famecif223

I basically agree with the point about both the choice to involve herself into the ML's family issues and to be uncommunicative (and even deceptive, about the affair and the child situation) with her husband was entirely FL's responsibility. If you have a problem talk, if you want to break up, break up, and to the extent that the affair meant she ignored the commitments she took up and she felt better (such as the day at the lake), that could have been achieved without the affair, simply by listening to her husband and not involving herself in her family's mess. ML did exactly what her mother, his brother and her lover did, trying to dissuade her from getting involved in those issues, and he achieved exactly what they achieved, meaning nothing at all, except for being ignored.

The only correction D would have is is terms of the motivations, where I agree with knkg: she did it out of unearned guilt towards the sister in law (obscene she would bring her lover along to the movies with her sister in law, or talk about him with her... I mean, the guy she cheated on her brother with?), and FL's treatment of her lover, which I actually liked, as I said in my response to Jackpapa. Basically:

"""
Lastly, for all the criticism I have of FL, one of the reasons I *don’t* think she should be criticized for is her behavior towards her lover. Let’s be absolutely clear. Her lover was willing to pursue a married woman, and to do so while knowing she was in love with her husband, and considered him her soulmate, and despite never having been wronged by the husband, and even to some extent knowing him. By his own admission, he didn’t care about anything but what he wanted and disregarded the impact his actions would have on anyone else. So how does he get the idea he has any right to complain about his feelings not being prioritized? Also, again, FL and ML have been married for 7 years, and have known each other for 14. She and her lover have met what, days, weeks prior tops? How in the world would he expect those to be equivalent? Frankly, it’s the husband that should feel insulted to hear “half her heart” mentioned in this context. And the lover is insane to genuinely ask her and her husband to have a meal, and to get past their lingering feelings for each other by time the meal is over… again, 14 years? 7 years of marriage? Anyone? Guy is nuts.


I mean, the incredible thing to me is that ML is expected to forgive her… and then what, end up in the same situation as her lover, struggling with her wanting to keep her foot in two shoes? Would she have actually cut off her lover? Because she said she would have, but clearly didn’t. And I find it astonishing that the lover is considered to be wronged for having to live in this same ambiguity that the husband was just supposed to accept. It ended with him trying to get her to move to a place away from her roots, her home, her family and friends, with no regards for her desires, and when she disagrees, he literally kidnaps her, she is stuck in the car with him as he speeds through traffic and almost crashes.

To be honest, I have always found his behavior disturbing, and not in the same way I found, say, ML’s outburst something I was taken aback by, the latter was of the same piece with stuff like his brother forcefully kissing FL’s sister, or his mother hitting his father with a wooden sword, and his father trying to hit his mother with a knife: exaggerated and almost comedic, a bit nonsensical. And one-offs, not representative of usual behavior. Not so with the lover, where every of his actions is taken very seriously, and he is aggressive and coercitive: he grabs her and doesn’t let go even when she struggles, is constantly smashes her against walls, forcibly kisses her even when she tries to push him away (she ultimately acquiesces). Shows up drunk, screams at her and grabs her, completely manhandling her, etc. ML was never so aggressive and coercitive, be it in their daily lives or when being intimate. A bit of this is the cultural context and year of the drama, presumably some things didn’t really age very well, and so I have to refer to what is considered out of the ordinary in-universe (where you have ML’s father and mother going at each other with sticks and knives, FL’s mother beating up her children, FL beating up her peers, etc.). But even with that caveat, I have always perceived the lover as unstable and somewhat crazy, and, again, this was not a one off, off character thing, it was his usual behavior: the top rated review is correct in labeling him as “pretty stalker-y second male lead with anger issues”. And it was narratively acknowledged when he essentially kidnapped FL. In fact, I was fully in agreement with FL the first time around, and found it entirely inappropriate that she would have to apologize to him.

At the end of the drama, you had a situation where her lover gets away with it scott free, without any criticism, despite his objectively crazy behavior, while the husband gets the usual treatment the husband tends to get in these dramas, frankly, which is somehow having to be held responsible for things FL chose to do herself and/or her being completely uncommunicative, as if it was his responsibility to ensure she was always happy without her having to owe the fact that, you know, she didn’t *talk* to him? And had an affair, which, just like the issues with the children, she didn’t tell him about? The kids issue was completely forgotten, I would have expected them to bring it up when they talked about children at the end and the sister in law was dead.

Basically, the more conflict between FL and her lover, and the more he felt she pined after ML, the happier I got, pure karma, frankly. “I liked X” is not an explanation for anything, it doesn’t mean you can disregard the impact on everyone else to get X, and the lover certainly didn’t like it when he was on the receiving end.
"""

In my opinion this starts from faulty premises.

I don’t see the issue as him not wanting to stay with her. It’s his prerogative, he is under no obligation to be with her, and frankly self inflicted “hardships”, or even genuinely necessary “hardships” are *rightfully* not taken into consideration, as they are not relevant in terms of her breach of trust. I agree that it would be “hard” to justify her betrayal by her “willingness to sacrifice” and “devotion” to him and his family. Because obviously, the latter should have made the betrayal a less likely, not more likely, process. Supposed "sacrifice and devotion" don't make up for betrayal and deception. In fact, if anything it makes the betrayal even worse. At least, you expect an enemy to stab you in the back, not someone you thought you could trust. Building that trust over the years is what makes the fall even more grave, and the inability to trust again even more pronounced, because the people who betrayed you are in a position to hurt you the most.

What she did for his family and her breach of trust are two separate matters, and the former does not compensate for, nor erase, the latter. If my partner chooses to move countries and give up their job and stay at home to support me in my career and then cheats on me, I am still going to distrust them, and actually I would consider this a complete inversion of priorities: loyalty and honesty are the basis, whether they chose to continue working or not, and how easy or hard would make our schedules, are less important. In the drama's case, I very much prefer someone like the ML's female colleague, who explicitly says she doesn't know if she would be okay coping with dementia and paralysis. It's much better, and more honest, than FL taking on these responsibilities despite her husband/model/etc. asking her not to, and then using that as an excuse to have an affair (which I also don't accept just from a causal point of view: it's true that during the affair, to the extent she was with her lover, she neglected the commitments she had taken up, but she could have done the same by simply listening to her husband and not gotten herself involved in his family's mess... she could have done literally anything else with her time without needing to be with a lover, it was about *not doing* something her husband, brother in law, etc. routinely encouraged not to do. And that's the point, it's not even that this is the "cherry on top" that should be put on the basis of loyalty and honesty, and that by lying about her affair, and deceiving her husband about the reason they don't have children (which was not really addressed, and that I consider a massive breach of trust: it's her prerogative not to have children, but she should have had an informed discussion about it with her partner, he needs to be aware than this is not a medical issue, and that they might have different goals on an important part of the relationship). So, really, no “devotion” (cannot really use that, given she had an affair), and as for “sacrifice”, a sacrifice her husband, mother, brother in law, lover, etc. didn’t want her to make, and asked not to make, and she did anyway.

I would also say that her show of remorse, which, might I add, came *after* her husband discovered her affair, and seemed aimed at getting her not to leave him, doesn’t change the fact that she had indeed betrayed him, and is now in love with someone else (it’s unclear to that extent, though the way she talks about it, it’s hard to believe it’s a relationship born in the last days or weeks, then again she was kissing the guy three days after meeting him). It was both an emotional affair, and a physical one: sure, she didn’t have sex with him, but she did make out with him on two occasions, plus that little strange thing with the hammer… and afaik she didn’t mention any of that, giving the impression nothing physical happened, which was not the truth. Though, the issue here is really her feelings for the guy. In Backstreet Rookie, there was a similar affair, and there it’s very clear the girl doesn’t care for the guy, so it’s not a problem. But here, even at the very end, one is left to imagine whether she still loves the carpenter (again, 7 years of marriage, with someone she has known 14 years, against someone she had not known up until what, days or weeks ago? And it’s “Love”?).

I would also push back on the concept of him not wanting to “help or support FL getting rid of her emotional feelings for JK”. That request in the drama was about the stupidest thing I had ever heard, and one of the most unfair. It’s on one hand impossible: you cannot control whom you love or not (as FL could attest), let alone who someone else loves or not (as her lover would attest, given he would have liked to do it as far as her feelings for ML were concerned). It’s also something anyone with a shred of self respect wouldn’t ever debase themselves to attempt. I mean, the closest thing would be being a rebound, and that’s directionally what ML’s female colleague was or almost ended up being. I mean, I imagine ML making love to FL, and having to wonder whether she is thinking of her lover, or having to ask her if she is over the carpenter yet.

Plus, I have to admit I am not impressed by big shows of remorse, and it didn’t last, did it? It was followed by impatience and lastly victim blaming. First it was small excitement to discard, then it was a walk through the mud where she discovered something precious, then it was not even mud (though it was: the lover asked what it was, if not mud, silk?), and it becomes this transformational experience… again, we are talking about an affair (and the show does equivocate, as often happens, between the *love*, which is something no one can help, and the *deception*, the lack of transparency towards your partner, which is most definitely a problem and not “valid”). And so, how sorry was she for the affair, by the end when they reconcile?

Plus, you say that she started out begging for forgiveness. But where things ended up was exactly where the reviewer highlighted: with ML being blamed for 1) something FL chose to do, against his wishes (and those of her lover, mother, etc.), out of unearned guilt about his sister, and 2) for FL being completely uncommunicative and him not knowing stuff, being stuck on a boat for weeks at a time and not being a mind reader (and certainly not a mind reader through a telephone).

