Rahab75

Here we go again.

It's not puritanical not to fuck your dad's lover. It is puritanical to say that those fucking their dad's lover are weird, creepy, gross and unhealthy. Love, emotions and whoever you fell in love with are not seomething people control and they are not resulted by rational considerations and coolly calculated decisions, at least in the world of sensitive adult human beings.

Apart from being not the brightest bulb in the chandelier, your comprehension skills are not your strongest suits either. I did not call your comment a blog. I suggested you to write blogs instead of commenting if you don't wanna come across counter-arguments. When you start arguing with someone, it is quite useful not to be a functional illiterate.

Of course it is your sovereign right to be a close-minded. prudish phobic, just don't be surprised when you are called one when you show yourself. That is online space for you.

Those who get on my nerves are the tight-arsed puritans who feel free to trash relationships they don't find ideal with the most insulting labels, without giving a second thought how hurtfult that could be for people really living in such relationships happily for instance, but when they are called out they switch to snow flake mode in a nanosecond and demand safe space for themselves at once. Freedom of speech works both ways, it means you are free to say whatever you want, but it does not mean your bullshit could and should be unchallenged.

Dr Seuss is fine, thanks, but I enjoy adult dramas with messy life situations a lot more. You might learn how to enjoy them as well if you pull the broomstick out of your arse, but that is your life.

Luckily it is not you who tells what is normal, acceptable or healthy.

Fucking your lover's son is not weird for the open-minded, I have seen a fews examples for that irl and it could work. But even if it does not, it belongs to that particular couple and no one else in the universe. It is only weird for entitled meddlers who cannot live their life without butting into other people's business.

Putting "'period" does not make you right in the slightest, only arrogant.

Maybe you should not interact in a public online space if you cannot stand being contradicted. If you write blogs you won't be called out for your bs.

My tolerance level is not that high. "This, personally, makes me uncomfortable" is the maximum I can stand but saying things like this relatioinship is "weird", "creepy", "gross" and "inapprorpriate" way crosses the limit and is literally not much different from racist or homphobic prejudices. I don't like the argument that "it is only fiction" either, because there are relationships and couples like this irl and people like that are likely to say the same when they come across such couples, either upfront or behind their back, and that needs to be called out. (Btw as for the involvement of one of their father, this sort of issue is a part of several Western pieces of literature, like Judth Krantz's Mistral's Daugher or Bernard Slade's I Remember You. It is the new-fashioned hyper-sensitivity again that wants to wash this out too)

Shameless ageism is rampant in MDL, but what particulary irks me is the recurring hysteria over 16-17 -18 years old boys having relationships with more mature guys. This is a typical idiotic fujoshi meltdown. Irl this is very common and typical that gay boys of that age in more than 50% prefer guys in their 20s up to the point of losing their cherry to them, because they are more experienced and make their first occasion easier and more comfortable. But some teenage girls and single women pulled out of their arses that is wrong and keep losing their shit over that and feel entitled and given free ride to trash such relationship disgustingly.

Then I may not have used the correct expression. I meant Nike's characteristics, his aura, his type, his stature, his habitude, his temperament that make him suitable for certain roles. Actors usually have types, even the most versatile ones for the most part, and Nike was perfectly cast as a soft-spoken, introverted, traumatized hermit. Speak for yourself, I did not feel cheated or distracted at all, he was perfect. He may look much younger than Mo,l but in his common scenes with Pond I absolutely beleived the generation gap. He represented the middle road just as the creator possibly wanted to . This was a problem only for those who have this hang up over the age difference and their complicated relationship via Siam, but the director knew they are needless to please in the first place, since this was not for them.

Nike was obviously cast because the director found his personality could do well with In's caharcter, and he was right. It would not be hard to find smoking hot Thai actors from Mam's generation who would not be hard to ship with Wang. Oat Voravudh Niyomsap, Porsch Apiwat Apiwatsayree or Utt Uttsada Panichkul for instance.

When two consenting adults fall in love they can do whatever they want, with as much age gap as they wish. If one of them was the love of one of the younger one's father and they can sort that out and they are Ok with that, it is no one else's concern. Whether the relationship works is up to them alone, no one else's business but theirs.
People need to learn to get over themselves, butt out of other people's love life and mind their own business.

My point is that I am not stuck on the surface. What she got is a so-called Notice period.

She knows that exactly. She is running away from her truth but as deep down she always knew about her husband, she knew she was not chosen. She did not win him back at all.

Wang has never been a dummy of her caprice. As we have seen he has always been ready to confront her, so he will be in the future. As for In, he is terrified of his own emotions and would have rejected In anyway. Mol may wel made it worse, but she is not the reason In failed to come out of his cave. He has not done it for decades, he did not need Mol to be reclusive. Wang went home because In did not agree to stay with him and not because he wanted to be with her instead. She did not win at all.

It is a fascinating movie that will leave a lasting effect on you as well. I guarantee that. It is a heavy vehicle but it is gonna burn into your memory. The acting is top-notch in that one too from all. You need fortitude to sit it through, but it is unmissable. You won't regret it.

She returned home with a headstrong, openly gay and righteous son who is determined to stay true to himself, to live the life he wants to live, who is not gonna live in a lie for her, and who is going to be very vocal about his sexual orientation onwards. She has been living in pain and misery that her husband loved her best friend all his life and probably was ready to choose him over her, and from now this feeling is doubled, she is going to live with the pain and misery that her son fell in love with the same man and he was also ready to choose him over her. How is that a victory and how is that what she wanted? Wang made a promise not to leave her but he is never going to live in her fantasy world. That is what she wants and she is never going to get this.

In might be confused whether what he feels is still a love for Siam and not Wang, but that goes the the other way around too. Wang's love may well be as questionably going for In and not a father figure. It is something only they know themselves, it could even be a mixture of those feelings.

What did she win?

You surely know better than the character himself.

When he gave the hug back In confirmed he feels the same for Wang.

You are making too many unfounded assumptions and you come to generally very superficial and/or false conclusions.
- She did not tell In to stay away from her husband. She only asked for his help to get Siam for herself in college. When they meet decades after In left, Mol reprimands In for his disappearance from their life, that is how the first episode starts. That is a direct contradicition of your theory, so you just made this up.
- We don't know if Siam committed suicide. It is more likely that he suffered a fatal car accident because he was so upset and hard-pressed from Mol wanting to confront him with his sexuality that night.
- In did not comply with Mol because she asked him, he did it because he is still terrified by his own instincts and feelings.
- Wang returns to Bangkok because whom he chosen was still not ready to be with him (or with anyone else). He is still unhappy, but he is going to heal, and he still remains the rebellious, free-spirited, righteous person who stands up to himself, against her mother too, as we have seen this frequently.
- Mol is not happy. As selfish and egocentric she is, she has deep scars and demons, I have detailed this earlier.
- Wang returns to Bangkok becasue as he told In, the time is on his side and soon he gets the upper hand. He finishes college, he already knows what he wants to study and he is going to live his life once he makes himself free. Wang driving into the sunset and leaving everyone behind would have trivialized and juvenilized this mature decision. And he is the most mature person out of them all.
People get butthurt when others say they don't understand the complexity of this series when they complain, but what else once could say if we come across such comments?

https://www.vivamax.net/movie/C00178#/extra

As much as Mol frequently said homophobic remarks, I really do not think she would have said In "disgusts" her because of his sexual orientation. She is "disgusted" because In fell in love with the son of the man with whom they loved each other, and that is what In apologised for too, not for loving a man. For being the love of both her husband and her son, the two most important persons of her life who apparently were both ready to choose him over her.