My exact thinking lol, I was expecting the hair pulling and more, I would have go ballistic in all of them and…
How telling that you would make assumptions regarding someone you don't know... Some women would just leave and either go back to their table or leave the restaurant altogether rather than get into a confrontation, especially a physical one, Some women have grace, class and common sense.
Going back to season 1. I don't remember her pursuing the PD,she felt as much as the other ladies cos the PD has…
It is her lifestyle of choice though. As a narcissist her ego is actually built on a house of cards, Despite the confidence she exudes, deep down she is quite insecure. She needs others to prop up her ego So the loss of one of those people has a huge effect on her self esteem. She likely feels how dare he abandon her and choose a lesser being as well. Which takes precedence over the fact she no longer loves him. Her source of narcissitic supply is what is at stake. That is what is motivating her to keep the marriage intact.
Yes, genius writing and acting indeed. I’m glad we can appreciate it for its entertainment and paradigm-bending…
You may wish to curb your penchant for assuming things. Starting with my gender. You assert that the writer must love the characters of the lawyer and Song. In other words she has a bias. The reality is that she is presenting a couple whose transgression is morally ambiguous compared to those of the other two couples. But for people who do not see the possibility of middle ground, grey areas or extenuating circumstances, the parties will be always be guilty and sentenced accordingly. A cheater is a cheater period. If that approach works for you then so be it. But to negotiate the world we are currently in flexibility is required, Things are not all in black and white, No one is letting the lawyer and Song off the hook. But we need to consider the reasons that led to the transgression, hoping that others would do the same if we were in their slippers. Like all crimes motivation must be considered before sentencing,
It is French and it means "Whatever will be, will be." Doris Day had a hit with the song back in the 50s or 60s. Basically the song suggests we are not privy to what the future hold for us.
She did want the divorce his parents talked her out of in S1. He deserves the smacks in my opinion and more.
I call them as I see them. Having said that, I can back up my assertions and am not creating a false narrative nor am I attributing false motivations onto all those involved. And since many others are seeing everything about her in black and white terms, there’s a huge grey area not being considered. And that’s dangerous! Look, all I am doing is refuting the many false statements made about her. In no way am I justifying her existence. The lawyer was emotionally unfaithful. ( If truth be told, I am still wrestling with this. Song was not reciprocating about herself. She was aloof. She was not interested in him. We tell friends many things about our relationships, but does it make it an affair? ) Then sexually. He ought to have waited until he was divorced , or at least separated , before he even contemplated such action. He ought to have been more forthright about wanting to split. That right there is the crux of the issue... As humans we strive to do the right thing but we’re fallible. We make mistakes or blow situations big time. We let down people without having meant to. Our own frailties and/or circumstances can wreak havoc on our best intentions. When people have a modicum of self-awareness they can recognize they have transgressed, own up to their transgressions, repair the emotional damage or any other reparations involved and make a vow to never repeat their hurtful behaviour. The person you love does not have the right to mistreat you. Having said that. the key factor that has to be considered is motivation. Why do people behave the way they do? What appears on the surface is the low lying fruit, which people are likely to grab. Understandably. But like icebergs there’s a whole bunch of things happening beneath the surface, hidden to the naked eye. And that’s where the grey areas or moral ambiguity lie. This drama and its viewer reaction is very much akin to a cross between ´To Kill a Mockingbird’ and ‘Who Framed Roger Rabbit?´ What I am taking issue with, is the mischaracterization to patently false interpretations that have taken place. Pick any page and you will find one! Let’s deal with a simple one: She felt betrayed by the parents running around behind her back. The reality: She first suggested to his mother that she should check in from time to time on Song namely to keep tabs on her. How many times did his mom see Song? The initial meeting plus two medical appointments. That last one his father invited himself to go along. The three were hungry so they went to eat. Keep in mind this would be the last time they would see her before she departed for Jeju Island. And the healthy scan of his grandson gave grandad reason to celebrate. Son showing up was a coincidence. It’s a stretch to say they were being disloyal behind her back. Liking Song did not mean being disloyal to her. Of course I can understand why the optics were not good. But when it was explained to her, she chose not to believe them. Sadly for her, she will bring on her worst fear, as a result of her hitting her husband. This couple has a major issue with communication. Both contribute to the problem in different ways. With the lawyer we can see the environment he grew up in- his mother did not speak up about the disrespectful way her husband treated her. And from the sounds of BHR’s parents, dysfunction will exist there as well. With the lawyer, it’s far easier to ascertain what contributed to the marital breakdown and make sense of it, as compared to the dynamics at play with the doctor. He’s showing sociopathic tendencies, and needs to be shown the door. But I still want to know why an intelligent man with an exemplary life partner sets out to cheat. It’s both fascinating and cognitively distorted. It’s a mystery I want to solve. The writer wanted to convey that cheating is not always cut and dried. There can be a morally ambiguous middle ground. She shon a light on the mistresses ‘ point of view for a more thorough dissection of an affair. Given her age, she has likely witnessed a marital breakdown or two. And one needs to be cautious at attributing events to her personally. Writers do take inspiration from those in their lives. It would be statistically unlikely that one person could have attracted that much bad karma. One thing is certain, she has succeeded in generating much discourse on the subject of extra- marital affairs the world over. For that she must be lauded, regardless of how the drama is received. We ought not shoot the messenger, after all. Enough said.
