jaloco7971

I mean, it's very, very easy. No rocket science required. Would any one sane prefer someone that was attached to friends and family, and wanted to spend quite some time with them, but that fundamentally treated them with loyalty, honesty and respect, or someone that was didn't show them any loyalty, honest or respect, and was willing to betray them with their own (the betrayal's victim's) abusive boss, and gaslight them, and deceive them, and manipulate them, etc., plus everything else YH did to DH? I would say that the choice ought to be obvious. Even if one were to split over differences of priorities and values, at the very least the former wouldn't betray their trust. A pretty important difference

Ultimately, if one was honest with themselves, I doubt that anyone sane would prefer someone that was attached to friends and family, and wanted to spend quite some time with them, but that fundamentally treated them with loyalty, honesty and respect, or someone that was didn't show them any loyalty, honest or respect, and was willing to betray them with their own (the betrayal's victim's) abusive boss, and gaslight them, and deceive them, and manipulate them, etc., plus everything else YH did to DH? I would say that the choice ought to be obvious. Even if one were to split over differences of priorities and values, at the very least the former wouldn't betray one's trust.

It all comes down to a very simple question: would any one sane prefer someone that was attached to friends and family, and wanted to spend quite some time with them, but that fundamentally treated them with loyalty, honesty and respect, or someone that was didn't show them any loyalty, honest or respect, and was willing to betray them with their own (the betrayal's victim's) abusive boss, and gaslight them, and deceive them, and manipulate them, etc., plus everything else YH did to DH? I would say that the choice ought to be obvious. Even if one were to split over differences of priorities and values, at the very least the former wouldn't betray their trust.

I mean, there were decent people at the company, like the CEO (besides the expensive food, everything about him was unpretentious), etc. I guess the low level employees turned out to be loyal (and ultimately stood up for JA as well). But the catalyst of everything was clearly DH.

The guy they wanted to frame in DH's place was kind of a political animal, but I did appreciate that he didn't press the matter with JA. And in any case he was certainly the better choice as far as DH was concerned. On the boss, to give the devil his due, I did get the impression that he was spot on about YH putting the fault of the affair on him in the rooftop scene. Though she did acknowledge the self evident fact that she was solely and entirely responsible for her betrayal (and who else was supposed to be? The person she was betraying, who was completely unaware of what she was doing behind his back? She was an adult with agency, therefore fully and solely responsible for her actions).

But while it's correct to consider the CEO essentially garbage, it's also hard to see what else she should have expected, given that he was willing to have an affair with a married woman, who was his subordinate's wife to boot, not to mention the fact that he knew both of them since university, He was 100% correct in stating it takes two to tango, and while he was certainly responsible (because it's not as if you are not married to someone the fact that you are willing to take part in something that would imply deceiving and hurting hem, when they did absolutely nothing to deserve it -maybe you don't even know them-, is clearly horrible), she was the one that had made a vow to DH, and that DH trusted completely. He, correctly, never trusted the CEO at all.

I mean, to be honest, does this mean that if the CEO had not lied to her about camping the emotional devastation caused by their affair would have been even remotely different? I mean, this would be a completely self serving perspective (i.e. as long as he didn't lie to her about camping the rest was, somehow, not a deal breaker)? Frankly, her framing the conversation in such a self absorbed and self serving manner made one wonder whether she thought the main issue was that she had chosen the wrong lover, rather than the fact that she had chosen to have an affair at all, instead of getting a divorce. But then she does mention betraying DH. But, with her tendency to make the situation about her, regardless of what "the situation" is, one's eyebrows do tend to rise from time to time. So it was hard to square the relevant bits of her apology with her other moments where she seemed to have a rather skewed, if not outright delusional, view of herself, where she tended to toot her own horn a bit too much.

Indeed, it was a pretty stark contrast.

I concur, the difference couldn't have been clearer.

Agreed, the contrast couldn't have been clearer.

And DH knew of the fact that she had ratted him out to the evil boss wrt the bribe, and didn't consider the latter wanting to frame him to be a deal breaker, indeed he knows that, ultimately, she decided to manipulate him to get him out of a job, as it would be more convenient for them to have him out of the picture. Now, while it's obvious that, as the evil boss correctly pointed out, YH essentially put DH into an impossible situation by having an affair with his boss (and him by having an affair with his wife), it's unclear in what world it would be considered a fair solution for DH to be the one to give up a job he sorely needed because it would be better optics, reputationally, if the husband of the woman he was having an affair with was not around. Talk about being self serving and self absorbed to an absurd degree. Then again, if that had not been the case, the affair would have never happened.

I mean, one just has to ask themselves if they would prefer a partner that had a strong connection to friends and family, and spent large amount of time with them, or one that would betray them with their abusive boss, deceive, gaslight and manipulate them, and put them through even a fraction of what YH put DH through. Even if they were to split up, only one of the above would have treated them with basic loyalty, honesty and respect. The choice is clear, imho.

