anele-051

I see tolerance isn't your strong suit. Are you sure you have the right to be an inquisitor in someone else's value system?

I see tolerance isn't your strong suit. Are you sure you have the right to be an inquisitor in someone else's value system?

And one more thing about the funeral. The woman had been through the most traumatic experience of her life, but she didn't abandon Uju. And when uncle was going through a "self-esteem crisis" because of the problems his father had caused, what did he do? That's right! He packed his things and left. "Oh, I can't protect anyone, so I'll just leave." Was that a decent thing to do? Why do you forgive him for that? He didn't just leave the woman. He left Uju too. You understand that, right? He acted exactly like his father and brother had done to him. Do you think such an act towards Uju can be justified by the lack of custody papers?

2. Funeral. The death of a loved one is one of the most difficult experiences in life, especially if the loss was sudden, unfair, or the person didn't have time to say a proper goodbye. The initial state is shock and denial, when the psyche isn't yet ready to accept the fact of what has happened. In the initial moment of shock, a person may scream, cry, disbelieve, deny, or disagree. At a funeral, a person may break into laughter instead of mourning. This isn't because the person doesn't care, but because the psyche is protecting the person from too much pain. This, too, is a state of shock and denial.



Or there might be another reaction: feeling nothing, not understanding what's happening—stupor. The person acts as if on autopilot. People literally don't remember funerals, or remember them only in fragments.



You're probably lucky and haven't experienced anything like this. Otherwise, you're unlikely to have used a judgmental approach to the grieving person's behavior to strengthen your argument.

1. The struggle for love isn't aggressive actions, but rather active efforts aimed at establishing, restoring, maintaining, or strengthening mutual feelings with a partner (or potential partner) with the goal of a long-term relationship. It's about creating a space where your loved one wants to stay. Typically, this is expressed through caring, attention, and support. It's important that your willingness to overcome emerging difficulties, conflicts, or obstacles doesn't turn into excessive effort on your part and ruin your loved one's life. "Struggling" is worthwhile if the desire to become the best version of yourself in order to be with your loved one isn't perceived/experienced as a sacrifice or the price of rebuilding your personality, but rather unlocks your potential and hidden abilities/possibilities.



If you truly love someone, accept them as they are (without trying to change them to suit your needs), and see the potential for a long-term and happy relationship, this is a compelling argument for making the effort. Does the way you get closer to someone you like to create a relationship/family depend on your mentality? Yes, absolutely. Where I live, a man's initiative is considered normal and is seen as a sign of a strong desire to be in a relationship with his partner.



Meanwhile, it's important to recognize when further "fighting" becomes pointless and stop. If your efforts aren't yielding results and are only draining you emotionally and physically, if the person you love doesn't see you as a partner and asks you to stop courting them, then you need to stop and let them go.

The woman didn't abandon her nephew. She worked (you don't think she should have quit, do you?). And she only went on three dates with her boss (one of which involved the child). And why not? She didn't have a partner, and she didn't fall in love with the child's uncle at first sight. She was simply trying to sort out her feelings for men. I don't understand your complaints about her. What did she do wrong?

You're weird. I asked you clarifying questions to understand your point of view, and you got angry. If you can't answer, just say so.

I don't understand why you assumed the boss had no idea what the child needed? And why did you assume he'd be a bad adoptive father? Throughout the entire series, I can't recall the boss making a single wrong move, either toward the woman or the child.

I don't understand why everyone admires the child's uncle so much? The script portrays him as a weak character. I still don't understand why the main character chose Uncle Uju as her partner. How could she decide to start a family with a weak and insecure man? He's always trying to escape any problems and obligations. Even when she asks him to stay in her apartment, he still leaves. He never fights for the right to be with the woman he loves; he always backs down. He even leaves Uju's birthday party. A man like that is a burden in a family. Sure, he can wash the dishes, clean the apartment, and pick up the child from daycare. But can he solve serious problems? I don't think so. When the problem with child protection services arose, who helped resolve it? That's right, the boss solved it. And from now on, the woman will have to solve all the family's problems, relying largely on herself.

Why didn't she choose Boss? His character is wonderful, literally perfect. When I watched the scenes in which a successful, goal-oriented, caring, and incredibly handsome man tries to win the woman he loves, my heart beat faster. And yet, he never forgot that the woman he loves has a child. He installed a child seat in the car, organized a children's menu at the restaurant, and came to the children's party. A man like that is a gift from heaven. With such a man, a woman and child will be protected, as if behind a stone wall.

