lovecoutureflyy

I saw it, and So Wayree is one of the lakorns I'm looking forward to the most this year. I've never seen Kem in anything else before, but after seeing him here, I'm even more excited for it. And I like Mookda, so I'm interested to see how much chemistry she and Kem will have.

Had to mention this after episode three but Kem and Yui have a lot of chemistry together.

I'm actually quite baffled by how much I am enjoying this right now. The directing, production, story, and casting are all extremely good here. They're doing a good job with the mystery/thriller element of this story, and I'm very invested. Also, the director is doing a good job of capturing the atmosphere.

Kem is unnecessarily good looking. Like every scene he is in, I can't help but mention how handsome he is. I haven't felt this way about an actor since I first saw Weir in a lakorn.

I really hope this continues to be good because right now it is off to a great start.

Whenever Chen Yun Ru was inside of that room, it reminded me of the Sunken Place in Get Out. I’m not sure if the writers were inspired by that, but I thought the use of it inside of this drama was really cool. Most of the time, when you have a person transfer into someone’s body, we usually have no idea where the original host went. So, it was somewhat interesting, and yet equally terrifying to see how Chen Yun Ru had to watch everything happening around her from that room. There were times when I felt really bad for her.

The hype is real, and I think this is the first time I’ve ever said this about any drama on MDL. This drama was great from start to finish. And though the first episode is a little slow, once you get past it, you’ll fall in love with this drama and its mystery of body swapping and time travel. I had so much fun with this drama, and I’m so glad that it’s writing remained consistent throughout. Taiwanese dramas, or at least the ones I’ve watched, have a horrible habit of starting off strong but ending with a whimper, so I was glad and surprised that I was satisfied with the ending. I thought it was perfect, and I was glad the writers didn’t make things convoluted. That happens often with dramas like these especially when the writers write themselves in a hole they can’t get out of. But I think majority of the mysteries are thoroughly explained in the end.

It's very obvious too. At one point, I had been used to some lakorns avoiding real kisses, and having their leads do nose kisses instead. But I think more recently, in most lakorns, the leads actually do kiss, and with this lakorn having such a steamy subject matter, it's very disappointing that the kisses aren't real, especially with Noon and Joss having so much chemistry.

OMG! Thanks for telling me! I'm actually surprised Neko's subbing this. She usually takes on romantic comedies versus something like this. Either way, I'm super excited.

Que Sera, Sera is literally one of my favorite dramas. When I first heard about them bringing it back, I was excited because I originally thought this would be a second season because they were in talks with Eric and Yu Mi. But apparently, they turned it down. Now that I know this is a remake, I'm still excited, but slightly worried. Either remakes can add upon the original story and make it better, or they can strip away all the best parts and make it worse. I pray it's the former.

Also, Ha Joon has big shoes to fill after Eric's amazing performance. Tae Joo is a tough character to play. Hopefully, he can give the same nuance Eric had given to the character. Either way, I'm looking forward to this.

Finally got around to watching this, and I must say that I enjoyed it a lot. Tor, the actor, was great. I've never seen him before, but I'm definitely looking forward to anything that he plays in the future. He knows how to capture and express emotion well. I also enjoyed his character a lot too. Very charismatic and charming. I also think he really showed how his terrible childhood impacted him and followed him into his adulthood. I really felt his rage and wanted to see him get his revenge.

I didn't like the female lead at all. The way she played detective when she sucked at it was very annoying. It just really annoyed me how her whole family assumed that Sila was the one to beat up that pregnant girl, and even the father was about to pass off information to the police as if he had seen Sila beat up the girl himself. The way she blamed him for that for so long just annoyed me. And don't get me started on her constant nagging about Sila not being a good person, but her constantly ignoring the fact that her sister was a terrible person. I cannot stand when someone is selective in who they uphold to moral values. If you're going to condemn Sila for his actions, then condemn your sister too. I was relieved when Min finally dropped the sweet girl act and started to stick up for herself. There was no reason for her to allow her sister or her stepmother to treat her that way.