Let's put it simply: would anyone prefer someone that had strong relationships with his friends and family and wanted to spend a lot of time with them, and to be near his old mother (something eminently reasonable and common for people with older parents), or someone that would betray them with their abusive boss, manipulate them, gaslight them, and put them even a fraction of what YH put them through? I know which choice I would make, personally. Even if you ended up breaking up with them, you know that one of the above would treat you with a shred of honesty, loyalty, and respect. The other would not. The choice is obvious.

Let's put it simply: would anyone prefer someone that had strong relationships with his friends and family and wanted to spend a lot of time with them, and to be near his old mother (something eminently reasonable and common for people with older parents), or someone that would betray them with their abusive boss, manipulate them, gaslight them, and put them even a fraction of what YH put them through? I know which choice I would make, personally.

Incidentally, DH was fully aware, at the time of the apology scene, that when he had gone to ask YH for help with regards to the bribe, she chose instead to rat him out to his boss, and didn't leave the latter despite knowing he intended to fire him. Again, she would have married someone willing to do that to someone she had known for decades, as well as the father of her child: the fact that the guy would have been willing to fire DH was not a deal breaker for her (lying to her about camping was) was appalling. Twenty years and a kid together.

He was also aware that she was conspiring and attempting to manipulate him to get him out of a job, getting into debt and mortaging the house to boot. His boss was having an affair with his wife, and he should be the one having to leave his job? Because it would be more convenient for them not to have him around? A complete moral inversion. When DH was the one that was put into the position of having to work for someone he hated, whose lackeys suppressed him at work, and who was having an affair with his wife?

She could have treated him honestly, but when push came to shove, she did not. Then again, had she been willing to show him any loyalty, honesty and respect, she wouldn't be having an affair in the first place. So she tried to manipulate him into quitting his job. Thankfully, the victim of her deception and manipulation knew what she was doing, and did not comply. He also called out her behavior and didn't allow her to pretend that this was anything different from what it was.

Of course, she was later perfectly willing to take JA out of the picture, despite the latter pointing out to her that without her in the picture, DH would have been framed and fired. She told JA that since she was no longer with the boss, it was not her problem anymore, and that she essentially didn't care whether DH was framed and fired. An interesting perspective, not sure she would have liked it had DH shown her a similar lack of consideration. She would never have to wonder, because he never did. A picture is worth a thousand words: he cared for her while she was recovering from the breakup, feeding her porridge, despite knowing of her affair, while she left him to tend to his own wounds, entirely preoccupied that her deception had been discovered.

DH was under no obligation to leave his job for their convenience, let alone when he was being manipulated and deceived. In fact, it would have been completely unfair for him to be the one that had to leave. Not sure what to call it. Non apologetic apology? Shooting and crying? Crocodile tears? Still more honest and decent than the self serving cynicism ("everyone would have done it", often, but not always, coupled with moral inversion wrt JA or even DH), if not outright victim blaming ("what could he have expected", well, maybe to be honest with him and ask for a divorce, rather than deceiving him for a year, betraying him with his worst enemy, and trying to get him out of a job, among other things), of some other takes on the topic (thankfully, a negligible minority). Less sociopathically indifferent, and less of an utter moral inversion, too. I liked that the drama very much avoided such tropes and minimization/trivialization.

As a matter of fact, one thing I liked very much in the series was the fact that YH's betrayal and the horrific effects it had on DH and those around her were not whitewashed (they even "called out" the way this is usually depicted in dramas, which I found very on point and impressive in terms of "keeping it real"). In My Mister the consequences are presented clearly. And the difference between wanting to break up and betraying and deceiving your partner are made clear. They are different, distinct things and reasons to want a divorce don't imply that one should be any more inclined to treat their partner with no loyalty, honesty and respect.

That's simply a non sequitur. This was made absolutely clear by JA asking YH why she betrayed DH (despite knowing why she was unhappy from listening to the apology scene). and YH replying that she could come up with 100, 1000 excuses, but no real reason. In other words, even she didn't know why she was willing to treat DH with no loyalty, honesty and respect, and didn't simply break up with him. A take that, to be honest, I appreciated much more than trying to come up with some weak excuse, or to pretend that one's reasons to break up would also imply that one would be inclined to treat their partner with no loyalty, honesty and respect.

Now, the truth was that, when it came down to it, YH was self serving and self absorbed, and that was reflected even in the fact that she managed to make even her apology about herself. But I liked the way there was an acknowledgment of how horrific and hurtful her actions were. I would have preferred it didn't come with her gaslighting DH. Again, I couldn't help but think that there might have been some psychological defense mechanism at play, because it's unclear to me how she could question DH's affection, or talk about her own supposed priorities, after the flashback in the car, and considering their respective actions. But, again, I liked the distinctions, the fact that the show didn't pretend that being unhappy means one would be inclined to treat their partner with no loyalty, honesty and respect.