Again, I want to stress that I don’t doubt the sacrifice to care for a disabled person, etc. I dealt with an aunt who died of cancer at home, and a 100 year old grandfather. But the fact remains that she chose to take on those commitments despite everyone telling her not to, did so out of guilt, and was completely uncommunicative, if not outright deceptive (the children thing, the lover thing) towards her husband. So it seems appalling to me that he would be blamed for something that was objectively not his fault. I also consider the notion of blaming him for not forgiving her immediately (but still within the time of the separation period, so not taking up much time) to be incredibly entitled. And if she was unhappy, it was her responsibility to tell him about it, and so also if she wanted to divorce (which she didn’t… again, the “greed” theme, and I want to stress that, ethically, the issue for me is not the feelings, which no one could help, but the lying… Though of course her loving someone else would still pose a threat to a monogamous relationship, though really the reason it would bother me would be mainly the deception, the fact that it was an affair and the person she loves is someone that self servingly wronged me without me having previously done anything to him).

Lastly, for all the criticism I have of FL, one of the reasons I *don’t* think she should be criticized for is her behavior towards her lover. Let’s be absolutely clear. Her lover was willing to pursue a married woman, and to do so while knowing she was in love with her husband, and considered him her soulmate, and despite never having been wronged by the husband, and even to some extent knowing him. By his own admission, he didn’t care about anything but what he wanted and disregarded the impact his actions would have on anyone else. So how does he get the idea he has any right to complain about his feelings not being prioritized? Also, again, FL and ML have been married for 7 years, and have known each other for 14. She and her lover have met what, days, weeks prior tops? How in the world would he expect those to be equivalent? Frankly, it’s the husband that should feel insulted to hear “half her heart” mentioned in this context. And the lover is insane to genuinely ask her and her husband to have a meal, and to get past their lingering feelings for each other by time the meal is over… again, 14 years? 7 years of marriage? Anyone? Guy is nuts.

I mean, the incredible thing to me is that ML is expected to forgive her… and then what, end up in the same situation as her lover, struggling with her wanting to keep her foot in two shoes? Would she have actually cut off her lover? Because she said she would have, but clearly didn’t. And I find it astonishing that the lover is considered to be wronged for having to live in this same ambiguity that the husband was just supposed to accept. It ended with him trying to get her to move to a place away from her roots, her home, her family and friends, with no regards for her desires, and when she disagrees, he literally kidnaps her, she is stuck in the car with him as he speeds through traffic and almost crashes.

To be honest, I have always found his behavior disturbing, and not in the same way I found, say, ML’s outburst something I was taken aback by, the latter was of the same piece with stuff like his brother forcefully kissing FL’s sister, or his mother hitting his father with a wooden sword, and his father trying to hit his mother with a knife: exaggerated and almost comedic, a bit nonsensical. And one-offs, not representative of usual behavior. Not so with the lover, where every of his actions is taken very seriously, and he is aggressive and coercitive: he grabs her and doesn’t let go even when she struggles, is constantly smashes her against walls, forcibly kisses her even when she tries to push him away (she ultimately acquiesces). Shows up drunk, screams at her and grabs her, completely manhandling her, etc. ML was never so aggressive and coercitive, be it in their daily lives or when being intimate. A bit of this is the cultural context and year of the drama, presumably some things didn’t really age very well, and so I have to refer to what is considered out of the ordinary in-universe (where you have ML’s father and mother going at each other with sticks and knives, FL’s mother beating up her children, FL beating up her peers, etc.). But even with that caveat, I have always perceived the lover as unstable and somewhat crazy, and, again, this was not a one off, off character thing, it was his usual behavior: the top rated review is correct in labeling him as “pretty stalker-y second male lead with anger issues”. And it was narratively acknowledged when he essentially kidnapped FL. In fact, I was fully in agreement with FL the first time around, and found it entirely inappropriate that she would have to apologize to him.

At the end of the drama, you had a situation where her lover gets away with it scott free, without any criticism, despite his objectively crazy behavior, while the husband gets the usual treatment the husband tends to get in these dramas, frankly, which is somehow having to be held responsible for things FL chose to do herself and/or her being completely uncommunicative, as if it was his responsibility to ensure she was always happy without her having to owe the fact that, you know, she didn’t *talk* to him? And had an affair, which, just like the issues with the children, she didn’t tell him about? The kids issue was completely forgotten, I would have expected them to bring it up when they talked about children at the end and the sister in law was dead.

Basically, the more conflict between FL and her lover, and the more he felt she pined after ML, the happier I got, pure karma, frankly. “I liked X” is not an explanation for anything, it doesn’t mean you can disregard the impact on everyone else to get X, and the lover certainly didn’t like it when he was on the receiving end.

I don't think that this is in contrast with the review, though. You are right about Il Ri's motives. The reviewer is right that ultimately her husband, mother, brother in law and even lover advised her not to get involved with ML's family's messes, and she did it anyway, and that she was completely uncommunicative with her husband (even about something like the kids thing, which to me was an absolute breach of trust: I mean, she deceived him for seven years? And he thought it was a medical problem? It's fully within her rights to choose not to have children, but if so, she should have had an honest conversation with her husband, it's the kind of things that partners might have different expectations on, and he has the right to know if their goals are not aligned, he might reconsider the relationship (probably not, but still it should be his informed decision). Ultimately, both the decision to do this and the decision to not talk about it with her husband (and even outright deceive him) where entirely her choices, yet he seems to get blamed for something that he had essentially no control over: he did the same as her mother and lover, and achieved the same results, which were nothing.

I don't really agree with the notion of tying this to the affair, though. Sure, she ignored those responsibilities during the affair, but she could have simply done the same thing by accepting her husband's advice and simply... not get involved in the first place. I also disagree that not getting caught would have solved the situation: it would have only added one more lie (to add to the children one, etc.), and they would have still had their problems. Lastly, I have to admit that I found the devotion to the sister in law thing a bit hard to square with the affair... I mean, she feel so guilty, can find it in herself to cheat on the girl's brother, and also to go to the movies with her lover in tow, even talking about the guy the cheated on her brother with in front of her sister in law?

I completely respect your right to your opinion, of course, but I’ll say that my perspective was quite different, and probably I have the characters in inverse order.

On male lead, clearly him and FL were not involved romantically when she was 18. I don't think he had any feelings for her, nor did he take her crush seriously (until she got hurt trying to save him, at which point he didn't doubt her feelings), in any case he certainly didn't pursue any romantic entanglement. He met her at the hospital, then was her substitute teacher for a few months while waiting to go to the US to study. He treated her as a friend, tried to get her to study and further her studies, I see nothing wrong or inappropriate with him being a friend and helping her outside the classroom, plenty of teachers did this with me, talked about life, etc. He clearly stopped her attempts to pursue him romantically while she was 18, we cannot pretend he didn't, and in any case they only begun dating seven years late, when she was in her mid to late twenties and working for 6 years, getting her sister through college, he met her again, and they started dating. Which was entirely appropriate. They were both well into adulthood, and it's perfectly appropriate, say, for a superior and subordinate at a company to meet seven years later when they work at different companies and date. The fact he was very briefly her teacher for a few months almost a decade prior doesn't meant they shouldn't date when they are not teacher and student, and are well into adulthood.

There are actually tons of nice things he did towards Il Ri. He was the one to discover her talent for art, and to try to get her into an art institute and improve her grades. Him and his wife split equally the house tasks according to capability, sharing the domestic burden. And, of course, he cared about her, and respected her desires, even if they were to her apparent detriment, such as her decision to involve herself in his family life (while advising her not to). Hee Tae is in fact the one that recognized FL's talent and took steps to get her to attend an art institute, before her incident. And, of course, when he learned she was overwhelmed, he tried to keep her from his family, even getting her lover to cooperate to hide his mother's dementia (he also, like his brother, FL's mother and even her lover, tried to get her to stop involving herself in the issues of his family, she was the one who refused to do so out of some unearned guilt, which was understandable, but completely her responsibility and decision.

I mean, compare him to the lover. A nutjob tried to force her to leave her home, despite her telling her that she didn't want to because all her family and friends were there, and when she refused he literally kidnapped her, stopping her from leaving the car and speeding in traffic, almost getting into an accident. He didn't want her not to be a doormat for the family, he wanted her to be a doormat for him, and follow all his wishes, with no regards for her individuality. Not surprising, really, he was the kind of scumbag that would get into a relationship with a married woman, someone actually married to someone who had never wronged him and even someone he knew, explicitly stating he cared only about what he wanted, and intentionally disregarded how it would impact everyone else. Only to have the sheer gall to act as if *his* feelings should be prioritized, and about her having feelings for the husband she had been married to for 7 years, and had known for 14... sorry, who is the carpenter again? Someone who she had met mere days, maybe weeks prior? She had been kissing him three days after meeting, then once again, then their relationship ended, and her husband discovered it. Again, the supposed big love.

The latter, instead of trying to help Hee Tae and Il Ri get back together (which he would do if he was a good person and truly wanted Il Ri to be happy) when he finally admits to himself that he's second fiddle. Doing it by telling him who Il Ri thought was at her bedside when she woke up. This is my interpretation, but he leaves the chair to be a constant reminder of what happened and lies to Hee Tae about Il Ri leaving with him knowing that Hee Tae most likely won't contact Il Ri to give her the gift. And he's right, had they not met at that intersection Hee Tae probably wouldn't have had any contact with Il Ri until too much time had passed for them to reconcile. While when Hee Tae finds out the dude is leaving, he makes sure that he and Il Ri get an opportunity to say their goodbyes. Sure Hee Tae and Il Ri had reconciled at that time but he was still willing to risk it if the truth was that Il Ri actually preferred carpenter dude. In terms of attractiveness, I do find him rather attractive, but that's very much in the eye of the beholder. I do find him interesting, with his biology facts. Again, plenty of pairing I don't find attractive the other side. For example, in Secret Love Affair, I would never have gone after FL when SFL was available. That's subjective.