Though I liked Sila's aunt and was sad when she died, majority of the time, she sounded like a broken record. She was constantly telling Sila not to do anything, which was very stupid to me. Sawit and his mother would have continued on hurting people for a very long time if no one had stopped them. Don't just depend on karma to happen. If that's the case, we wouldn't have prisons because we would just hope that karma would catch up with criminals.

Lakorns like this can be ridiculous, but that’s what makes them so much fun. You just turn your brain off and enjoy the crazy rollercoaster ride it’s going to take you on. But though this lakorn is definitely a rollercoaster, it’s not a fun one. I found this to be very bland. The first problem is that none of the actors gave their characters justice. I’ve seen Jui play a Nang Rai before, so I thought she was going to knock it out the park, but her portrayal was very bland. Then you have Boy, who I could have mistaken for a piece of cardboard. No charisma, no charm, no nothing. He’s just a pretty face. The second problem is that the characters themselves are not particularly written well. When I read the synopsis, I was excited about the idea of watching two sisters use two men in their game to win each other over. But I didn’t realize that there was a problem with that setup. It’s the sisters’ game, not the men. Pu has nothing to do. He’s just kind of there as a toy to be tugged between two sisters. I was hoping that when he realized he was being used that he would take action, but he never did. The second male lead, Anik, had way more to do than Pu ever did. Wee was bland, and though she’s the female lead, I felt that Oun’s story was more interesting than hers. Maybe because there was at least some complexity to Oun’s character. She has her mother, who uses her as a weapon against her step-daughter, and then she has her father, who completely ignores her in favor of his oldest daughter because of his wrongdoings. Yes. Oun was a complete bitch, but in comparison to Wee, she was much more interesting.

The third problem is that Jui and Boy have no chemistry together. I never felt anything from any of their scenes together. I couldn’t help but think this lakorn would have been way better had different actors been cast. There’s more chemistry between Panjan and Rita, and that’s saying something because I never shipped Oun and Anik together. First, I just couldn’t understand why Wee and Pu fell for each other. Pu was as dry as a piece of tumbleweed. There was nothing to him, and I couldn’t understand why Oun was obsessed with him after seeing him one time. And to top it off, Pu was a shitty husband. With lakorns like this, it requires the male leads to be obtuse and oblivious to the women around them doing sneaky things. But unlike those leads, Pu isn’t oblivious, and he actually notices when women do wrong things. Wait. Let me correct myself. Pu was aware of Wee’s wrongdoings. Because when it came down to anyone else, he was completely blind. Every time Oun or Jackie did something terrible, Pu would act like they were not purposely antagonizing Wee. It’s like he held her to a different moral standard compared to everyone else. I hated that majority of the time, with the exception of a few moments, he was rarely on Wee’s side. Rarely did he condemn the actions of Oun and Jackie in the way he did with Wee. I started clapping when Wee called him out on it, but Pu still thought he was right. And, maybe, technically he was. Two wrongs don’t make a right, but if someone does something wrong to your wife, you need to call them out on that and protect her. But no, instead, we’re supposed to be praising the fact that Pu is so nice to women who are cruel to his wife.

And then the fourth and final problem for me was the last episode. Look, I’ve watched many lakorns before. I know that forgiveness is a big thing for them. No matter how much a person hurts you, you’re supposed to forgive them regardless of anything. And usually, I can take this with a grain of salt and keep it moving no matter how annoying it is. But this time, I couldn’t. Anik was a psycho. He raped Oun, forced her into a marriage, physically, mentally, and verbally abused her, and kidnapped her. He was a freaking psycho. But when Oun shoots Anik, rightfully so, everyone made it seem like she was the one in the wrong. I don’t care that he’s her husband. He’s a freaking psycho who had been torturing her. Anik’s uncle was angry as if Anik was innocent. Anik himself admits he was wrong, but the uncle was still condemning Oun. Now, Oun is definitely no saint. She was wrong for what happened to Jackie, and she was wrong for trying to kill Wee, but when it came down to Anik, she had every right to shoot him. And the final nail in the coffin was when she started crying for Anik. He didn’t deserve it. He didn’t deserve forgiveness nor sympathy. Though I know that forgiveness will always be a thing shown in lakorns, I’m so tired of seeing women have to forgive their abusers.

