Funny how some people need 10 episodes to understand what others catch in one. Intelligence works at different…
I’m not judging your intelligence. You’re the one implying that people can’t judge a show from its first episode. If you can’t do that, it doesn’t mean others can’t. That’s just forcing your own standard on everyone else.
And I never said a drama can’t be good if it doesn’t follow the manhwa—I haven’t even read it. I’m watching episode 2 myself.
My issue is with what the show presents within the first episode itself. The dialogue and behavior are frankly insulting toward women. The male lead claims he wants to stay unmarried and emotionally distant because of guilt over his brother’s death—yet he’s perfectly fine having casual sex with a stranger.
Worse, he doesn’t use protection. That’s not romantic, tragic, or “complex”—it’s irresponsible and selfish. In any situation, including one-night stands, not using protection with someone you don’t know is wrong. Sex does not equal consent to pregnancy. Even married couples plan children with mutual consent.
So yes, one episode is enough to judge that. If you’re okay with it, that’s your perspective—but don’t pretend the criticism is baseless just because you personally don’t see it.
If you can’t understand someone’s English just because of a few grammar mistakes, then you’re really weak at reading and comprehension. Pointing out errors doesn’t mean the message is unclear—it just means you’re avoiding it.
Understanding ideas matters more than pretending grammar is the problem
Funny how you’re more interested in policing someone’s grammar than actually engaging with the point being made. Language mistakes are easy to mock; challenging your own narrow mindset clearly isn’t.
Instead of obsessing over English errors, maybe address the actual topic—your problem with age gaps. Not everyone shares your limited perspective, and reducing a discussion to grammar nitpicking just shows you don’t have a real argument.
If you can’t debate ideas, laughing at spelling won’t make your opinion any stronger.
Did he cast him to be in the show? Why would he comment on it? Are you a retard? Well not everyone can have experience…
South Korea has a documented history of protecting powerful men in sexual crime cases, and courts have repeatedly shown more sympathy to perpetrators than to victims. Even Harvard’s Kennedy School Student Review has criticized this system for treating alcohol as a mitigating factor in rape cases — something that would be unthinkable in a just system.
When a legal system:
reduces sentences because the rapist was drunk
demands extreme proof of “violence” instead of focusing on consent
minimizes abuse of power by influential men
that does not mean the crime didn’t happen — it means the system failed the victim.
So no, a lack of conviction for a specific charge does not equal innocence. It reflects how difficult it is for women to get justice in systems designed to protect status, money, and reputation.
And blaming the woman’s “morality” while ignoring a powerful man exploiting his position is exactly the mindset that keeps these abuses normalized. Consent obtained through pressure, fear, or career dependency is not real consent — morally or ethically.
You’re not making a legal argument here. You’re defending exploitation by hiding behind a broken system.
Did he cast him to be in the show? Why would he comment on it? Are you a retard? Well not everyone can have experience…
You’re twisting legality to wash away exploitation, and that’s exactly the problem.
First, conviction matters. He was convicted of pimping / sexual exploitation, which legally means abuse of power for sexual gain. That alone establishes wrongdoing. Whether a rape charge stuck or not does not magically make his actions ethical, acceptable, or harmless.
Second, consent obtained through coercion is not real consent. When a powerful industry figure offers career advancement in exchange for sex, that is abuse of authority, not a fair “deal.” The law recognizes this — that’s why pimping and exploitation exist as crimes in the first place.
Third, “she didn’t sue him for X” is a meaningless defense. Victims often:
fear retaliation
lack money or legal support
are pressured, shamed, or threatened
are exhausted by years of proceedings
A victim’s choice or inability to sue does not erase the perpetrator’s actions. Justice systems fail victims all the time — that doesn’t make the abuser innocent.
Fourth, dragging her “morality” into this is classic victim-blaming. Even if she agreed under pressure, the responsibility lies with the person who held power, not the one trying to survive or advance in a closed industry. Adults exploiting younger, vulnerable people don’t get moral absolution because the victim didn’t behave “perfectly.”