I will have to push back on "stalkerish", "anger issues" and "vengefulness" in terms of ML. He had perfectly justified reasons to be angry (not that this means he expressed his anger well, but he had every right to be angry, it wasn't some irrational impulse or chronic problem, he certainly was not an angry person prior to the affair), and was obviously entirely justified in following the two cheaters, as it turns out, as for vengefulness... I mean, are we joking? Again, refer to the event described above with the chair, SML and FL. He ends up together with FL and is even nice enough to ensure that her and her lover can meet prior to his departure. That's pretty much fantasy land right there. As the top rated review correctly stated: "pretty stalker-y SECOND male lead with anger issues". Ultimately ML might not have the lover's abs (maybe), but at least he is not an idiot, which the lover definitely was: just plain unintelligent. He was also an antisocial loner. Uncommunicative, always angry looking, etc. ML was not: he was liked in his social circle.

I didn't like the second male lead at all. I find KJ's character distasteful on a number of levels. First of all, the notion of having an affair with a married woman, particularly one whose husband he knew, particularly when he knows she is actually in love with her husband, is gross and repulsive. He freely admits that he cared only about what he wanted, intentionally disregarding how his actions would impact anyone else. To the extend that when he feels insecure, he insists to take FL aware and separate her friend friends and family, and even kidnaps her (just like he showed up at the Jangs’ drunk, or screaming and dragging her away). Compare and contrast this with ML, who was willing to see her go away with her lover, and even after getting back together with her, told her about the lover’s departure, willing to lose her if it meant she would be happier.

Secondly, the lover was stalkerish, immature and aggressive/violent, and not as a single instance, but as a repeated pattern. He continuously grabbed FL's harm very strongly, not letting go even when she tried to free herself, dragged her around as she resisted, totally manhandled her.

I cannot fathom what FL saw in the guy. He was beyond merely pushy. He constantly manhandled her, was sexually coercitive. He continuously slammed her against walls, touched her exposed breasts with a hammer, forcefully kissed her against her will, even when she tried to push back (ultimately, she acquiesced). He showed up at her in laws' house screaming at her and trying to drag her away, was possessive and controlling, essentially kidnapped her, refusing to let her exit the car, and speeding, risking an accident. He totally disregarded her wishes and pressured her into taking the relationship places she was not ready for, caring only about his insecurities. It was recognized by her, in-universe, that his behavior was highly unstable.

Again, I want to stress that one thing to note here is the extent to which this behavior was a pattern, a constant, with him. Because the husband also had the awful meltdown scene when he discovered her infidelity, but that was a one off, and in a cultural context and drama year, and in-universe depiction, where you had every mother beating their children, be them young or adults, his brother forcefully kissing FL's sister on the table, and ML's mother trying to beat his father with a wooden sword, while he tried to stab her with a knife. The latter, like ML's outburst, appeared to be meant as intentionally exaggerated and comedic, conversely in none of the lover's scene does his barely contained violence and possessiveness appear to have been meant as exaggerated or comedic. It was dead serious behavior. And, again, not an isolated incident, but a pattern of behavior. Another difference with respect to ML is the fact that he never seemed aggressive or coercitive when they were intimate, whereas every second of the lover's performance was a form of slamming her against the wall, forcibly grabbing her, forcibly kissing her and continuing even after she tried to push him away, and so on. The guy didn't seem to quite grasp the notion of consent, frankly. As his later kidnapping attempt, locking her into a speeding car, attested to.

They had not even known each other mere days, maybe weeks prior. Plus, frankly, he was constantly (and I am not talking about an isolated episode, a one off, but something he always did) manhandled her, grabbed her when she didn't want to grabbed, dragged her around like a ragdoll, showed her against walls, forcibly kissed her, continuing again even after she pushed him back. Now, to be clear, everyone was violent in the show, it's the cultural context and year of the drama, and we should judge this relative to in-universe behavior (though it was still a constant, rather than an isolated incident, and it was not portrayed exaggeratedly and/or comedically, like the husband's meltdown, his mother attacking his father with a wooden sword, his father stabbing her with knives, or his brother kissing FL's sister on the table: in the lover's case, it was not only absolutely serious, but constant, not an isolated incident, but a habit. That said, while it should be judged differently due to the nature and standard of the show, it's worth pointing out that this means that he cannot act as if FL is leading him along, when he is the one pressuring her and even forcibly initiating physical contact.

Conversely, while I find much to criticize with FL, the way she treated her lover is not one of them. I mean, let’s be clear. On one hand, the guy was willing to pursue a married woman, worse a woman married to someone she considered her soulmate, worse someone married to someone who had never done anything against him by that point in time, and that he even knew. And explicitly admitted that he cared only about what he wanted, and intentionally disregarded how his actions would affect anyone else. All of that is completely gross. But he also clearly pressured FL, both in terms of manhandling her and pressuring her in their intimate scenes, even when she refuses, and in terms of pushing his ideas on her, without regard for her own, as when he kidnapped her. So he cannot gaslight her, as he does, and pretend that it’s her that led him along. He pressured her, without giving her space (he literally expected her and her husband to get past their feelings in the course of a single dinner). Again, she has been in a 7 year marriage with someone she had known for 14 years. She has met her lover for what, days, weeks tops? They kissed each other the third day, then one more time after that, then the relationship ended and simultaneously was discovered. And this is the big love, and he expects it to compare it to a seven year marriage with someone she had known for almost a decade and a half? I mean, mere days, at most weeks, ago, they didn’t even know each other. The timing and premise is insane here.

In terms of the in-laws, I don’t agree with the notion that FL let herself be bullied: she talked back at them. Aside from that, I am in agreement, except for the motive. everyone, from her husband, to her brother in law, to her mother and her own lover, tried to get her to stop interfering in the in-laws’ lives, from not getting into their fights, to stop taking care of the sister in law, to not get involved with the mother in law’s dementia.

On this note, I'll also point out that if she listened to her lover, she wouldn't have become "not a doormat" (which I don't agree she was, in any case), she would have simply become *his* doormat. He wanted her to do what *he* wanted, not what *she* wanted, he didn't care about her perspective. This culminated in his decision that they should move away from there, despite the fact that she didn't want to, as her family and friends were there, and it was her home. As he did in pursuing the relationship, her lover reacted with selfishness and impulsiveness, and just plain insanity (perceived as such in-universe) by essentially kidnapping her, locking her in the car with him, and speeding, almost getting into an accident. Plus, the sheer gall to gaslight her, pretending that she led him on, when he had been the one to pressure her all the way (including forcibly grabbing and kissing her despite her attempts to resist and get him to unhand her or push him away).

Let's be clear, he was the third party here, and he explicitly stated he cared only about what he wanted, intentionally disregarding how it would affect anyone else, plus he pressured her all the way, so he doesn't get to act as if now that it's his turn, he gets to complain about his feelings not being prioritized and her leading him on (it was, again, the exact opposite, him pushing her and not giving her space). Again, I would like to remind you that him and FL met, three days later they were kissing, then there was another kissing section, after which the relationship ended correspondingly to when it was discovered. They had known each other for days, weeks tops... and this is supposed to be love? A relationship of the same significant as a 7 year marriage with someone she considers her soulmate, who she had known for 14 years? He has to be insane to have the expectation that their relationship could reach that point, when mere days, or weeks tops, before, they had never met.

I mean, he had the capability of saying no... and he did say no. Nothing romantic happened between them while she was 18 (just to note that in most modern countries that would also make you a legal adult, not that that means he shouldn't have refused, of course he should have, and did). He met her at the hospital, then was a substitute teacher in her class for a few months while the original teacher was on maternity leave, while waiting to go to the US to study. Their relationship started seven years later, when she was in her mid to late twenties and had been working for 7 years. Again, if you have been superior and subordinate at a company and then meet 7 years later at another company, in a different context, there is absolutely nothing morally wrong with dating.

In terms of her being treated as a doormat by his family, I don't agree with the characterization: she was obviously talking back to her, as she should. Her husband told her not to involve herself in his family's matters, and so did her lover, mother and brother in law. She did anyway, out of undeserved guilt over the sister in law situation. She was also completely uncommunicative with her husband: if she was unhappy, it was her duty tell him, he should not have been expected to be a mind reader (among other things, the man was stuck on a boat in the middle of the sea for weeks at a time due to his -low paying- job). And it was totally unethical for her to hide from him the truth about the child issue: if she hadn't wanted any, she should have honestly told him, the guy thought it might have been a medical issue! Not to mention, while it's completely her prerogative to decide whether to have children, as she is the one who would have to give birth to them, it's clearly something they should discuss, as it might mean they have different goals in the relationship.

Ultimately, I disagree that any of that was his fault. Besides telling her not to involve herself in his family business, he had no control over what she did, as did none of the other people who tried to dissuade her. It was her decision to do this, and her decision to be entirely uncommunicative.

I wouldn't use the b-word to describe any woman, because of the obvious sexist connotations, but, while I understand the reason for FL's guilt (though they were not rational, as she knew herself), and have first hand experience of how tiring it is to take care of someone with a disability, or dementia (due to relatives in the family), this was entirely her responsibility.

Whether he was an incredible husband was not the point. The show never said he was. You don't have to be in order to be treated with basic loyalty and honesty. Since he was willing to not betray and deceive her in that manner, he deserved to be treated the same way, as simple as that. And being unhappy or in a relationship you want out of does not meant you are entitled to cheat.