When I read the synopsis and saw the poster, I thought I was in for something passionate and dark like Mai Sin Rai Fai Sawart or Roy Ruk Raeng Kaen. But there is nothing passionate about the leads here. I hate to say this because I don’t like to box actresses in the same roles, but Ploy would have been perfect for this. Ploy just does a really good job at playing Nang Rai characters. She does it in a way where she makes bad look so good. I could have seen her killing the hell out of the Wee role. And for the male, I could have seen Pope or Mario playing it. I feel like any of those actors would have brought more life to this lakorn, but instead, we have to deal with Jui's and Boy's versions of Wee and Pu, who have a relationship that is as stale as a year old loaf of bread.

I hope someone subs this. This sounds really good. And I liked Gina in her last lakorn.

I was so happy that Grachao was the one to kill Pa Jong. Though she was a complete bitch, I hated how Pa Jong and the men around her used her. I hated that he made her think so many times that she would be able to take control of her own life but used her instead.

The moment I read the synopsis, I knew this lakorn was the one I wanted to see most of the two-part series. A bandit falling in love with the hi-so girl. It just sounded like so much fun. And fortunately, it’s a lot of fun and more. For a second, I was worried because in the first episode they immediately let it be known that Pha was a good bandit. I’m like you can’t sell me on the idea of the male lead being a bandit, but then it turns out he’s a water-down version of it. But throughout the lakorn, many scenes showcased that though Pha had morals and was a gentleman, he was definitely raised amongst bandits.

I’ve always liked Mike, but I haven’t seen him in much before because many of his lakorns don’t interest me. So, I was really excited to know he was going to star in not one but two lakorns that seemed interesting, and luckily, he did not disappoint. Mike is super charming as both Pasu and Pha, and he was great in both parts. He did really well with the action scenes too. By the way, I was totally surprised by the action. If you’ve watched enough lakorns, by now, you know their action is comical at times, but in here, the action is well choreographed. Also, surprisingly, I enjoyed the use of magic here too. Maybe because compared to other lakorns, the magic wasn’t over the top and was only used when necessary. Of course, there were certain scenes where you could tell they didn’t have the budget for it. It was always funny seeing Suer Phan come out of the portal because it reminded me of a bootleg Thanos.

As for our leads, Mike and Mookda had a lot of chemistry together. Honestly, it’s the selling point of this entire lakorn. That’s not to say the plot is bad because I thought it was entertaining and good. But I was definitely tuning in every week because of their chemistry. Considering the high ratings this lakorn had, I wouldn’t be surprised if they starred in another lakorn together in the future and become a koo jin pairing. I’m definitely hoping and looking forward to seeing them in something else together.

As for the story, it was entertaining from beginning to end. I was invested in the story just as much as I was invested in the couple. What I think this part has over the first one is that the romance never disappears. With Pasu’s story, around the halfway mark, or more accurately, when they go into the city, the romance dies down. Now and Mike have chemistry, but there's only so much they can do when the script doesn't give them romantic scenes. Then we’re given many clichés and a drawn-out fight between friends that bogs down the story. But with Pha’s story, the romance is continuous and the story is always moving forward. Of course, we have our cliches, but they don't bog down the story either.

Overall, this was really good, and I'm ready to watch it all over again.

Just saw the trailer. Super excited for this, though I have a feeling this won't be subbed.

I gasped when I saw this. I pray they have the same cast, and this is a continuation. I loved the First Half of My Life so much, but I never thought we were going to get a sequel.