Children often adopt the personality traits, behavior, and habits of the adults who raise them. Women who choose a weak and insecure man as a partner (as the child's uncle is in the film) should be aware of this fact. The boss would have been a wonderful adoptive father for the child. He himself told the woman that he, too, grew up in a foster home and therefore understands the responsibility and importance of family for orphaned children, having experienced it firsthand. He said that he became who he is thanks to his adoptive family (and from the film, we know the boss is the embodiment of maturity). He tried to convince the woman that he would be a reliable protector for her and the child. Meanwhile, Uncle Uju told her he didn't know what family was or how to build one. But the woman chose the child's uncle anyway. Isn't that a strange decision on her part?

If the writers had kept the boss as the heroine's partner, the plot, in my opinion, would have had a more powerful social message: that real parents for orphaned children can be provided by more than just their immediate family. A responsible, emotionally stable adult with adequate self-esteem has a much better chance of raising a mature individual. But what kind of individual will be raised by an insecure adult who avoids responsibility? I wonder if all these nasty commentators really want their children to grow up with a personality like Uncle Uju's? Aren't the boss's personality traits more desirable?

I get the feeling some viewers haven't figured out who the main character of the series really is. Let's think about it. Which characters are present in almost every scene? Who is the focus of the entire plot? That's right, the main character is a woman.

If you skip the synopsis and just look at the plot, it's clear there's only one main character in this series—a woman who finds herself in a situation of major change in her life. Everyone else (the child, the child's uncle, and the boss) are secondary characters. Her sister has died, leaving her with an orphaned nephew just as she's looking for a new stable job (and then trying to hold down that job). It is at this moment that two men appear in her life who like her, and she tries to sort out her feelings for these men

I get the feeling some viewers haven't figured out who the main character of the series really is. Let's think about it. Which characters are present in almost every scene? Who is the focus of the entire plot? That's right, the main character is a woman.

If you skip the synopsis and just look at the plot, it's clear there's only one main character in this series—a woman who finds herself in a situation of major change in her life. Everyone else (the child, the child's uncle, and the boss) are secondary characters. Her sister has died, leaving her with an orphaned nephew just as she's looking for a new stable job (and then trying to hold down that job). It is at this moment that two men appear in her life who like her, and she tries to sort out her feelings for these men

Part 1. I still don’t understand why the main character chose Uncle Uju as a partner? How could she decide to start a family with a weak and insecure man? He always tries to escape from any problems and obligations. Even when she asks him to stay in her apartment, he leaves anyway. He never fights for the right to be with the woman he loves, he always backs down. In the family, such a man is a ballast. He can of course wash the dishes, clean the apartment, pick up the child from the nursery. But will he be able to solve serious problems? I think no, can’t. When there was a problem with the guardianship authorities, who helped resolve it? Right, the boss solved the problem. And in the future, the woman will have to solve all family problems by relying more only on herself.

Why didn't she choose Boss? His character is wonderful. When I watched the scenes in which a successful, goal-oriented, caring, and incredibly handsome man tries to win the woman he loves, my heart beat faster. And yet, he never forgot that the woman he loves has a child. He installed a child seat in the car, organized a children's menu at the restaurant, and came to the children's party. A man like that is a gift from heaven. With such a man, a woman and child will be protected, as if behind a stone wall.

When I read the hateful comments about the boss, I wonder. These people really don’t understand that they hate the positive (literally perfect) character of the series? Where is their reflection? Successful, determined, caring and incredibly handsome man who tries to win over his beloved woman annoys them? Seriously? Their reaction to the series is so strange, as if they are experiencing a painful frustration.


Part 2. Children often adopt the traits, behaviors and habits of adults who raise them. Women who choose to partner with a weak and insecure man (as the child’s uncle is in the plot) should be aware of this. The boss would be a great foster father to the child. He himself told the woman that he, too, had grown up in a foster family and thus was aware of the responsibility and importance of the family for orphaned children, as he had experienced this. Said that he became the one who is - it’s thanks to the foster family (and from the film we know that the boss is the incarnation of a mature personality). He tried to convince the woman that he would be a reliable protection for her and the child. Meanwhile, Uncle Uju told her that she didn’t know there was a family and how to create one. But the woman chose the child’s uncle anyway. Isn’t that a strange decision on her part?

If the writers had kept the boss as the heroine's partner, the plot, in my opinion, would have had a more powerful social message about how real parents for orphaned children can be provided by more than just their immediate family. A responsible, emotionally stable adult with adequate self-esteem has a much better chance of raising a mature individual. But what kind of individual an insecure adult who avoids responsibility will raise is a big question. I wonder if all these nasty commentators really want their children to grow up with a personality like Uncle Uju's? Aren't the boss's personality traits more desirable?

