The thai remake maybe garbage, not the original one. Must be your taste is poor to recognize a masterpiece. I…
Which one are you calling the “original”? The Korean version or the American one?
I’d like to watch the American version someday, but the Korean one was actually quite good. We were specifically talking about the ML — Go Won, who played the male lead in that version.
That said, the FL was still very disrespectful, and the SML was written as a very insecure character with a clear inferiority complex who kept abusing his position to mistreat his juniors.
and women that cheat on their husbands raw and get pregnant by another man dont see any consequences cause they…
This is not about “not being worth my time.” The reason I use AI to help write replies is simple — English is not my first language. It actually takes me more time to write a response this way because I still have to think about my argument, explain what I mean, and then check the wording so it communicates my point correctly.
But what I find strange is that instead of responding to the points I made, you are focusing on how the reply was written. It feels more like an excuse to avoid addressing the argument itself.
Using someone’s weakness in a language they didn’t grow up speaking as a reason to dismiss their argument is not really a strong position. If the logic of the discussion was solid on your side, the easier thing would be to respond to the argument rather than the grammar or the tool used to express it.
Debates should be about the ideas being discussed, not about attacking the way a non-native speaker communicates. Ignoring the argument and walking away because of that looks less like principle and more like avoiding the discussion when the logic becomes difficult to answer.
I think S2 will come and we might see the real end of them... I mean main villains are still out so..
That is done by writers to give her plot armour and make her immune, What about evidence theft from a murder scene Did her husband forgive her for crimes too ?
The funny thing is people keep talking about “realism” in this drama, but where is that realism when it comes…
Oh my god, I had no idea… thanks for enlightening me. (Yes, that’s sarcasm.)
It’s funny how when people praise the show, suddenly everything is “so realistic,” “so bold,” “so true to life.” But the moment someone points out an obvious flaw—like evidence tampering magically having no consequences—then the excuse becomes “relax, it’s just a drama.”
So which is it?
If it’s realistic, then actions like evidence tampering should have consequences. If it’s “just a drama”, then stop using realism as the reason to praise the writing.
You can’t spend the whole time calling it realistic and then hide behind “it’s only actors playing roles” the second the logic falls apart. By that logic, nothing in the story is realistic—it's all fabricated, including the so-called moral high ground the characters keep claiming.
I feel like she has plot armor. The drama tried to create a reason to mend their relationship but I feel so bad…
So conclusion was it's all okay and woman have basic right to get pregnant from anywhere they want, Marriage or commitment mean nothing. And her husband is not human but a decoration item
The funny thing is people keep talking about “realism” in this drama, but where is that realism when it comes…
You say the ending is “realistic” because the husband didn’t want a divorce. But that’s exactly where the so-called realism collapses. The same writers who want us to believe in realism are the ones who wrote the husband as a spineless doormat in the first place. That isn’t reality — that’s plot armor.
In a realistic scenario, a man with any self-respect would not simply accept what happened and beg to keep the marriage. Most people — man or woman — would immediately walk away and file for divorce. The only reason he doesn’t is because the story needs him not to, so the female lead can avoid consequences and still look sympathetic.
So when people defend this as “realistic,” it feels selective. Realism suddenly disappears the moment it would hold the female lead accountable.
And the issue isn’t just the affair or the divorce. It’s the bigger actions she took — stealing evidence, manipulating crimes, interfering with justice. In real life those actions have serious legal consequences. People go to prison for that. Yet the story barely addresses it.
Saying “men in other dramas get away with worse” doesn’t actually justify it either. Wrong actions don’t become acceptable just because someone else also escaped consequences.
If the show truly wanted realism, then actions like those would lead to real repercussions — legally and socially. Instead, the husband is written to tolerate everything, which conveniently protects the female lead from facing the consequences that real people would face.
Insanely well written review by eighthsense. 👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼
The funny thing is people keep talking about “realism” in this drama, but where is that realism when it comes to HHJ’s storyline?
In Honours, they say the ending is realistic because not every criminal faces justice. Fine, that part can be realistic. But somehow that realism never applies to the female lead.
HHJ cheats on her husband, gets pregnant from the affair, hides the truth, steals evidence, manipulates a murder investigation, and treats her marriage like it’s some game she can step in and out of whenever she wants. On top of that she’s supposed to be a righteous lawyer defending victims, yet behaves in a completely unprofessional and unethical way.
But where are the consequences?
She doesn’t face legal consequences for evidence tampering. She doesn’t lose her career. She doesn’t even properly face the fallout in her marriage. Instead the story bends around her so everything somehow works out, including a husband who still wants to stay and raise a child that came from her affair.