I was surprised by how much I enjoyed this, and it started off really strong for me. Mike and Now have chemistry, and I'm looking forward to seeing them in something else together. Mike has always been handsome to me, but he was super handsome in this because of how charming his character was. I really liked that our main couple didn't have a lot of unnecessary conflict between them. Actually, besides the Pasu and Yuparach mess, many of the characters solved their problems reasonably without it being dragged out. I loved it when both Pasu and Joi's moms had a conversation together and handled it gracefully. Also, something else that I enjoyed was how strong Joi was in the end. She really started fighting for herself, and it was nice to see her not be so dependent on the men around her.

Now that I finished talking about the good, it's time to talk about the bad. The first eight episodes were perfect in my opinion. The pacing was really good, and surprisingly, I thought the story outside the romance was interesting. I hadn't expected Yuparach to go that far by lying on Pasu, but I honestly thought it was really good conflict in the beginning, especially since they didn't drag out everyone being misinformed because of his lie and it wasn't long before Joi knew the truth and the conflict between her and Pasu was easily resolved. But to my surprise, though they didn't drag the lie out, they definitely dragged out the conflict between Yuparach and Pasu. Every time they saw each other, they were fighting. And no matter how good the fight choreography was, it was really boring watching their endless fighting, especially since Yuparach was clearly being delusional. And the fight between them wasn't the only problem, but also the cliche evil mom and son. At first, it was easy to ignore that because I'm used to it, but when they were trying to figure out who poisoned the queen and it was so obviously them, I was getting annoyed.

Because of the boring conflict between Pasu and Yuparach, and the cliche evil mom and son, the story suddenly halts after episode 8, and it honestly doesn't pick back up until the last three episodes, right around the time Yuparach decides to take his own head out of his ass and realize that Joi would have never wanted him whether Pasu was around or not. And, I really thought that Aonkam deserved way better than him. I didn't want her to be with him, but it's a lakorn so of course, that's going to happen. Still, Yuparach was kind of scary. The way that he would look at Joi reminded me of a stalker. And, he took his obsession with Joi way too far.

Besides those problems, this was overall really enjoyable, and I'm super excited for the second part.

It's on YouTube, but as for it being subbed, no groups have taken it on yet. But I did see one group called the Dragon's Lair Sub Team on Facebook say they will possibly do it. But then again, this is the first time I've ever heard of their subbing team before.

*palms face* And this is why I don't post comments like this too often. I swear I always end up writing an essay without meaning to.

I definitely think this is going to be an agree to disagree situation, which isn't bad. I always enjoy having conversations with people like this, so thanks for sharing your opinion with me. I agree with you and definitely think this is a young vs old point of view, which happens often because you have those who think, again, that the past is the standard, but as time passes, everything will change. It's how it has always been, and how it will continue to be. And change isn't always necessarily a bad thing. But then again, to each it's own.

So, let me organize my thoughts so I won't make this too long. I have a tendency to write essays sometimes.

I want to start by saying don't use my point of view, which by the way is a very pessimistic way of looking at marriages, as the way millennials think. There are many millennials who think just like you. They build foundations with their significant others, which really is just a fancy way of saying that they get to know one another, build bonds together over a period of time, see what they can offer each other and what they both want for the future, and then make a choice to spend the rest of their lives with each other. They're not nearly as frivolous as the older generations make them out to be. But then again, doesn't every generation look down on a younger generation for doing things differently. I guess that's just a part of life. But back to my point. They look at marriage the way you do. They look at their parents or grandparents who were married and want the same thing. Or sometimes, they look at their parents who had bad marriages and use that as an example of what not to do. They have wants and aspirations of a long-lasting marriage where they'll only be with one person the rest of their lives. The only difference is that they have AN ESCAPE ROUTE that wasn't there before. It's not because they don't understand commitment. I'll say this again, but back then, people had no choice but to ENDURE. You can't ignore that at one point divorce had been a social taboo, and for some societies, till this day is still one. They didn't just stay together for the sake of their kids and stuff like that, which by the way, though you have kids that are affected by their parents divorcing, you also have kids who are affected by their parents who stay together for their sake even though it's obvious that they don't love each other and they end up giving their children a broken home even with both of them in the household. SOME of them stayed together to avoid SOCIAL and FINANCIAL consequences. But then again, every situation is different. And maybe that's where our difference of opinions are coming from. You mentioned that your grandmother worked, and of course, some women worked. But also, some women didn't work, making them reliant on men. Everything is a case by case situation, but that's what happens when you generalize, so for now on, I'll let it be known that what I'm saying is not to be used for every situation.