As a matter of fact, I think that the female colleague was a much better person. She acknowledges she might not have been able to take care of issues such as dementia and paralysis. That's more honest, and decent, than doing what FL did, making herself miserable while lying to her husband's face about things, and betraying and deceiving him. That's better, the other way around is putting the cart before the horse. I wouldn't even say that what FL did was a welcome addition to the basic (loyalty, honesty, etc.), because it was actually something that her husband, etc. wanted her to stop doing, she *chose* to do it out of guilt, and at that point, I don't know how having an affair on the sister in law's brother, and even watching a movie with her accompanied by her lover (absolutely... beyond words) would have been preferable.

I mean, if violence and aggression are a problem (and really, as unfortunate as it is, you should learn to contextualize it when watching Asian dramas, particularly from more than a decade ago), then I fail to see how, if one didn’t want to be hypocritical and engage in selective outrage, it would make sense to support the second lead. At most, it would make sense to give everyone a pass, and included in that, even the lover, but in terms of patterns of violence, the lover was pretty much the worst offender: in the lover’s case, it was not just one single outburst, an outlier, but rather a pattern of aggression and violence. His default MO when interacting with the female lead was to aggressively grab her arm, not letting go despite her attempts to free herself, and drag her around like a ragdoll. Or slamming her against a wall and blocking her escape. In one case, armed with a hammer which he used to open up her camisole. Or forcibly kissing her, and continuing to do so again even after she attempted, and failed, to push him away. The guy had a very questionable concept of consent, and at least with the husband, that was never the case in terms of their intimate interactions. And, again, contrary to the husband, the lover had a pattern of violent, possessive and controlling behavior towards FL, it was basically his MO. He showed up at her in-laws drunk, or screaming at her and dragging her away in front of everyone. He also completely disregarded her wishes and tried to impose her desires on him, such as when he wanted to take her away, not caring that she was completely against the idea because all her friends and family were where she currently was. When she refused, he actually kidnapped her, and, with her stuck with him in a car, proceeded to speed in traffic and almost got into an accident. The behavior was acknowledged in-universe as extreme.

Conversely, while I find much to criticize with FL, the way she treated her lover is not one of them. I mean, let’s be clear. On one hand, the guy was willing to pursue a married woman, worse a woman married to someone she considered her soulmate, worse someone married to someone who had never done anything against him by that point in time, and that he even knew. And explicitly admitted that he cared only about what he wanted, and intentionally disregarded how his actions would affect anyone else. All of that is completely gross. But he also clearly pressured FL, both in terms of manhandling her and pressuring her in their intimate scenes, even when she refuses, and in terms of pushing his ideas on her, without regard for her own, as when he kidnapped her. So he cannot gaslight her, as he does, and pretend that it’s her that led him along. He pressured her, without giving her space (he literally expected her and her husband to get past their feelings in the course of a single dinner). Again, she has been in a 7 year marriage with someone she had known for 14 years. She has met her lover for what, days, weeks tops? They kissed each other the third day, then one more time after that, then the relationship ended and simultaneously was discovered. And this is the big love, and he expects it to compare it to a seven year marriage with someone she had known for almost a decade and a half? I mean, mere days, at most weeks, ago, they didn’t even know each other. The timing and premise is insane here.

In terms of violence more broadly, I do share the feeling of being taken aback by the husband’s meltdown, and I also found the outburst exaggerated, possibly for comedic value (like the father with the knives, the beating of the children, the kissing of FL’s second sister on the table, etc.), which was frankly never the case in the lover’s scene (where, as serious and troubling as they were, always seemed very serious). I do think, however, that both the cultural context and year of the drama need to be taken into account here, as well as evaluating it in relation to other in-universe behavior. Let’s be clear: everyone beat each other up there. FL with her friends, FL’s mother with her daughters, ML’s parents with their children. ML’s father tried to stab his mother with knives, and she tried to take his head off with a wooden sword (and I felt that the outburst scene was meant to be perceived as similarly exaggerated and comedic, as opposed to the lover’s actions, which were always depicted with absolute seriousness). I’ll also acknowledge, to prevent being reminded of this fact, that yes, if the roles were reversed nobody would bat an eye if she had done the same thing, as per ML’s mother’s behavior with her husband. Ultimately, the point is that if this is going to be treated as a problem, then basically every character’s actions should be assessed in the same manner, and most of them would be worse than ML’s, furthermore, again, it was a single, isolated incident, whereas the lover’s physical aggression and sexual coercion, and violence, really, directed at FL (continuing even when she clearly wants to be let go, or getting intimate with her as she tries to push him away, or outright kidnapping her and speeding off in a car when she is trying to escape, when she refuses to go with him), were not a single episode, were not depicted even remotely as exaggerated and comedic, but rather dead serious, and were a constant, a pattern.

In terms of the in-laws, I don’t agree with the notion that FL let herself be bullied: she talked back at them. And everyone, from her husband, to her brother in law, to her mother and her own lover, tried to get her to stop interfering in the in-laws’ lives, from not getting into their fights, to stop taking care of the sister in law, to not get involved with the mother in law’s dementia. She was the one who chose to take on those responsibilities, because of unearned guilt tied to the ML’s sister’s situation. She was also completely uncommunicative with her husband, and even more, outright deceptive, for example she made him believe that they were unable to conceive children, and he even suspected some medical issue, getting a visit at the hospital. This was not really brought up again, but I found that to be a massive violation of trust: while clearly she had every right to choose whether to have children or not, as she is the one who would have to carry them to term, obviously it’s something that should be discussed honestly and openly with her partner, because it’s the kind of thing that, if they have different goals, should make them reevaluate their relationship, as they wouldn’t want the same thing and wouldn’t be on the same page. In this respect, by the way, I didn’t appreciate the lover’s behavior, and I am not only talking about him showing up drunk or shouting and manhandling her, grabbing her by the arm and dragging her outside in front of everyone. I am talking of the fact he tried to impose his desires on her, warning her to get away, despite her making it clear she considered that place her home because her family and friends were there. When she refused, he literally kidnapped her. But I have already explained how I felt in terms of the lover, she was in the right and he had no right to complain: he was the one who chose to be a third party and walked into this situation, he cannot expect a level of consideration he was unwilling to grant others.

Compare and contrast this with ML, who was willing to see her go away with her lover, and even after getting back together with her, told her about the lover’s departure, willing to lose her if it meant she would be happier.

Or, to quote from another reviewer:

```
How is the carpenter dude in any way extraordinary? He's a selfish pos.

Just from the last couple of episodes:
When instead of trying to help Hee Tae and Il Ri get back together (which he would do if he was a good person and truly wanted Il Ri to be happy) when he finally admits to himself that he's second fiddle. Doing it by telling him who Il Ri thought was at her bedside when she woke up. He leaves the chair to be a constant reminder of what happened and lies to Hee Tae about Il Ri leaving with him knowing that Hee Tae most likely won't contact Il Ri to give her the gift. And he's right, had they not met at that intersection Hee Tae probably wouldn't have had any contact with Il Ri until too much time had passed for them to reconcile.

While when Hee Tae finds out the dude is leaving, he makes sure that he and Il Ri get an opportunity to say their goodbyes. Sure Hee Tae and Il Ri had reconciled at that time but he was still willing to risk it if the truth was that Il Ri actually preferred carpenter dude.
```

I completely agree, obviously, that your perspective shouldn’t be marginalized, it goes without saying that it would be wrong to do so. At the same time, I’ll note that saying that if someone gets cheated on they “deserved it” is just disgusting. Betraying and deceiving your partner is just plain gross. If you have a problem or are unhappy in the relationship, it’s your responsibility to not be completely uncommunicative and actually let your partner (who is not a mind reader) know about it, or just split up. There is really no valid reason for betraying your partner, certainly being unhappy in the relationship cannot be considered one, as there are options. Exceptions would be those in which leaving or talking to your partner is not an option, such as when you are in an abusive relationship with someone who wouldn’t let you leave them (and in such cases, I would prioritize finding a way to escape over having an affair, which if anything would seem to me to be even more dangerous), or it’s a historical context where divorce was not an option, such as in the drama Hymn of Death.

I think that you make some good points, and some not so good points:

1) Age difference and the fact that for a few months he had taught her biology before he went to study to the US

A grown man accepts advances by a grown woman in her mid to late twenties. The fact that, after meeting her at the hospital, he was briefly her substitute teacher at her school when she was 18, for a few months, while the original teacher was on maternity leave, before he went to study in the US, is irrelevant. Their romantic relationship didn't start when she was a student. If I work as someone's baby sitter for a few months when they are a teenager, and I meet them again almost a decade later, when they are indisputably adults (mid to late twenties), frankly I see no problem, because there is in fact none.

Again, the two of them started their romantic relationship when they were both well into adulthood, if I recall correctly FL was something like 25 or 26 at the time, had been working for six years and supporting her sister through college. There is absolutely nothing wrong about two adults dating. I know you are 19, but please distinguish your personal aesthetic preferences with an objective moral standard, such as "is anyone involved able to consent to this arrangement" and "is anyone involved actually harmed by this behavior". You are absolutely *not* entitled to impose your "morality" on adults, your private moral preferences (more like aesthetic preferences, given there is actually no "victim" to speak of, and the only rights being violated here would be the right of the people involved, as adults, to make their own decisions as is their rights, without being harassed by self entitled busybodies who somehow are convinced they know better than the individuals actually involved in the relationship how they should live their lives.

ML had met her at the hospital, then they met again when he became a temporary teacher for a few months, substituting the biology teacher in maternity leave. He didn't pursue a relationship while she was a student: she had a crush on him, and she, like basically everyone in the classroom, violated his boundaries. He did try to put a stop to it. Gradually they developed a friendship, and he tried to help her get into an art school by pushing her to study more. I don't think it's at all clear that he had developed any sort of romantic inclination at the time, they were simply friends, and she had a crush on him, which he didn't take seriously until she nearly lost her life saving him from the car.

