oppa_

Lou Xi was evil ungrateful
Pervert who kissed fl when she wasn't his girlfriend was sleeping that was like sexual Assault
And you say ouchan is someone to beware of ?

Two con artist conned a rich boy with fake love and some sex
Then got get caught afterwards and get justice ⚖️

That was best thing this drama deed , killed both villians

You believe they can “salvage” the phone because you’re willing to ignore the law the same way the drama does.

Once evidence is stolen and accessed by an outsider, the chain of custody is broken. If recordings are deleted, altered, or even just viewed, that phone becomes tainted evidence — inadmissible in any real court. If the police later recover it, it doesn’t magically become clean again. Tampered evidence stays tampered.

And that’s the core issue you keep sidestepping:
because of her personal cheating and fear of exposure, she’s willing to destroy or contaminate the very evidence that could expose the real predators this show claims to care about.

That’s not operating in a “grey area for the greater good.”
That’s actively helping the criminals by joining them in evidence tampering.

You can talk about human complexity and character growth all you want, but legally and ethically, this isn’t nuance — it’s sabotage.

You don’t want me to judge an adult woman who cheats and crosses every ethical boundary as a lawyer,
but you’re completely fine branding a minor as a liar because she didn’t disclose everything?

Who never lies — especially a scared minor?
Funny how all the grace is reserved for grown professionals, and none for the child.

I didn’t make anything up — your refusal to acknowledge what’s on screen doesn’t turn it into fiction.

First, lawyers don’t “lose cases,” clients do — exactly. Which makes it even worse that this case stopped being about defending the client and turned into protecting the lawyers’ reputations. The case existed to defend a minor, not to glorify three adult women as morally superior protagonists. If the client lied, that exposes a failure of professional due diligence. Why was there no proper investigation before trial? Why did they only start digging after they lost and needed someone to blame?

And yes, let’s be very clear about how disturbing this framing is:
three adult lawyers blaming a minor for “lying.”
A minor.
Who is also human, also fallible, also scared — just like you’re willing to excuse every mistake made by your favorite grown, educated, legally trained female leads.

You extend infinite grace to adult women who cheat, steal evidence, cross ethical lines — but zero grace to a minor who didn’t disclose every detail of her trauma. That double standard is glaring.

As for the reporter: the argument that he couldn’t be capable of rape is absurd. He already crossed boundaries on screen — trying to kiss the FL without consent. If he was willing to exploit power with an adult woman, why is it suddenly “impossible” that he could go further with a minor under his control? Your certainty here isn’t based on evidence — it’s based on emotional attachment to certain characters.

And the cheater wife insisting her ex “couldn’t hurt a fly” while that same man had no problem sleeping with a married woman and destroying her marriage for his own desire? That’s not insight — that’s bias and self-justification.

So no, this isn’t about never having watched shows with flawed characters. Plenty of us have watched House, The Mentalist, Pro Bono. The difference is those shows acknowledge flaws instead of aestheticizing them and don’t ask the audience to excuse crimes, blame minors, and suspend logic just to preserve a girlboss narrative.

If the show wants moral ambiguity, fine. But then it doesn’t get to demand blind loyalty, selective outrage, and narrative immunity for its leads. That’s what this conversation is about — not “perfect characters,” but consistent standards.

I get it — for the “greater good” we’re suddenly expected to excuse cheating and criminal behavior when the character is a woman, but the same generosity is never extended to men. In Marry My Husband, the blame is absolute and merciless because the cheater is male. No “grey area,” no “complex humanity,” no “wait for the story to unfold.” Just condemnation. That double standard is exactly the issue.

And let’s be clear: what she did wasn’t living in some moral grey zone. It was a crime. Tampering with evidence isn’t ambiguous, it’s illegal. Crimes don’t sit in grey areas — they sit in the dark. Saying we should fight evil by relying on another evil that conveniently escapes consequences isn’t moral complexity, it’s moral outsourcing.

When people say “consequences will come,” what does that realistically mean?
Either her husband accepts a child that isn’t his, or he divorces her and loses half his assets — and she walks away free, rebranded as a “cool, pseudo-feminist, divorced lawyer who did what she had to do.” That’s not accountability. That’s optics.

