it's completely another (very r*pey) thing to say she somehow owes him sex just because they're married. He can divorce her

What part of the contract makes it a slave contract? He didn't ask her to do anything except delete the photos. Actually, she's the one who successfully blackmailed him and got assurance that her job is safe (which was her goal)

edit: ah, the respond immediately bit? She lowkey already has to do that as he's her superior, so maybe she weighed the contract and figured it's more in her favor

There's a 4 year age gap between the characters. If ML was 15 and FL was 19 in 2009, then in the current timeline where they meet again (2024), ML is ~30 and FL is ~34.

Spoiler: She's really upset when she finds out he's a middle schooler and immediately ends their friendship. So there's no dating between the two when they were young