People call that “realistic,” but honestly it just feels delusional. In real life, any person with even a little self-respect would walk away from a situation like that. The show wants to claim realism while protecting the character from every consequence. That’s not realism — that’s just the plot bending to protect her.
and women that cheat on their husbands raw and get pregnant by another man dont see any consequences cause they…
The funny thing is people keep talking about “realism” in this drama, but where is that realism when it comes to HHJ’s storyline?
In Honours, they say the ending is realistic because not every criminal faces justice. Fine, that part can be realistic. But somehow that realism never applies to the female lead.
HHJ cheats on her husband, gets pregnant from the affair, hides the truth, steals evidence, manipulates a murder investigation, and treats her marriage like it’s some game she can step in and out of whenever she wants. On top of that she’s supposed to be a righteous lawyer defending victims, yet behaves in a completely unprofessional and unethical way.
But where are the consequences?
She doesn’t face legal consequences for evidence tampering. She doesn’t lose her career. She doesn’t even properly face the fallout in her marriage. Instead the story bends around her so everything somehow works out, including a husband who still wants to stay and raise a child that came from her affair.
People call that “realistic,” but honestly it just feels delusional. In real life, any person with even a little self-respect would walk away from a situation like that. The show wants to claim realism while protecting the character from every consequence. That’s not realism — that’s just the plot bending to protect her.
I like it a lot. Realistic drama, bad guys almost win. Good guys end up broke. 8,5/10
The funny thing is people keep talking about “realism” in this drama, but where is that realism when it comes to HHJ’s storyline?
In Honours, they say the ending is realistic because not every criminal faces justice. Fine, that part can be realistic. But somehow that realism never applies to the female lead.
HHJ cheats on her husband, gets pregnant from the affair, hides the truth, steals evidence, manipulates a murder investigation, and treats her marriage like it’s some game she can step in and out of whenever she wants. On top of that she’s supposed to be a righteous lawyer defending victims, yet behaves in a completely unprofessional and unethical way.
But where are the consequences?
She doesn’t face legal consequences for evidence tampering. She doesn’t lose her career. She doesn’t even properly face the fallout in her marriage. Instead the story bends around her so everything somehow works out, including a husband who still wants to stay and raise a child that came from her affair.
People call that “realistic,” but honestly it just feels delusional. In real life, any person with even a little self-respect would walk away from a situation like that. The show wants to claim realism while protecting the character from every consequence. That’s not realism — that’s just the plot bending to protect her.
I can't even be angry that the bad guys got away with it because this is the reality of what happens but I really…
The funny thing is people keep talking about “realism” in this drama, but where is that realism when it comes to HHJ’s storyline?
In Honours, they say the ending is realistic because not every criminal faces justice. Fine, that part can be realistic. But somehow that realism never applies to the female lead.
HHJ cheats on her husband, gets pregnant from the affair, hides the truth, steals evidence, manipulates a murder investigation, and treats her marriage like it’s some game she can step in and out of whenever she wants. On top of that she’s supposed to be a righteous lawyer defending victims, yet behaves in a completely unprofessional and unethical way.
But where are the consequences?
She doesn’t face legal consequences for evidence tampering. She doesn’t lose her career. She doesn’t even properly face the fallout in her marriage. Instead the story bends around her so everything somehow works out, including a husband who still wants to stay and raise a child that came from her affair.
People call that “realistic,” but honestly it just feels delusional. In real life, any person with even a little self-respect would walk away from a situation like that. The show wants to claim realism while protecting the character from every consequence. That’s not realism — that’s just the plot bending to protect her.
The funny thing is people keep talking about “realism” in this drama, but where is that realism when it comes to HHJ’s storyline?
In Honours, they say the ending is realistic because not every criminal faces justice. Fine, that part can be realistic. But somehow that realism never applies to the female lead.
HHJ cheats on her husband, gets pregnant from the affair, hides the truth, steals evidence, manipulates a murder investigation, and treats her marriage like it’s some game she can step in and out of whenever she wants. On top of that she’s supposed to be a righteous lawyer defending victims, yet behaves in a completely unprofessional and unethical way.
But where are the consequences?
She doesn’t face legal consequences for evidence tampering. She doesn’t lose her career. She doesn’t even properly face the fallout in her marriage. Instead the story bends around her so everything somehow works out, including a husband who still wants to stay and raise a child that came from her affair.
People call that “realistic,” but honestly it just feels delusional. In real life, any person with even a little self-respect would walk away from a situation like that. The show wants to claim realism while protecting the character from every consequence. That’s not realism — that’s just the plot bending to protect her.
did you not watch the previous episode? he didn’t want a divorce. He wanted to stay and work on their marriage…
The funny thing is people keep talking about “realism” in this drama, but where is that realism when it comes to HHJ’s storyline?