Anyway, even if he had felt something for her, objectively speaking this never materialized into anything romantic while they were in school. I would also add that while she is labeled a "minor" in the drama, she is actually 18, which would make her a legal adult in almost any other modern country, so even if they had pursued something, while he might have been unprofessional and gotten him fierd, it would have in no way, shape or form been illegal or in any way pedophilic (let's use the correct words). But, again, they got together when she was 26, so obviously he was not someone who went out of his way to pursue teenagers.

I'll also add that some cultural awareness and mindfulness of the year of the drama would do wonders here. I mentioned the 18 aspect because there certainly *are* dramas where the relationship starts when one of the parties is around that age. It's the case with Goblin, for example (which admittedly received similar criticism), as well as Secret Love Affair, where the younger party was not only a student in a situation where their partner had absolute power over their education and financial future, but was also two decades older than them. In other words, that would have been like ML in Valid Love dating FL when she was barely out of high school.

2) ML's family looking down on FL because of her education/background and treating her as a slave

This is undoubtedly unethical, but it's something ML's family does, certainly not ML (he calls her uneducated once when he is angry at her affair, but it's perfectly understandable for people in an argument to say something that they don't mean to hurt the other person, and certainly in terms of emotional anguish not at all comparable to what she had put him through, and certainly it's not the worst thing he did in that circumstance, more on that later... in any case, the point is that there is factually speaking no evidence that he looks down on her because of her education or background, he certainly doesn't look down on his in-laws, and in fact even when arguing with FL in the circumstance I mentioned, he doesn't target her blue collar background).

In terms of FL being used as a slave, and connected to the above consideration, I disagree with this take. FL was perfectly willing and able to talk back to her insulting in-laws, and did so (it was also remarked in the drama). She threw away her brother in law's food, etc. In terms of the rest, she did involve herself in the arguments between the ML's parents, and also took care of his sister, and later was involved when the mother in law had dementia.

I don't doubt whatsoever that taking care of someone in the sister's condition is very tough: I have had to take care of a terminally ill aunt in a similar condition, and also of a 100 year old grandfather. I also don't doubt that she had a tough time interfering in the parent's fights. But none of that whatsoever is imputable to ML, let's be absolutely clear about that:

a. ML, her brother in law, her mother, and even her lover explicitly tell her not to do this. From telling her not to interfere in the parents' fights, to not take care of the sister, to not get involved in the mother's dementia. She is the one that insist in involving herself in all of those matters. Nobody pushed it on her (and even if they had, she had the option to refuse, she has agency, it's neither her husband's place nor responsibility to intervene here, beyond telling her not to involve herself in those messes). You say "they talked about getting help" but she was still the one taking care of the sister. Exactly. She was the one that insisted to. The drama makes it very clear that it's her decision, because she feels some irrational guilt over what happened to the sister (who, irrc, was her friend, to be clear).

b. She was completely uncommunicative with her husband. If she was unhappy, she should have told him. The guy's job forces him to be on a ship for tens of days at a time, and in any case he is not a mind reader.

c. I'll note that this went beyond being simply uncommunicative, and reached being outright deceptive. She deceived him into believing that the reason they couldn't have kids was because of a medical issue, and he even went to the hospital to check. While ultimately it was obviously her prerogative to decide whether to have children or not, because she is the one who would need to carry them through pregnancy, obviously in a couple this is a matter where expectations need to be aligned and people need to talk honestly about it, as, for example, it might have been a very important thing for her partner, and in that case they might need to reevaluate if their goals and values were compatible, in terms of the relationship.

In other words, while she was certainly mistreated, she gave as good a she got verbally, and as for the obligations she took on, she did so out of her own volition, against the advice of her husband and basically everyone else, for reasons that were irrational, though understandable, but that still make the whole thing ultimately her choice and responsibility. She was also uncommunicative and outright deceptive, and her partner should not be a mind reader: she should be the one to tell him if she is unhappy and why.

3) Her "spending her entire youth" focused on ML was, again, her choice. She had other pursuers, met ML very briefly when she was 18 (thus a big chunk of her "youth" had actually already passed), and didn't see him for 7 years until they met again in her mid to late twenties. She had every chance to pursue other romantic relationships with anyone she wanted, and had 7 whole years to do so. The fact that she chose not to was entirely her choice, and in no way ML's responsibility. He has every right to choose to be with any adult that would have him (if they are not already in a relationship), and simply because he had briefly taught her biology for a few months when she was 18, it doesn't mean that a relationship with her would be unethical henceforth, just like if a college girl five years someone's senior babysat a teenager as a side job doesn't mean they cannot date them as adults, or just like if someone has been someone else's boss for a few months at a previous company, it doesn't meant they are forever banned from pursuing a relationship with them. In any case, he didn't make FL avoid pursuing other relationships, and while I do think it would have been good if she had pursued them (at the very least, they would have likely avoided this mess of an affair, which was primarily driven by her being a woman in her early thirties with an adolescent level ability to sort through her own feelings).

4) Here, contrary to your claims below (and I certainly don't approve of the name calling you have been subjected to, to be clear), you are in fact downplaying the severity of her affair. Sure, she *only* made out with her lover, she didn't sleep with him. She believed she was in love with him, and had an emotional affair, which was also physical (at the level of making out, not sleeping together). The emotional side of the affair, I feel, was the more devastating element in this situation (I don't think that she even disclosed the physical aspect, in fact she misled her partner into believing they had done nothing, by telling him they had not slept together). You are trivializing it just because they didn't sleep together. This is not a reasonable thing to do. Emotional affairs of the sort depicted in the drama are clearly hurtful to the relationship, far beyond the level of physical intimacy (which was nevertheless present, though petting someone's breasts with a hammer has to be the most psychopathic attempt at courtship I could imagine). As an example, her actions are basically the same as the one of SFL in Backstreet Rookie, but her level of emotional involvement with her lover clearly makes the whole thing extremely damaging to the relationship.

I will partially accept the part you highlighted about FL not initiating the kisses, in fact SML kissed her forcefully, even when she tried to resist, similar to how he dragged her around, slammed her to the wall, etc. (no "kabadon" for the husband, who was generally more "tame", physically, compared to ML, with the exceptions described below). But it's also worth noting that afterwards she was a willing participant in the makeout session, so focusing only on the first aspect, while important in making the case that he was not being lead on by FL (I find it astonishing that someone who chose to have an affair with a married woman and explicitly admitted he didn't care about anything but what he wanted, and intentionally ignored all repercussions, would complain his feelings and needs were not being prioritized), shouldn't be used to pretend that she was not a willing participant in the physical aspects of the affair.

5) There is absolutely nothing wrong with him immediately asking for divorce in such a situation. I don't see anything unethical with her having feelings for someone else (those are not things she can control), but hiding this from her partner and deceiving him, and all the rest she did which made it an emotional and on some level physical affair, was clearly a breach of trust, and in any case her having feelings for someone else, and the immature way she handled them, could very well be ground to end said relationship anyway.

I'll be very clear and say that the fact that she was insulted by his family, or what she did for them, in no way, shape or form entitles her to her husband being or wanting to stay in a relationship with her. It's a separate matter from her breach of trust, and in no way compensates for, let alone erases, her breach of trust. And that's not even getting into how her behavior is motivated by guilt, and nobody, let alone her husband, wants to do the things she does (she also keeps her motives and feelings on the matter from him, and deceives him about their inability to conceive, which I would consider a deception on the level of the affair).

In other words, gratitude does not imply that one needs to be with you, particularly if they feel they cannot trust you, and it's her own responsibility to nip her own feelings in the bud, or sort them out, if such a thing is even possible. Because not only does one not have the ability to control who they do or do not love (otherwise she would have done so), but even less who someone else do or do not love (otherwise her lover would have done so, in fact he pretty much intimated her and her husband to stop loving each other in a meeting, as if they could simply clear up their lingering feelings that way).

I would also say that ML's female colleague's approach was much preferable. She admitted she might not have it in her to deal with dementia and paralysis. Better that than making herself miserable and using that as an excuse to have an affair. I am serious. The opposite is putting the cart before the horse. The basics are loyalty and honesty in a relationship. FL involving herself in the family affairs was not only not a cherry on top, but something ML, etc. didn't want her to do, and asked her explicitly not to do.

6) The slap and tantrum, which you only alluded to, were actually the parts of the situation that I was disturbed by. But then again, basically everyone else did it: her mother did it to her and her sister, his father even threatened his wife with a knife, and of course her lover was always grabbing her wrist, not letting go when she tried to free herself, slamming her against walls, forcibly kissing her when she tried to push him away, "molesting" her with a hammer, even kidnapping her with a car, speeding and not letting go, to say nothing of shouting at her and dragging her around in ML's house, showing up drunk, etc. I also do acknowledge (to prevent the objection) that yes, if the roles were reversed nobody would have batted a finger if she had slapped him (ML's mother assaulted his father in worse ways, slaps, chasing him with a baton, etc., and he of course threatened her with a knife). In other words, it doesn’t really work as a way to discriminate between such cases, since it’s basically ubiquitous, it adds no information, besides the point that some cultural element that, judging from reviews at the time, did not raise any eyebrows, aged poorly.

The way I choose to handle this is to acknowledge my discomfort, but also to be aware of the difference in cultural context and the year this drama was produced in, and evaluate the actions according to the writer's intentions: they didn't intend any of the above to be seen as "strange", and that's why it gets essentially no comments (in fact, SML's behavior does get highlighted as particularly unstable on more than one occasion, which it clearly was towards the end). Just like ML's brother kissing FL's sister on the table... I mean, looked at without those lenses, none of the characters, including FL’s own violence towards her peers, look particularly good in terms of the aforementioned boundaries. Basically, the tantrum was depicted in an exaggerated, and potentially intended to be comedic manner (similar to the brother kissing the sister on the table, or the knife scene, or FL’s mother beating her, or ML’s mother trying to assault his father with some kind of bat or wooden sword.