Part 1. I still don’t understand why the main character chose Uncle Uju as a partner? How could she decide to start a family with a weak and insecure man? He always tries to escape from any problems and obligations. Even when she asks him to stay in her apartment, he leaves anyway. He never fights for the right to be with the woman he loves, he always backs down. In the family, such a man is a ballast. He can of course wash the dishes, clean the apartment, pick up the child from the nursery. But will he be able to solve serious problems? I think no, can’t. When there was a problem with the guardianship authorities, who helped resolve it? Right, the boss solved the problem. And in the future, the woman will have to solve all family problems by relying more only on herself.

Why didn't she choose Boss? His character is wonderful. When I watched the scenes in which a successful, goal-oriented, caring, and incredibly handsome man tries to win the woman he loves, my heart beat faster. And yet, he never forgot that the woman he loves has a child. He installed a child seat in the car, organized a children's menu at the restaurant, and came to the children's party. A man like that is a gift from heaven. With such a man, a woman and child will be protected, as if behind a stone wall.

When I read the hateful comments about the boss, I wonder. These people really don’t understand that they hate the positive (literally perfect) character of the series? Where is their reflection? Successful, determined, caring and incredibly handsome man who tries to win over his beloved woman annoys them? Seriously? Their reaction to the series is so strange, as if they are experiencing a painful frustration.


Part 2. Children often adopt the traits, behaviors and habits of adults who raise them. Women who choose to partner with a weak and insecure man (as the child’s uncle is in the plot) should be aware of this. The boss would be a great foster father to the child. He himself told the woman that he, too, had grown up in a foster family and thus was aware of the responsibility and importance of the family for orphaned children, as he had experienced this. Said that he became the one who is - it’s thanks to the foster family (and from the film we know that the boss is the incarnation of a mature personality). He tried to convince the woman that he would be a reliable protection for her and the child. Meanwhile, Uncle Uju told her that she didn’t know there was a family and how to create one. But the woman chose the child’s uncle anyway. Isn’t that a strange decision on her part?

If the writers had kept the boss as the heroine's partner, the plot, in my opinion, would have had a more powerful social message about how real parents for orphaned children can be provided by more than just their immediate family. A responsible, emotionally stable adult with adequate self-esteem has a much better chance of raising a mature individual. But what kind of individual an insecure adult who avoids responsibility will raise is a big question. I wonder if all these nasty commentators really want their children to grow up with a personality like Uncle Uju's? Aren't the boss's personality traits more desirable?

Why did the show's writers burden Yohan with such an inordinate amount of misfortune and hardship? The writers literally deprived Yohan of everything: his parents (they died), his profession (he quit boxing), his country (he had to leave Korea), his health (an incurable disease), his life (the chance to live to old age). For what? Was it really necessary? They could have at least left him with the option of living in remission. Isn't this a low-grade manipulation of viewers' emotions by the show's writers?

Yes, of course, I understand that not all series have to have a happy ending. I certainly understand that happiness can be "quiet." But why the hell? Why is misfortune so "loud and noticeable" in this series, while the viewer literally has to look for moments of happiness under a microscope? Yohan overcomes difficulties, demonstrating fortitude, resilience, and the ability to transform. In order to what? To die? What is the message of the series? What did the writers want to tell their viewers? What conclusion was the viewer supposed to draw after watching this series? Does life suck? Is fate merciless? Even if you try your best, you can't escape fate?

Is this series about platonic love between guys?

I see that the series has evoked strong emotions and experiences in you. Did you experience catharsis while watching the series? If so, then its value has increased many times over, as it gives you (and others like you) the opportunity to emotionally unload. It's quite amusing. PS In the future, if you find yourself in an emotionally challenging situation, you can revisit the series and unload your emotions.

I don't agree. I was hoping that FL would choose SML, as he is a cool character (successful and confident). However, ML is a rather weak and insecure character. Whenever there is a problem, he always tries to run away. Why would FL want to build a family with someone like this? He will continue to behave in the same way.

Yeah. And if everyone (desperate because they didn't like the show) went jumping off a cliff, you'd follow them. (Sarcasm). Do you need someone else's opinion and approval to know whether you like something or not?

I agree. And if FL had chosen SML, the story would have been much more interesting. It would have shown that orphaned children can be happy not only with their relatives.

I think the writer wanted to show the choice between a good (the child's uncle) and a very good (the boss). It's always a difficult choice. But it wasn't implemented well.