oppa_

poor nam ji hyun has to write review on her drama

poor nam ji hyun has to write review on her drama

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.

thanks for writing this and saving my time.

Funny how some people need 10 episodes to understand what others catch in one. Intelligence works at different speeds.

you have no right to block others free speech...

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.

until you watch ep 5 and 6

17 IS ONLY MINOR IN SOUTH KOREA ?
STOP LYING

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.

https://studentreview.hks.harvard.edu/in-south-korea-being-drunk-is-a-legal-defense-for-rape/

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.

well i also find what hospital did was wrong and that case some just make it all okay if that rich guy publicly adopted a grown ass woman and make her rich girl and that boy a billionaires grand kid
and then doesn't give a fish about them at all, public stunt

well yes,

Why you need a chef to kiss you here

Lee was arrested immediately with the charge of prostitution with a minor aged 17 with the promise of starring the girl in a movie in 2002.[21] Out of three intercourses, only two were found to be for the purpose of prostitution.[22] Lee was found guilty and was ordered 160 hours of social service and 10 months of prison time with two years of probation.[

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_Geung-young

I think you’re reading intent into my comment that isn’t there. There’s no contradiction in what I’m saying. I’ve explicitly said that what happened to him was wrong and that he deserves justice. Acknowledging that doesn’t require pretending he was 100% innocent or morally pure, and I never claimed empathy should be reduced.
My point is simply that recognizing wrongdoing and recognizing disproportionate cruelty can coexist. Saying “he wasn’t completely innocent” isn’t the same as justifying harassment, media trial, or dehumanization. At the same time, rejecting that cruelty doesn’t require turning him into a flawless hero either. Law shouldn’t be used as a shield to excuse abuse, but empathy also shouldn’t be used to rewrite reality.
If we can’t hold both ideas at once—that injustice was done and that he wasn’t a saint—then the discussion becomes polarized instead of honest.

I can’t believe people like you exist — people who spend their time and energy defending a convicted rapist by inventing excuses for him.

If Kim Eui-sung had no right or responsibility to comment on this, then he also has no right to talk about Lee Sun-kyun just to get attention. You don’t get to stay silent when it’s convenient and suddenly speak up when it benefits you.

This case isn’t gossip or opinion — the court convicted him. Trying to twist the story or attack the victim doesn’t change that.

None of what you wrote changes the only thing that matters here:
a court of law convicted him of rape.

Not rumors. Not internet drama. Not “he said, she said.”
A criminal court examined evidence, testimony, and due process and found him guilty.

Trying to derail that with “Were you there?”, “What about false accusations?”, or bringing up crimes in other countries is a classic deflection. It’s not an argument — it’s a way to avoid facing reality. You don’t need to witness a crime personally for a conviction to be valid. That’s why courts exist.

Age-of-consent gymnastics also don’t save him.
If the law in that country says the victim was a minor or that consent was invalid, then it was rape under that legal system. Full stop. You don’t get to rewrite the law after the fact because you like the celebrity.

Dragging in Muslims, Japan, cartel videos, or Hollywood has nothing to do with this case. Other evils in the world don’t cancel out this one. Saying “bad things happen everywhere” doesn’t make a convicted rapist innocent.

And suggesting the victim “just wanted money” after a conviction is victim-blaming with zero evidence. Courts do not convict people on vibes or conspiracy theories — they convict on proof.

You can enjoy someone’s work. You can even be sad about their downfall.
But once someone is convicted of rape, defending them by attacking victims and inventing global conspiracies is not skepticism — it’s denial.

This isn’t about “the world being scary.”
It’s about one man who was found guilty of a serious crime.

they choose to work with lee kyung young