My take on this is that I will accept that some of the writing decisions aged very poorly (and if I was the writer and had a magic wand, I would go back and fix them, particularly because clearly they were not necessary for what they wanted to convey, and they didn’t mean the behavior to stand out as abnormal), because I don’t think that in the cultural context and year the writer wrote in, as clearly indicated by the complete lack of reaction to the event, they didn’t intend to depict this as a “strange” or “out the ordinary” reaction, if not for comedic effect. Also, if one gets hung up on it, none of the characters are safe, from mothers beating their children, to ML’s parents going at each other with bats and knives, to SML basic mode of interaction with FL being to physically grab her arm, not let go when she tries to free herself, drag her around like a ragdoll, and slam her and confine her against a wall, not to mention the weird thing with the hammer, and his total meltdown which included him showing up to ML’s house to scream at her and drag her away, or kidnapping her and not letting her out of the car as he speeded and almost crashed. All behavior for which he is taken to task on the moment, only for FL in the ending acting as if she is the one that wronged the guy, as if his reaction was in any way sensible, considering he was the “third party” who had by his own admission cared about nothing but what he wanted, with no regards for anyone else.

I’ll add that FL and her lover met, what, mere days prior? They kissed after three days of meeting, and with what feels as at most weeks of knowing each other, they conclude it’s true love? In the context of a seven year old marriage with someone she has known for 14 years? And I am supposed to take this behavior from two people in their thirties seriously? Am I the only one who thinks that the entire premise of the triangle was absolutely nuts, as in, you have met this guy three days ago, then you kissed, then days later after barely getting another kiss section, and essentially coinciding with the end of the relationship, you get discovered, and you conclude that this days-long (not even months-long) relationship is love, and to be discussed in the same phrase as a seven year marriage with someone she considers her “soulmate”? It all seems the behavior of immature adolescents who are unable to sort through their feelings, which is what FL and her lover essentially are, given their lack of experience, despite being in their thirties. The lover in particular is depicted as completely uncommunicative, noncommittal, disagreeable and unsociable, in fact a cold loner with antisocial tendencies and behavior… all three of them (and I would throw in ML’s brother and parents) are oddballs and weirdos. FL’s mom and sister are the most normal people, which of course doesn’t mean that you don’t get the child beating, even of their adult daughters, but as I explained elsewhere, this is not considered out of the ordinary in-univers, whereas FL’s and her lover’s behavior definitely are (in fact, in universe ML by contrast is considered socially apt, likeable and popular, and overall “normal”).

And cultural milieu and aspects of the fiction that didn’t age well are used selectively, rather than judged in context, relative to the depicted in-universe behavior, in which case ML is frankly far, far from the worse offender (he neither tried to take anyone’s head off with a wooden sword, nor stab them with a knife, for example, and he never forced himself on ML by slamming and confining her against a wall, kissing her against her will, and continuing to do so even after she attempted to resist and pushed him away, all of which the lover did, and also ML’s brother, though in the latter’s case it was depicted with a comedic effect… my two cents is that ML’s outburst and his brother’s kissing scene on the table might be meant as intentionally exaggerated depictions, such as the knives and wooden sword scenes for the parents, whereas given the way they are depicted, none of the lover’s actions in that regard are depicted in a comedic or exaggerated manner, it’s simply treated as regular behavior… again, my point being less about the specific acts, in light of the drama’s year, and more about it making his complaints about FL basically leading him on complete nonsense, given he is the one that repeatedly tried to push her past her comfort zone either physically or in terms of separating her from friends and family, or pressuring her in the context of their relationship… it felt not as a matter of an isolated outburst, but rather as a pattern of possessiveness/insecurity/aggressiveness). With ML and FL, their physical interactions, outside some narrow circumstances as the massive meltdown described at point 5), were about a billion times more respectful and saner than basically any other couples, including the secondary couple. The lover in particular was a walking arm grabber and wall slammer, with him manhandling FL was basically a habit, not an exception. He was also never coercitive or violent in their intimate encounters, while the lover most definitely was: he forcefully kissed FL twice, continuing even despite her attempts to push him away, etc.

In other words, I would partially grant your point, in that I was taken by surprise and would have very much preferred that part not to be there, particularly given it’s clearly not meant to portray something that the writer intends to be narratively acknowledged as a problem, and absolutely nothing is made better by that

Which, I guess, was kind of your point. But one can choose either to put things into context and ignore the bits that didn’t age well (given the cultural context and year the drama was produced in), or they can completely miss the interesting and thought provoking aspects of the drama. I guess that my take, ultimately, is that it’s a good thing that society evolved to the point we recognize this (and basically everything the lover does even *aside* from the affair, the waking arm grabbed and manhandler) as problematic.

Also, if the husband was some weirdo, etc., so were FL (I mean, in what world is she not) and her lover (guy washed his hairs for two months using toothpaste? Hello? Plus his behavior from the second half of the drama onwards, which frankly goes well past toxic and turns positively insane, and in this case, not because of cultural context -like the incessant kabadons and arm dragging-, but in a way that is acknowledging in-universe, such as when he essentially kidnaps FL into a speeding car, etc.). Lastly, I would like to stress that in fact the drama itself, and ML himself, admit that he was not a perfect husband, covering many of the same issues you raised, such as the fact that FL was unhappy due to the situation with the family, or her lack of experience, etc.

I don’t think that the show portrayed the husband as perfect, on the contrary both the show and the husband himself were quite clear about his flaws (some I find fair, some not so much) by the end of the drama. Those flaws do not, in my opinion, include the fact that, when they were both well into adulthood, and she was in her mid to late twenties, working for 6 years, he should refrain from dating her simply because he had briefly been her substitute teacher when she was 18 almost a decade prior. If you are someone’s superior at a company, and you meet them years later when you both work at different companies, it’s perfectly fine to date, you are in a different context and, in this case, you are both well over the age of majority.

I also don’t agree with the framing that ML “allowed” his family to “abuse” his wife. It’s actually something pretty common in kdrama and cdrama, and society to some extent (people choose their battles and are not stupidly antagonistic), but it’s not a fair description of the situation between ML, FL and his family. On one hand, it’s just misogynistic and appalling to act as if the wife wasn’t fully capable of defending herself, and needed her husband to step in: she talked back to her in laws. On the other hand, her husband, like her lover and mother and his brother in law, etc., tried to persuade her to not interfere with the family affairs, and they all failed. He didn’t really do anything different than anyone else, which was also everything he could have done, and he didn’t obtain anything either, because she wanted to be involved in the fights between her in-laws, caring for her sister in law and mother in law’s dementia, etc., out of some sense of guilt.

As I said below, her husband as often absent because he was on a ship. He routinely told her not to involve herself in his family's affairs, which she routinely did, from his parents' arguments to his sister's care, to her mother in law's dementia. He told her not to involve herself. His brother told her not to involve herself. Her mother told her not to involve herself. Even her lover told her not to involve herself. She chose to involve herself. I fail to see in what universe then it makes sense to blame her husband, who did exactly what everyone else listed above did to get her to stop, and achieved exactly what she achieved, which is to say nothing at all, did. Her husband was also unaware of many of her issues, for the simple fact that she didn't talk to him about it. On top of being uncommunicative, she also outright deceived him about their issues in conceiving children, to the point he went to the hospital for a check. She lied to his face for 7 years, and it's not ever addressed afterwards. That was massively unethical: she had every right to choose not to have children, but it's something that should have been discussed honestly with her partner, because they might want different things, and that would and should make them reevaluate their relationship. It was also a deception on the level of the affair itself.

So, certainly, her husband was not perfect (I’ll incidentally note than when discussing her affair, only things he did, good or bad, before the affair, should count, because of the self evident arrow of causality). But one’s partner shouldn’t need to be perfect, or even good, nor the relationship needs to be perfect, for you to treat your partner with basic loyalty, honesty and respect. He wouldn’t have done this to her, she did this to him.

A note on the language. I completely agree with you that it’s not okay to frame as, and insult, FL with terms like b***ch or w***e. But I’ll have to note that you go ahead and do the same with other characters, such as calling ML a pseudo pedophile, etc. When, in fact, him and FL started dating when she was in her mid to late twenties, and a working professional earning money and paying taxes for more than half a decade.

In short, if we take the actual issues raised by the drama, none of them were really ML’s fault. The situation with the family was due to FL’s own decisions, motivated by her guilt, and he handled it like her lover, mother and his brother did, telling her not to get involved. She refused. So she doesn’t get to complain about the outcome of her own choices. Nor about being completely uncommunicative, or outright deceptive (regarding the child situation, left unaddressed, and regarding the affair as well… I’ll note again that she doesn’t, iirc, disclose the physical side, tells him they didn’t have sex, but not about them making out twice), towards her husband. Both of which are her fault. He is not a mind reader, and she is an adult capable of talking with her in-laws and choosing what she wants to do, if she refuses his and everyone else’s advice to keep out of it, it’s her problem.

Basically, if you are unhappy, or want out of the relationship, you cannot use that to justify the affair. Nor the fact that in the future your husband would become a drunken loser (causality runs in one direction). You should instead stop being completely uncommunicative, or split up. The husband never put her through something like this when they were together, and frankly he had the opportunity, if he had wanted to (the female colleague would have probably not objected), but didn't, thus certainly deserved to be treated the same way.

She was not only immature and stupid, thought that too. This was a betrayal and a deception.