This brings me to my next point. Why is it that you think it's only cheating or abuse that ends relationships? I agree with you on feelings being fickle. I actually say all the time that feelings, especially romantic ones, are like taste buds. One day you'll have a taste for your favorite food or snack you love, and then one day you won't. Sometimes, you won't have a taste for it for a month or even longer. But what happens when it's not just a month? What happens when you don't love someone at all anymore? Do you stay or do you leave? What happens when that loss of love is permanent even after building a foundation with someone? Do you stay or do you leave? What happens when this starts to affect your mental health or what happens when it starts to affect your children? Do you stay or do you ENDURE? Every marriage will have rough situations. As human beings, we'll always have strife with each other. It's a guarantee, but what happens when it's toxic? What happens when you need to let go but you are bound by marriage?

Sometimes, I think people hammer on about cheating way too much, and that's not to say it's wrong, it's DEFINITELY wrong, but it's to say it's not the only thing that breaks relationships. Someone could argue that cheating, especially if it was one time, shouldn't break the relationship because of the things you listed before. Because of the commitment you made, because of the foundation you built, because of your family, because of your children. Hell, some would even argue that even if it was more than once because in our vows we said through thick and thin that we should stay together no matter what. But then again, it's all about what YOU can endure, isn't it? Because you speak about marriages listing the things that YOU believe should be the end of relationships and the things you think shouldn't be? It's about what YOU can endure in a relationship, but what about what other people CAN AND CAN'T endure. MARRIAGE IS NOT A PAIR OF TRAVELING PANTS. We can't ignore how different marriage is for different societies because of things like culture and religion. We can't ignore that over time the way we view marriage has changed and how the things that have taken place in society has affected marriage. For example, a woman's place in marriage was once vastly different where they were only supposed to be the caretakers of the home. But now, because of the economy, it's not the same anymore. This just an example of some of the things that have affected and changed marriage into what it is today. There are so many other factors, and this is why marriage will continue to change no matter what. It's not just about people not wanting to commit. It's about how society, culture, religion, etc. continue to change and affect the way we view and treat marriage.

This is why I made no judgments on Hye Sun and Jae Hyun's situation. First, I can only take what they both said with a grain of salt. All they're going to do, especially being in the public eye, is try to paint themselves in the best light. It's so easy to judge relationships from a distance as if we were a fly on the wall when we have little to no FACTUAL information. Second, who am I to tell someone what their breaking points should be based on the way marriage was in the old days? Who am I to say that Hye Sun and Jae Hyun didn't talk to one another about what they wanted from marriage? Who am I to say that they didn't build a foundation based on the years they spent? Side note: Do you notice how society judges people for not taking their time before they get married, but at the same time, they judge people for being in relationships too long without marriage because supposedly this relationship will lead to nowhere? What is the time frame for foundation building?