Though I must admit that I did find some things rather strident, such as her lack of self awareness when she talked about her loving DH while questioning his affection and commitment (because he loved his family and friends)... I mean, who is having an affair with whose abusive boss? Plus all the rest YH did? I mean, some minimum sense of proportion or awareness of how delusional she sounded? The self serving, self absorbed nature of the character made it rather difficult to understand how much of it was about herself, because, again, we have her turning even the apology into something that is about her and gaslight DH while having the shamelessness to toot her own horn in terms of her conduct towards him... I mean, after what she did to him? After what she remembered him doing for her in the flashback in the car, responding with kindness to her verbal abuse, taking care of her and giving her porridge in bed, etc. while knowing of her betrayal, and so on? Plus, while I don't think that she should have waited around for the guy, with someone as loyal and devoted as the female bar owner around, to see YH toot her own horn for her past conduct, with the exception of the betrayal, which she correctly acknowledges as horrible and unforgivable, is frankly ridiculous... Again, not that I think she owed it to the monk, in fact I think that the female owner's behavior was counterproductive and inadvisable: the guy left, she was under no obligation to wait around for him when he was simply missing and could have been dead for all she knew. But the contrast did make YH's tooting her own horn in terms of her love and devotion to DH even more ridiculous than her total betrayal did... okay, maybe not more, but a close second.

To state the obvious, no, not "everyone" would have done what YH did. DH was unhappy, and never did anything remotely similar to what YH did. YH's sister in law was separated from DH's brother and asked for a divorce. Not to mention the female bar owner, who is someone that would have very much benefited from actually pursuing another relationship. For that matter, basically everyone around DH, besides his wife, is utterly loyal: his childhood friends would have been willing to risk getting in trouble with the police to cover with him, etc. In that sense, his decision to not distance himself from them as his wife demanded was 100% vindicated, because he would have turned his back on people that would have never betrayed him, for the sake of someone who turned out to be a liar and a cheater, someone disloyal and utterly untrustworthy, who betrayed him completely.

Most people are pretty decent, and would consider the notion of betraying and deceiving one's partner for a year, having an affair with their abusive boss, staying with said boss even when they turned out to be willing to frame one's partner, and trying to get one's partner out of a job, to be utterly repulsive. In fact, I think it would be pretty scummy to consider doing any or all the above, let alone trying to present it as a reasonable option. On the contrary, I am not sure that most morally normal people wouldn't be willing to commit a crime if a gun was held to their family's head and they were backed into a corner.

Not to mention, everything JA did was revertible (excluding getting rid of the money lender, which I consider a heroic act of self defense from a battered child that defended her family, and for which she should have gotten a medal and the appreciation of the community): the guy she framed then got his position back and then some. DH's public humiliation was due to YH's betrayal, JA would have been ready to live on the run forever to avoid it, DH correctly chose to sacrifice himself for her sake, and in any case it was thanks to her that DH avoided getting fired and the destruction of his life was contained to the degree it was possible given the position that YH had put him in. By contrast, YH's actions are not reversible: there is absolutely nothing she can do to undo what she has done. Incidentally, YH also knew that her lover had framed the guy they mistook DH for in the beginning, and kept mum about it. And for entirely self serving reason: she didn't have any grandmother to take care of.

YH's actions were cruel, utterly needless, entirely and easily avoidable, and self serving. She could have easily been honest with DH and divorced him. In fact, that was what one had every right to expect from her. By contrast, JA's actions were motivated by her and her family being threatened and pushed into a corner, with very little options, and wanting to protect her grandma: she was obviously no career criminal enjoying what she was doing or acting out of sheer greed, otherwise she would not be living in poverty, but rolling in dough.

It's clear to me that if there was any obvious path she could have chosen where she could have successfully protected those she cared about without committing crimes she would have gladly done that instead. Of course, she might be missing out on opportunities because of unknown unknowns: for example she didn't know of the help she could get for her grandma, due to the gaps in her education and nobody apparently ever bothering to tell her that it was a possibility (I have to say, in terms of services that one didn't have a great discoverability, probably something they need to fix as a matter of policy). That said, it's not at all self evident to me that she was wrong in her basic premise, because it's not as if someone without an education could easily put together the sums that the money lender was threatening her over in any useful amount of time for her situation.

So, on one hand, a cruel, meaningless, needless, utterly avoidable betrayal of DH, or her child, of her family in general, that YH freely chose to do out of her own free will, for self serving reasons. On the other hand, we have JA being threatened and coerced by the money lender, and needing to put together a lot of money in a short time, to protect her grandma. Pretty humongous difference, morally, on any level. And, as if that was not enough, there is also the fact that when push came to shove and JA actually got to know the person she was framing, she was unable to go through with it, and reversed course at a high personal cost. Contrast this with YH doing what she did to someone she had known for decades, and the father of her child.