In terms of the husband, I don't know if the concept is hard to grasp or what, but you don't need to be perfect, or even close to perfect, to deserve to be treated with a shred of loyalty and honesty, and not be betrayed and deceived.

In terms of the husband, he was overall a good person. Good people can make mistakes, and even do bad or at times appalling things, it doesn't make them pure evil. Also, just as a simple matter of logic, if we are talking about the affair, only the things he did prior to the affair should be considered in that context. Calling it out because I saw a mix of complaints, some of which were about things he did after.

I find it appalling and just brainlessly immature to call him a "borderline Paedophile", not to mention massively hypocritical that you would *dare* to complain about the language people use to criticize FL (which I also find repulsive and mysoginistic, to be clear). He was nothing of the sort. Words have meaning. He met FL at the hospital when she was 18 (a legal adult in most modern nations, not that that meant they should have dated at that age, which they didn't). Then he became her temporary biology teacher for a few months while the original teacher was on maternity leave, until he waited to go to the US to study. She had a crush on him and he, correctly, spurned her advances. At the same time, they developed a friendship. I don't believe he held romantic feelings for her at this point, though if he did, he certainly didn't act on it, so we have really nothing to discuss.

This was not Goblin, nor Secret love affair (if it was the latter, then his present day self would be dating the past FL). Note that both of those have massive followings.

When they meet again, sever years later, she is in her mid to late twenties, has been working for 6 years and paying her sister's college, and therefore both of them have every right to get into whatever relationship they choose to have. Not only are both of them well into adulthood, and it seems absurd to me that the fact he had very briefly been her teacher for a few months almost a decade prior should be any factor at all here: they are no longer in that position, and if you, say, are superior and subordinate at a company, it doesn't mean that if you meet 7 years later at a different company it would be wrong for you to date.

Again, maybe there are people that it would still be wrong. Those people, in my opinion, should get a live and stop being obnoxious busybodies. Tons of people (including me, who couldn't care less what consenting adults get up to in their private lives, and have the epistemic humility to acknowledge I don't actually know what they see in the other person in the relationship, or how they should live their lives) do not.

> And also why do u think it's ok for a teacher to accept advances from a student? i don't care who made an attempt first it's weird are u sure ur not a Pedophile? someone pls investigate this person!

Can I point out that you are saying thins while complaining a few lines above:

> Calling a random person a w**** b**** and other sorts of things is literally demented use ur fucking head.

Again, I don't know what was in the previous comment, but in the drama ML did not in fact accept advances from a student (which, in the context of the drama, while not illegal -or at least not in most modern countries- might be grounds for him being fired). Obviously who would have made the first attempt would have limited moral relevance (I wouldn't say "none", but not enough to make a meaningful difference... it would have no moral relevance if the younger party was under the age of consent, clearly, because then it would be a case of statutory rape), if any. Certainly the teacher couldn't simply claim "she came onto me" if he did something of a romantic nature with the student. But in the case of ML in the drama, that was not the case, and it matters a whole lot that it was FL who had a crush on him and kissed him, etc., rather than vice versa, because obviously if it was something that was done *to* him, rather than something *he did*, it would be relevant in terms of evaluating his conduct. I mean, this should be obvious: a teacher pursuing a student, versus a student having a crush and pursuing a teacher, are two different things. Her kissing him is quite different from him kissing her, morally speaking: she is the teacher, he is the student, they wouldn't have equal moral responsibility, imho (I think you would agree).

It was clearly wrong to insult you, I won't defend that. But your views on this are manifestly irrational, and you are being insulting yourself. For example, you are the one who started throwing around the words 'pseudo pedophile', and nonsense like that, while complaining about people insulting FL, if I recall correctly.

I'll also note that if you are 19, I don't quite understand how in the world you think that you are at the same time too young to be cognitively capable of making decisions about something as basic as who you want to date, etc., but at the same time to have everything figured out to the point you can casually spout snap judgment about contentious ethical questions. I can either consider you cognitively capable of such a discussion, or not, but not both.

On to your points:

1. ML didn't accept FL's advances when they were in high school (I'll note that she was 18 at the time anyway, thus a minor only in Korea, but not in basically any other modern nation on Earth... obviously, that doesn't mean that he should have accepted her advances, which he clearly didn't). He accepted her advances when they meet again 7 years later, when she is well into adulthood (mid to late 20s), had been working and paying taxes for 6 years and paying her sister's college. Two adults have every right to choose to date each other, the fact that after meeting her at the hospital he met her again at school while he worked there as a temp while he waited to go study in the US, is frankly irrelevant. When they meet again, they are not teacher and student, and they are both well into adulthood. If you were someone's boss at a company and then meet them again seven ears later when you work for different companies and you are no longer in that position of authority, it's fully within your rights to date them.

1a. As a corollary, while this was not the case here, because afaik it was neither the '90s nor did ML date any high school students while in high school, I have to stress that cultural context, time and standards most definitely need to be taken into account when evaluating actions, it would be just massively idiotic not to. Someone that thinks any other approach makes the slightest shred of sense is the one who needs to reevaluate their lives, and probably refrain from commenting on the internet until their IQ reaches double digits.

1b. You will notice a bunch of dramas such as Goblin, or for that matter Secret Love affair, which had a 20yo student in a relationship with a director at the institute he studied at, who had absolute power over his education and the trajectory of his life. Some of this is different cultural context and the year the drama was shot in, Some of it is intentionally part of the narrative. As a matter of fact, there is a bunch of stuff in older dramas that would rub most people the wrong way, not to mention other media. I mean, just in terms of violence, or, if we are talking movies, the actions in Revenge of the Nerds, or Great Teacher Onizuka, etc. Some of this was a product of the times and didn't age well.

2. Her husband didn't "allow" his family to "abuse" anyone (albeit it would have been common in a Kdrama context, surely you would have seen multiple dramas where this happened... it makes about as much sense to complain about this than about kabadon, wrist grabbing and manhandling, etc., all of which the lover did repeatedly -the disturbing bit being that it was done seriously, not as exaggeration or comedy, as in the case of ML's brother's kissing scene on the table, say-... there is also something to be said for not being a confrontational idiot and picking your battles... not that, again, this was the case with ML in this drama, he was mostly ignorant, because she was uncommunicative, and he did try to get her to stop involving herself in his family's issues, he was the one who refused to do so, not that her own mother, or lover, or brother in law, managed to get her to do it either).

2a. Not that, let's be clear, "allowing" someone to be "abused" is in fact NOT "abusive". Words have meaning, and the transitive property does not apply here. If I don't intervene when someone punches someone else in the street, I am not the one abusing the victim. Not that, again, this was a factual description of the situation with FL, ML and his family.

2b. Moreover, you might want to notice that FL is an effing adult, in her early thirties, perfectly capable of talking back to her in-laws. She doesn't need her husband to step in (now, if we want to talk about misogynistic notions, that's a sexist trope right there), she is not a mentally challenged nincompoop, she is perfectly capable of defending herself.

3. Her husband as often absent because he was on a ship. He routinely told her not to involve herself in his family's affairs, which she routinely did, from his parents' arguments to his sister's care, to her mother in law's dementia. He told her not to involve herself. His brother told her not to involve herself. Her mother told her not to involve herself. Even her lover told her not to involve herself. She chose to involve herself. I fail to see in what universe then it makes sense to blame her husband, who did exactly what everyone else listed above did to get her to stop, and achieved exactly what she achieved, which is to say nothing at all, did.

4. Her husband was also unaware of many of her issues, for the simple fact that she didn't talk to him about it. On top of being uncommunicative, she also outright deceived him about their issues in conceiving children, to the point he went to the hospital for a check. She lied to his face for 7 years, and it's not ever addressed afterwards. That was massively unethical: she had every right to choose not to have children, but it's something that should have been discussed honestly with her partner, because they might want different things, and that would and should make them reevaluate their relationship. It was also a deception on the level of the affair itself.

5. Nobody is calling the husband a "good, perfect man". The show didn't call him a "good, perfect man". I think you will find that quite the opposite was the case, his flaws were definitely acknowledged (I didn't feel it was the case with the lover, he was called out when he did stuff as crazy as basically kidnapping FL in a speeding car when she wouldn't agree to run away with him, because she didn't want to leave her home, family and friends.... but in the end, he was basically given a free pass for his appalling behavior)

6. This does not mean that he didn't deserve any empathy. He was not a monster, he was a human being.

7. The fact that there were cracks in the relationship is irrelevant, just as the husband not being perfect is irrelevant. It has absolutely nothing to do with treating your partner with basic loyalty and honesty. You might be only 19, but surely even an elementary school student would be cognitively capable of grasping such a simple concept.

7a. To be concrete and avoid any misunderstanding, I fully understand that taking care of a disabled person is hard. My aunt died at home of cancer, under palliative care. My grandfather is 100. I have had to deal with elderly relatives with dementia. So I fully understand that FL was under a lot of pressure. At the same time, it should be underscored, again, that she was the one that decided to take up those tasks. Nobody forced her to. Her husband, like her lover and mother, etc., in fact, explicitly advised her not to. She said she was going to do it anyway, out of some misguided sense of guilt. She was also the one who chose to hide a lot of this from her husband, and outright deceive him. Being completely uncommunicative, when not outright lying to him. Quite frankly, while her husband was by no means perfect, in no way whatsoever was he responsible for anything related tot that side of the issue. Doing this was her decision, not talking to him was her decision. You don't get to hid behind unhappiness or relationship issues when you betray and deceive your partner.

8. I would also want to separate the objectionable things the husband did after discovering the relationship, from what he did before, because clearly only the latter are relevant to whether he supposedly "deserved" to be treated in that manner: you cannot use something he would do in the future to justify something you did in the past. Just pointing it out because this simple causal relationship appears to have been too hard to grasp. And one does not need to be perfect to deserve to be treated with basic loyalty and respect by their partner.