My overall point is that I don't know anything about Hye Sun and Jae Hyun, therefore I won't pass judgment. On the outside looking in, it's easy for me to pass it off as them not trying, but what I found is that a lot of people get in relationships, build a foundation together, and get married though they are not meant to be together. But they are told to ENDURE. It doesn't matter how much foundation building you do with someone when as humans we change and grow and these changes affect our relationships. Sometimes, you and your significant other will both agree that you both want to go down the same path because, at the time, what you both want for your lives and your children's lives are the same. But who is to say that they'll stay the same when we grow and change. Hell, some of us even regress. Depending on the situation, some people can get back to the same path by realizing that their relationship will need to change, but for others, they'll never make it back to the same path. In the past, you had no choice but to remain in relationships because of social and financial consequences. In today's society, the consequences are not as big. So once again, is it really about someone swiping left too quick, or is it because they CAN swipe left now that we have the Tinder generation?

I noticed that you said that people stop talking to other people because of politics like it's a bad thing. And maybe you were more so saying it to point out that millennials don't know how to build relationships but I want to say that politics are not like a difference of opinions on movies. If you get in a disagreement about a movie and decide to break your relationship with someone then that is pretty silly. But politics actually affect lives. I've found that it's usually people who aren't affected by who is in office who say things like that, but as a person of color, I know first hand what it's like to be in a country where it matters who is in office because it will impact your life. So, if your *difference of opinion* affects my way of living, then I will definitely cut you out of my life without looking back. That's like agreeing with a side that's clearly homophobic and plans on doing things that go against the LGBTQ community but telling them that they shouldn't take it personally because it's just politics. It's not just politics; it's a different way of life.

I want to end this by saying that I by no means have a romantic fairy tale version of love despite all the romantic dramas I watch. And maybe, unconsciously, I seek them out because they'll always be better than what reality actually gives you. Dramas have a tendency to bypass all the problems that usually happens in relationships because most of them show the beginning of the relationship. They show when they are falling in love and when they are in the honeymoon period. Of course, as we know, the honeymoon period is a terrifying thing. At that point, your significant other could rob a bank and you'll still look at them with stars in your eyes. It's only after the honeymoon period is over that you can truly see your partner for who they are, flaws and all. Dramas rarely ever show this, and when they do, you'll notice they're not the most-watched dramas on MDL. But that's because a lot of times people try to think of romance in a sweet way, which it is. But once you add marriage to the fold which is a relationship that is supposed to last a lifetime, the reality of the situation is that it won't always be sweet. I definitely agree with you on one thing. Love is much more harder than the media presents. It is a trial of endurance of staying with someone for a lifetime. And if you manage to love someone for a long time even through those periods after the honeymoon phase, then that's great and an amazing feat.

I think long lasting marriages are possible in this generation, but it's about realizing what worked for the past isn't necessarily the answer to the future. This is why I say that marriage should be what two people make of it. Not what others and society tell you to do. Not what YOU tell them it should be. I spoke about how love wasn't a part of marriage in the beginning, and you added to that point by mentioning desire and lust and romantic dramas, etc. You're right. Originally marriage wasn't about love. But guess what, IT IS NOW. That's life. Things change. And it will continue that way. Marriage is not a one size fits all. The requirements you listed won't work for everyone else. What you choose to endure is something YOU CHOOSE. You can't expect other people to do the same. And, in my opinion, you can't judge them for it either, and then assume with little information, that they didn't follow your guidelines, even though it's a possibility that they did, and it still didn't work for them. All relationships are different and have way too many variables to them that it's not possible for me to judge them as not doing the right thing without all the details needed.

I get your viewpoint and I understand what you're saying, though, with my response, it probably doesn't seem like it. Trust me. I have seen everything under the sun about millennials because every other day there is an article posted about it. But everyone isn't going to agree on the same thing because it's a difference of opinion. Honestly, I think the reason we're disagreeing is that I'm speaking from the perspective of when love ISN'T there anymore. I'm not just talking about bad times. I'm talking about when you legitimately don't love someone anymore and never will. You say that divorce should never be an option, and at one point it wasn't, but guess what, NOW IT IS. Personally, I think that people need to learn when to let go, but marriage tells you that no matter the circumstances, you shouldn't let go. It tells you that even if you have married the wrong person, even if your paths have changed, that you should stay together. I don't agree with that. I won't ever agree with that. Some people don't even have children when they get married, but should they stay together with someone even when they don't love them anymore because DIVORCE SHOULDN'T BE AN OPTION? Some people are mentally destroyed because of marriages, but you're saying they should stay married because YOU said DIVORCE ISN'T AN OPTION. It's arrogant to think and tell people that they should endure everything but cheating and abuse because that's what you'll endure.