Some women would just leave and either go back to their table or leave the restaurant altogether rather than get into a confrontation, especially a physical one, Some women have grace, class and common sense.
You assert that the writer must love the characters of the lawyer and Song.
In other words she has a bias. The reality is that she is presenting a couple whose transgression is morally ambiguous compared to those of the other two couples. But for people who do not see the possibility of middle ground, grey areas or extenuating circumstances, the parties will be always be guilty and sentenced accordingly. A cheater is a cheater period. If that approach works for you then so be it.
But to negotiate the world we are currently in flexibility is required, Things are not all in black and white, No one is letting the lawyer and Song off the hook. But we need to consider the reasons that led to the transgression, hoping that others would do the same if we were in their slippers.
Like all crimes motivation must be considered before sentencing,
And since many others are seeing everything about her in black and white terms, there’s a huge grey area not being considered. And that’s dangerous!
Look, all I am doing is refuting the many false statements made about her. In no way am I justifying her existence.
The lawyer was emotionally unfaithful. ( If truth be told, I am still wrestling with this. Song was not reciprocating about herself. She was aloof. She was not interested in him. We tell friends many things about our relationships, but does it make it an affair? ) Then sexually. He ought to have waited until he was divorced , or at least separated , before he even contemplated such action.
He ought to have been more forthright about wanting to split. That right there is the crux of the issue...
As humans we strive to do the right thing but we’re fallible. We make mistakes or blow situations big time. We let down people without having meant to. Our own frailties and/or circumstances can wreak havoc on our best intentions.
When people have a modicum of self-awareness they can recognize they have transgressed, own up to their transgressions, repair the emotional damage or any other reparations involved and make a vow to never repeat their hurtful behaviour.
The person you love does not have the right to mistreat you.
Having said that. the key factor that has to be considered is motivation. Why do people behave the way they do?
What appears on the surface is the low lying fruit, which people are likely to grab. Understandably. But like icebergs there’s a whole bunch of things happening beneath the surface, hidden to the naked eye. And that’s where the grey areas or moral ambiguity lie.
This drama and its viewer reaction is very much akin to a cross between ´To Kill a Mockingbird’ and ‘Who Framed Roger Rabbit?´
What I am taking issue with, is the mischaracterization to patently false interpretations that have taken place. Pick any page and you will find one!
Let’s deal with a simple one:
She felt betrayed by the parents running around behind her back.
The reality: She first suggested to his mother that she should check in from time to time on Song namely to keep tabs on her. How many times did his mom see Song? The initial meeting plus two medical appointments. That last one his father invited himself to go along. The three were hungry so they went to eat. Keep in mind this would be the last time they would see her before she departed for Jeju Island. And the healthy scan of his grandson gave grandad reason to celebrate. Son showing up was a coincidence.
It’s a stretch to say they were being disloyal behind her back. Liking Song did not mean being disloyal to her. Of course I can understand why the optics were not good. But when it was explained to her, she chose not to believe them. Sadly for her, she will bring on her worst fear, as a result of her hitting her husband.
This couple has a major issue with communication. Both contribute to the problem in different ways. With the lawyer we can see the environment he grew up in- his mother did not speak up about the disrespectful way her husband treated her. And from the sounds of BHR’s parents, dysfunction will exist there as well.
With the lawyer, it’s far easier to ascertain what contributed to the marital breakdown and make sense of it, as compared to the dynamics at play with the doctor. He’s showing sociopathic tendencies, and needs to be shown the door. But I still want to know why an intelligent man with an exemplary life partner sets out to cheat. It’s both fascinating and cognitively distorted. It’s a mystery I want to solve.
The writer wanted to convey that cheating is not always cut and dried. There can be a morally ambiguous middle ground. She shon a light on the mistresses ‘ point of view for a more thorough dissection of an affair. Given her age, she has likely witnessed a marital breakdown or two. And one needs to be cautious at attributing events to her personally. Writers do take inspiration from those in their lives. It would be statistically unlikely that one person could have attracted that much bad karma.
One thing is certain, she has succeeded in generating much discourse on the subject of extra- marital affairs the world over. For that she must be lauded, regardless of how the drama is received. We ought not shoot the messenger, after all.
Enough said.