The nutjob tried to force her to leave her home, despite her telling her that she didn't want to because all her family and friends were there, and when she refused he literally kidnapped her, stopping her from leaving the car and speeding in traffic, almost getting into an accident. He didn't want her not to be a doormat for the family, he wanted her to be a doormat for him, and follow all his wishes, with no regards for her individuality. Not surprising, really, he was the kind of scumbag that would get into a relationship with a married woman, someone actually married to someone who had never wronged him and even someone he knew, explicitly stating he cared only about what he wanted, and intentionally disregarded how it would impact everyone else. Only to have the sheer gall to act as if *his* feelings should be prioritized, and about her having feelings for the husband she had been married to for 7 years, and had known for 14... sorry, who is the carpenter again? Someone who she had met mere days, maybe weeks prior? She had been kissing him three days after meeting, then once again, then their relationship ended, and her husband discovered it. Again, the supposed big love. They had not even known each other mere days, maybe weeks prior. Plus, frankly, he was constantly (and I am not talking about an isolated episode, a one off, but something he always did) manhandled her, grabbed her when she didn't want to grabbed, dragged her around like a ragdoll, showed her against walls, forcibly kissed her, continuing again even after she pushed him back. Now, to be clear, everyone was violent in the show, it's the cultural context and year of the drama, and we should judge this relative to in-universe behavior (though it was still a constant, rather than an isolated incident, and it was not portrayed exaggeratedly and/or comedically, like the husband's meltdown, his mother attacking his father with a wooden sword, his father stabbing her with knives, or his brother kissing FL's sister on the table: in the lover's case, it was not only absolutely serious, but constant, not an isolated incident, but a habit. That said, while it should be judged differently due to the nature and standard of the show, it's worth pointing out that this means that h cannot act as if FL is leading him along, when he is the one pressuring her and even forcibly initiating physical contact.

In terms of the in-laws, I don’t agree with the notion that FL let herself be bullied: she talked back at them. And everyone, from her husband, to her brother in law, to her mother and her own lover, tried to get her to stop interfering in the in-laws’ lives, from not getting into their fights, to stop taking care of the sister in law, to not get involved with the mother in law’s dementia. She was the one who chose to take on those responsibilities, because of unearned guilt tied to the ML’s sister’s situation. She was also completely uncommunicative with her husband, and even more, outright deceptive, for example she made him believe that they were unable to conceive children, and he even suspected some medical issue, getting a visit at the hospital. This was not really brought up again, but I found that to be a massive violation of trust: while clearly she had every right to choose whether to have children or not, as she is the one who would have to carry them to term, obviously it’s something that should be discussed honestly and openly with her partner, because it’s the kind of thing that, if they have different goals, should make them reevaluate their relationship, as they wouldn’t want the same thing and wouldn’t be on the same page. Anyway, point being that the husband, far fro being weak, did exactly what the lover did, namely telling her not to get herself involved, and obtained exactly the same results, namely none at all.

I agree with other posters. Hee Tae is in fact the one that recognized FL's talent and took steps to get her to attend an art institute, before her incident. And, of course, when he learned she was overwhelmed, he tried to keep her from his family, even getting her lover to cooperate to hide his mother's dementia (he also, like his brother, FL's mother and even her lover, tried to get her to stop involving herself in the issues of his family, she was the one who refused to do so out of some unearned guilt, which was understandable, but completely her responsibility and decision.

I find KJ's character distasteful on a number of levels. First of all, the notion of having an affair with a married woman, particularly one whose husband he knew, particularly when he knows she is actually in love with her husband, is gross and repulsive. He freely admits that he cared only about what he wanted, intentionally disregarding how his actions would impact anyone else. Secondly, he was stalkerish, immature and aggressive/violent, and not as a single instance, but as a repeated pattern. He continuously grabbed FL's harm very strongly, not letting go even when she tried to free herself, dragged her around as she resisted, totally manhandled her.

He continuously slammed her against walls, touched her exposed breasts with a hammer, kissed her against her will, even when she tried to push back (ultimately, she acquiesced). He showed up at her in laws' house screaming at her and trying to drag her away, was possessive and controlling, essentially kidnapped her, refusing to let her exit the car, and speeding, risking an accident. He totally disregarded her wishes and pressured her into taking the relationship places she was not ready for, caring only about his insecurities. It was recognized by her, in-universe, that his behavior was highly unstable.

Again, I want to stress that one thing to note here is the extent to which this behavior was a pattern, a constant, with him. Because the husband also had the awful meltdown scene when he discovered her infidelity, but that was a one off, and in a cultural context and drama year, and in-universe depiction, where you had every mother beating their children, be them young or adults, his brother forcefully kissing FL's sister on the table, and ML's mother trying to beat his father with a wooden sword, while he tried to stab her with a knife. The latter, like ML's outburst, appeared to be meant as intentionally exaggerated and comedic, conversely in none of the lover's scene does his barely contained violence and possessiveness appear to have been meant as exaggerated or comedic. It was dead serious behavior. And, again, not an isolated incident, but a pattern of behavior. Another difference with respect to ML is the fact that he never seemed aggressive or coercitive when they were intimate, whereas every second of the lover's performance was a form of slamming her against the wall, forcibly grabbing her, forcibly kissing her and continuing even after she tried to push him away, and so on. The guy didn't seem to quite grasp the notion of consent, frankly. As his later kidnapping attempt, locking her into a speeding car, attested to.

I disagree about the in-laws. She was not a doormat: she talked back at them as they noted. And everyone, from ML to his brother, to her mother, to even her lover, had tried to get her to stop interfering in their messes, it was most definitely not just her lover here. And her lover had about as much success as any of them did, which is to say none at all. The reason is that she intentionally did this out of some unearned guilt over ML's sisters' situation. Which also lead her to some pretty unethical and deceptive behavior, such as her lying to her husband for seven whole years about the fact that they couldn't have a child, to the point he visited a hospital for a health check. While it's her prerogative to decide whether she wants to have a baby, since she would have to carry it to term, it's not at all okay to deceive her partner about that and not discuss it honestly: maybe he really wanted a child, and she didn't, and that would have been a difference in values and goals that might have made him reevaluate their relationship. You cannot deceive your partner about that (and there was basically no follow up on this massively duplicitous and unethical behavior).

On this note, I'll also point out that if she listened to her lover, she wouldn't have become "not a doormat" (which I don't agree she was, in any case), she would have simply become *his* doormat. He wanted her to do what *he* wanted, not what *she* wanted, he didn't care about her perspective. This culminated in his decision that they should move away from there, despite the fact that she didn't want to, as her family and friends were there, and it was her home. As he did in pursuing the relationship, her lover reacted with selfishness and impulsiveness, and just plain insanity (perceived as such in-universe) by essentially kidnapping her, locking her in the car with him, and speeding, almost getting into an accident. Plus, the sheer gall to gaslight her, pretending that she led him on, when he had been the one to pressure her all the way (including forcibly grabbing and kissing her despite her attempts to resist and get him to unhand her or push him away).

Let's be clear, he was the third party here, and he explicitly stated he cared only about what he wanted, intentionally disregarding how it would affect anyone else, plus he pressured her all the way, so he doesn't get to act as if now that it's his turn, he gets to complain about his feelings not being prioritized and her leading him on (it was, again, the exact opposite, him pushing her and not giving her space). Again, I would like to remind you that him and FL met, three days later they were kissing, then there was another kissing section, after which the relationship ended correspondingly to when it was discovered. They had known each other for days, weeks tops... and this is supposed to be love? A relationship of the same significant as a 7 year marriage with someone she considers her soulmate, who she had known for 14 years? He has to be insane to have the expectation that their relationship could reach that point, when mere days, or weeks tops, before, they had never met.

This is a non sequitur. The fact that anti female prejudice exists does not in fact explain why by and large a male character cheating always depicts him as a pig, while for a female character, more often then not the narrative tries to make someone else's fault (although in reality, if they are unhappy for some reason, it's obviously their responsibility to not be completely uncommunicative with their partner, and discuss the issue with them, or split up). If anything, writing that removes agency from female characters in this manner is what I would deem inherently mysoginistic. The female characters in question are treated as subhumans which cannot be expected to communicate their problems to their spouses or end a relationship they are unhappy with, expecting instead their partner to be mind readers, if not outright deceiving them or hiding things from them. That's not the standard you would hold any cognitively capable adult. Thus, mysoginy.

In the context of this drama, just look at how FL's and ML's father's cases are handled, the latter is a pig despised by his wife, with his own children siding against him, and at most tolerating him. Which, to be clear, is completely justified.

Conversely, FL gets to be the one who chose to be completely uncommunicative and explicitly chose to involved herself in the issues of her in laws, her sister in law's caretaking and his mother in law's dementia issue, against the wishes of her husband, brother in law, mother and even lover. She even deceived ML for seven year about them not being able to conceive, which is obviously massively deceptive and unethical: while it's clearly her call whether she wants to have children, given she will need to give birth to them, it's also something that needs to be openly discussed between the two partners, because, as in this case, one might want to have them, and if the other does not, they would clearly have a difference in goals that would make. And yet, somehow her husband is the one that is held responsible for own decisions and lack of communication.

Now, her husband had plenty of problems, but being responsible for something she herself chose to do is not one of them.

No, it is not. It's definitely possible to like two people, but that's not a reason to betray and deceive one of them. What you do in such cases, is tell your partner, and maybe talk about opening up the relationship. Polyamory is a thing. If the other partner does not agree to be in a relationship with you and your other lover, then obviously you don't have a right to betray and deceive them.