And this idea of empowerment being tied to cheating, using men, and then bragging about multiple divorces — like her CEO friend does — is deeply questionable. Divorce itself isn’t shameful, but treating betrayal and disposability as badges of honor absolutely is. If a male CEO behaved the same way, he’d be dragged as a predator or narcissist, not celebrated.

So no, this isn’t about denying flawed characters or pretending cheating doesn’t exist in real life. It’s about how the narrative — and parts of the audience — selectively frame the same behavior as “complex” or “necessary” depending on gender. That’s not storytelling nuance. That’s bias dressed up as progress.

Wow, you managed to do something even the director and the character herself failed to do — magically “separate” her work life and personal life.

She didn’t go to her ex’s house for a personal visit. She went there for work. That work interaction then turned into sex in exchange for information. So no, this isn’t some neat moral box where work stays work and personal stays personal. Her work decision directly became a sexual transaction, and that same decision wrecked her personal life as a married woman.

You’re asking viewers to respect her work ethics when she sleeps with someone connected to her client’s case because of past feelings. You’re asking us to trust a “professional lawyer” who literally steals evidence to clean up her own cheating mess. That’s not complexity — that’s a collapse of professional boundaries.

The characters themselves don’t separate work and personal life, but somehow the audience is supposed to do mental gymnastics and pretend they do? That’s not maturity or nuance — that’s selective blindness.

This isn’t about wanting “perfect characters” or starting a gender war. It’s about accountability within the story’s own logic. If the show wants to blur lines, fine — but then it can’t demand moral immunity and professional credibility at the same time.

just keep finding faults in him
were those fault deserve to be cheated on ?

Did you even watch Marry My Husband?
In that drama, only the boyfriend and the best friend were blamed for cheating — rightly so.
At no point was the female lead blamed or told she was “half responsible” for him cheating on her.

No one asked what she lacked.
No one said she failed as a partner.
No “it takes two to tango” logic was applied to her.

So let’s stop pretending the standard is the same.
When men cheat, they alone are cursed and condemned.
When women cheat, suddenly blame is shared and responsibility gets diluted

I think you live in a fair, imaginary world — not this one.
Here in reality, when men cheat, all the blame and curses are directed only at the man. No “it takes two to tango,” no sympathy, no excuses.

But when women cheat, suddenly it’s “it takes two to tango.”
The husband is questioned, blamed, psychoanalyzed, and held responsible for her choices.

Funny how the rule changes.
When men cheat, they can tango, jango, even kongo — and society still says only he’s at fault.
When women cheat, accountability gets diluted and shared.

director told him to do that so he can die

well first kiss was without her consent and he backed off when she said no
but why did he even try to kiss his ex girlfriend who is already married without her permission ?

No — people who are genuinely deprived of love leave, they don’t cheat.

Cheating requires opportunity, entitlement, and selfishness.
You don’t sneak around, lie, and betray someone you’re emotionally starved by — you walk away, you detach, or you end the relationship.

People cheat because they are already receiving love and security and want more.
They want:

the stability of a partner

the comfort of commitment

and the thrill, validation, or power of someone else

That’s not deprivation. That’s greed.

If lack of love caused cheating, then every neglected spouse would cheat — but most don’t. They endure, they communicate, or they leave with dignity. Cheating happens when someone feels entitled to keep everything while risking nothing.

So stop reframing betrayal as emotional starvation.
It’s not hunger — it’s overindulgence.

And in her case, it’s even clearer:

she had a devoted husband

an active plan to build a family

emotional and professional support

She didn’t cheat because she lacked love.
She cheated because she believed she deserved both.

Notice how the reflex is always to look for faults in the husband to justify the woman cheating.

When a man cheats, the explanation is simple: he’s lustful, selfish, immoral.
When a woman cheats, suddenly it’s: the husband must be lacking, he didn’t satisfy her, he wasn’t attentive enough.

Why don’t we apply the same excuse both ways?
If a man cheats, should we say it’s because his wife wasn’t good enough in bed? Or didn’t give him enough love? Of course not — because that would be absurd victim-blaming.