I think the love you talk about is an ideal of the past, and it worked in the past because of how society was back then. But now, it doesn't work so much anymore because of how society is now. I'm not arguing against you that foundations aren't needed for marriage, nor am I arguing that commitment isn't needed, but more so I'm arguing that what worked for the past doesn't work for the present when you have so many more variables to it that have changed how we view marriage as a whole. Just like I said before, are millennials swiping left quickly because they're fickle or because they have the OPTION to now? I say it's because they have the option NOW. Times have changed and will continue to. What I'm getting from you, and correct me if I'm wrong because I'll never put words in anyone's mouth, is that you believe that the newer generation should follow what the older generation did in order to obtain a long lasting marriage.

Personally, I don't think traditional marriage works for everyone, and it doesn't. The world can prove that to you because we have different countries that handle marriage differently because of social and economic factors. But are you going to tell them that they are wrong because they aren't following your guidelines?

By the way, love is a verb meaning that love isn't the same for everyone and you can love in different ways. There is no ONE TRUE love like you spoke about. It's an ideal, just like those dramas you spoke about is an ideal for fangirls who want a super romantic love story. It's just what YOU think one true love is.

I agree with you on most of your points, but it still doesn't change the point that I have made. Time doesn't mean anything to relationships when there are so many more important factors to them. Time doesn't mean you will last with people forever. Even if there aren't many people who are together twenty-plus years and get a divorce, there are still those who do. And to be honest, 10 years is a long time to share with someone, and yet still, some people get divorces regardless.

And in regards to the younger generation, it's taking in account of how we as a society view marriages now. I don't think it's because the younger generation isn't aware of the hardships of marriage. All relationships have trials and tribulations and with more of the younger generation living together before marriage (children, joint accounts, leasing and buying homes together, etc.), they're practically living the married life, they just haven't walked down the aisle yet. They know there will be problems. Some of them have probably already overcome some of their hardest problems before they decided to get married. It's just that they don't face the same stigma that the older generation faced before. In the beginning, marriage wasn't about love at all. To put it plainly, it was a transaction. It was only later on that the idea of love was added to it. Back then, there was a huge stigma towards divorces, especially for women, considering the fact that at one point, they weren't the breadwinners for their families, and usually were the dependents ones. But over time that has changed. There are many things that have changed with time with how society views marriages and divorces that have, therefore, affected how marriages are treated now by the younger generation.

Back in the day, with relationships being less about love and there being social and financial consequences to divorces, of course, you didn't have many people divorce. Many didn't stay with their significant others because of love, but because they didn't have any other options. So, even if they weren't happy, and there were problems, and I'm not talking about small problems either, they endured. Their marriages were definitely more commitment based, and the guidelines you speak of were endurance.

The 'true love' of the past, in my opinion, was endurance because there really wasn't an escape route. And though I know some people love to look at the past and think of it as the standard to follow, and there isn't anything wrong with that, I'm definitely not one of them. By the way, I want to point out that I have a very pessimistic view of marriage. I think many people get married for the wrong reasons, and I think that what is asked of from traditional marriage is something I don't agree with. My idea of love and bonding is a little different. But then again, as the idea of marriage continues to change for each generation, I think that when two people decide to marry each other, they need to set a standard for themselves of what marriage means to them.

I also want to point out that this is coming from me, an American with an individualistic viewpoint. Some of the things that affect other people with marriage because they come from different cultures won't affect me. I noticed how you highlighted family, and that is definitely something I notice that affects other people, especially Koreans, who come from a collectivist culture.