And no — lack of parental prosecution does not prove anything about age or consent. That’s not how the law works, and you’re making assumptions to fit a narrative that excuses him.
Finally, your argument boils down to this: “If she benefited, then exploitation is fine.” That’s a deeply disturbing standard.
You say you don’t support pimps or rapists — yet you’re spending paragraphs minimizing exploitation, attacking the victim, and reframing abuse as a failed business transaction.
Call it what it is: defending an abuser by hiding behind technicalities. Legal loopholes don’t erase moral responsibility.
And I never said a drama can’t be good if it doesn’t follow the manhwa—I haven’t even read it. I’m watching episode 2 myself.
My issue is with what the show presents within the first episode itself. The dialogue and behavior are frankly insulting toward women. The male lead claims he wants to stay unmarried and emotionally distant because of guilt over his brother’s death—yet he’s perfectly fine having casual sex with a stranger.
Worse, he doesn’t use protection. That’s not romantic, tragic, or “complex”—it’s irresponsible and selfish. In any situation, including one-night stands, not using protection with someone you don’t know is wrong. Sex does not equal consent to pregnancy. Even married couples plan children with mutual consent.
So yes, one episode is enough to judge that. If you’re okay with it, that’s your perspective—but don’t pretend the criticism is baseless just because you personally don’t see it.
Understanding ideas matters more than pretending grammar is the problem
Instead of obsessing over English errors, maybe address the actual topic—your problem with age gaps. Not everyone shares your limited perspective, and reducing a discussion to grammar nitpicking just shows you don’t have a real argument.
If you can’t debate ideas, laughing at spelling won’t make your opinion any stronger.
STOP LYING
When a legal system:
reduces sentences because the rapist was drunk
demands extreme proof of “violence” instead of focusing on consent
minimizes abuse of power by influential men
that does not mean the crime didn’t happen — it means the system failed the victim.
So no, a lack of conviction for a specific charge does not equal innocence. It reflects how difficult it is for women to get justice in systems designed to protect status, money, and reputation.
And blaming the woman’s “morality” while ignoring a powerful man exploiting his position is exactly the mindset that keeps these abuses normalized. Consent obtained through pressure, fear, or career dependency is not real consent — morally or ethically.
You’re not making a legal argument here.
You’re defending exploitation by hiding behind a broken system.
https://studentreview.hks.harvard.edu/in-south-korea-being-drunk-is-a-legal-defense-for-rape/
First, conviction matters. He was convicted of pimping / sexual exploitation, which legally means abuse of power for sexual gain. That alone establishes wrongdoing. Whether a rape charge stuck or not does not magically make his actions ethical, acceptable, or harmless.
Second, consent obtained through coercion is not real consent. When a powerful industry figure offers career advancement in exchange for sex, that is abuse of authority, not a fair “deal.” The law recognizes this — that’s why pimping and exploitation exist as crimes in the first place.
Third, “she didn’t sue him for X” is a meaningless defense.
Victims often:
fear retaliation
lack money or legal support
are pressured, shamed, or threatened
are exhausted by years of proceedings
A victim’s choice or inability to sue does not erase the perpetrator’s actions. Justice systems fail victims all the time — that doesn’t make the abuser innocent.
Fourth, dragging her “morality” into this is classic victim-blaming. Even if she agreed under pressure, the responsibility lies with the person who held power, not the one trying to survive or advance in a closed industry. Adults exploiting younger, vulnerable people don’t get moral absolution because the victim didn’t behave “perfectly.”
And no — lack of parental prosecution does not prove anything about age or consent. That’s not how the law works, and you’re making assumptions to fit a narrative that excuses him.
Finally, your argument boils down to this:
“If she benefited, then exploitation is fine.”
That’s a deeply disturbing standard.
You say you don’t support pimps or rapists — yet you’re spending paragraphs minimizing exploitation, attacking the victim, and reframing abuse as a failed business transaction.
Call it what it is: defending an abuser by hiding behind technicalities.
Legal loopholes don’t erase moral responsibility.