This isn’t about her husband being “not great.”
It’s about her choices.

She didn’t cheat because she was deprived. She cheated because:

she never truly loved or respected the marriage

she treated the marriage as a convenient arrangement with a detective who helped her career

and when her ex re-entered her life connected to her case, she felt entitled to cross every boundary

She walked into his house at night acting familiar and entitled — not out of uncontrollable love, but because she believed:

he still had feelings

she could manipulate those feelings

and she could get what she wanted from him

That’s not vulnerability. That’s calculation.

She presents herself as a strong, independent working woman who believes she can control people and situations. But the moment she’s with her ex — someone who actually knows her weaknesses — that performance collapses. He doesn’t see her strength; he sees exactly what she wants and how far she’s willing to go to get it.

Stop rewriting cheating into a failure of the spouse.
Sometimes it’s not about unmet needs or bad marriages.

Sometimes it’s just about a person who never respected the commitment in the first place

How are they supposed to represent her when:

their personal relationship with the victim overrides professional duty?

they emotionally pressure and intimidate their own client because her actions hurt someone they care about?

they stop being advocates and start acting like judges and moral enforcers?

That’s not “helping victims.” That’s abusing power.

A lawyer cannot bully a client because the facts are emotionally inconvenient. Their job is to defend the client’s legal rights, not to punish her for ruining their friend’s relationship.

And when you add:

sexual involvement tied to the case

evidence tampering

personal stakes in the outcome

you don’t get “complicated women.”
You get lawyers who are unfit to practice, whose entire case would be thrown out the moment the defense digs even a little.

So again, the argument that “you’re only meant to root for them in the context of helping victims” collapses under the show’s own writing — because their behavior actively harms the very client they’re supposed to protect.

This isn’t about gender.
It’s about the story asking the audience to cheer for professionals who violate every boundary that makes their profession meaningful.

Thanks. It’s genuinely hard to have a normal discussion when people instantly jump into defending their favorite cheater just because she’s a woman (or a “working woman”) instead of engaging with what actually happened on screen.

And yes — the unprotected sex part makes it even worse. This isn’t a vague emotional slip. This is:

actively trying to conceive with your husband

tracking ovulation on a calendar

and then choosing to have unprotected sex with another man

That’s not “confusion.” That’s not “human.” That’s a deliberate, ugly choice.

But of course, in K-dramas, condoms must be rarer and more expensive than a BMW. Apparently not even CEOs — not even the hyper-competent, ultra-rich women from Positively Yours–type dramas — can afford a single one. Unprotected sex just magically happens whenever the plot needs maximum mess.

And that’s exactly the problem: this isn’t meaningful drama, it’s lazy degradation of a character we’re supposedly meant to root for. There were a dozen ways to create conflict without turning her into someone fundamentally unlikeable.

People say they want female-centric stories. Fine.
But not stories where:

one woman is immediately made morally repulsive

another is a walking caricature

and “empowerment” means everyone covers up each other’s crimes

That’s not complex writing. It’s just bad faith storytelling dressed up as realism.

You claim her friends were “disappointed,” but disappointment without consequences is just empty dialogue. They ask “why did you do that?” and immediately follow it with “it’s okay, we’ll cover for you.” That’s not accountability — that’s enabling.

She didn’t just make an emotional mistake. She tampered with evidence at a crime scene, which is a serious crime, especially for people working in law. Yet the narrative treats it as a minor hurdle because the CEO will clean it up. That already tells us how this is going to go.

Let’s be real: there will be no real consequences. These three are the leads. The show will bend logic, rewrite morality, and turn anyone opposing them into villains so they come out “right” in the end. That’s how these dramas work.

So while the show claims it doesn’t condone her actions, what matters is the outcome. If cheating, breaking the law, and abusing power are all forgiven and rewarded, then yes — it is normalized, regardless of what the dialogue pretends to say.

Telling people to “wait until the story finishes” doesn’t change the pattern. Anyone who has watched enough dramas already knows where this is headed.

just find some way to put half blame on man to justify woman ?

cheating on your husband is cool thing for working woman in this show.