In Honours, they say the ending is realistic because not every criminal faces justice. Fine, that part can be realistic. But somehow that realism never applies to the female lead.
HHJ cheats on her husband, gets pregnant from the affair, hides the truth, steals evidence, manipulates a murder investigation, and treats her marriage like it’s some game she can step in and out of whenever she wants. On top of that she’s supposed to be a righteous lawyer defending victims, yet behaves in a completely unprofessional and unethical way.
But where are the consequences?
She doesn’t face legal consequences for evidence tampering. She doesn’t lose her career. She doesn’t even properly face the fallout in her marriage. Instead the story bends around her so everything somehow works out, including a husband who still wants to stay and raise a child that came from her affair.
People call that “realistic,” but honestly it just feels delusional. In real life, any person with even a little self-respect would walk away from a situation like that. The show wants to claim realism while protecting the character from every consequence. That’s not realism — that’s just the plot bending to protect her.
did you not watch the previous episode? he didn’t want a divorce. He wanted to stay and work on their marriage…
If the story really wanted to show a complicated marriage, they could have written a proper confrontation and real consequences. Instead, in Honours, it feels like the narrative bends around her.
You’re basically left with a situation where the husband still wants to fix the marriage, while she’s the one saying it’s “unfair” to stay — yet she never fully confesses everything or shows the level of remorse you’d expect after what she did. On top of that, the show glosses over the fact that she manipulated evidence and interfered with a murder investigation, which for a lawyer should be career-ending.
So yeah, it ends up looking like husband plot armor rather than character writing. He’s written to absorb everything and still stay, which makes him feel less like a real person and more like a narrative device to protect her character.
If the writers wanted her to be morally gray, that could have worked. But when the story refuses to let her face legal or personal consequences, while still framing her as a heroic lawyer, it creates a huge contradiction in the character writing.
So in the end Justice wasn't served. Only Taeil got the beatings. Anyway this is the reality, Justice is so hard…
In real life, a situation like that would completely destroy trust in a marriage, and it would definitely destroy the professional credibility of a lawyer working on sensitive cases. But in Honours, the narrative just quietly moves past it and expects the audience to accept that everything somehow works out.
That’s why calling it “realistic” feels dishonest. Realistic writing doesn’t mean everyone gets a happy ending, but it does mean actions have logical consequences. When characters are protected by the plot instead of facing the fallout of their choices, that’s not realism — that’s just weak writing.
Holy shit they really went all the way with excusing women cheating on this one.What a ridiculous piece of writing.…
Honestly, I agree with most of what you’re saying. The problem isn’t that characters are “flawed.” Flawed characters can make a story interesting. The issue is when the writing bends the entire world to protect those flaws.
What bothered me too is how people keep calling it “realistic.” Realism would mean actions have believable consequences. Here it feels like the female lead gets massive plot armor. She cheats, lies, tampers with evidence, and even risks damaging serious cases she supposedly cares about — yet the story barely holds her accountable.
In real life, a situation like that would completely destroy trust in a marriage, and it would definitely destroy the professional credibility of a lawyer working on sensitive cases. But in Honours, the narrative just quietly moves past it and expects the audience to accept that everything somehow works out.
That’s why calling it “realistic” feels dishonest. Realistic writing doesn’t mean everyone gets a happy ending, but it does mean actions have logical consequences. When characters are protected by the plot instead of facing the fallout of their choices, that’s not realism — that’s just weak writing.
I’d like to watch the American version someday, but the Korean one was actually quite good. We were specifically talking about the ML — Go Won, who played the male lead in that version.
That said, the FL was still very disrespectful, and the SML was written as a very insecure character with a clear inferiority complex who kept abusing his position to mistreat his juniors.
But what I find strange is that instead of responding to the points I made, you are focusing on how the reply was written. It feels more like an excuse to avoid addressing the argument itself.
Using someone’s weakness in a language they didn’t grow up speaking as a reason to dismiss their argument is not really a strong position. If the logic of the discussion was solid on your side, the easier thing would be to respond to the argument rather than the grammar or the tool used to express it.
Debates should be about the ideas being discussed, not about attacking the way a non-native speaker communicates. Ignoring the argument and walking away because of that looks less like principle and more like avoiding the discussion when the logic becomes difficult to answer.
What about evidence theft from a murder scene
Did her husband forgive her for crimes too ?
It’s funny how when people praise the show, suddenly everything is “so realistic,” “so bold,” “so true to life.” But the moment someone points out an obvious flaw—like evidence tampering magically having no consequences—then the excuse becomes “relax, it’s just a drama.”
So which is it?
If it’s realistic, then actions like evidence tampering should have consequences.
If it’s “just a drama”, then stop using realism as the reason to praise the writing.
You can’t spend the whole time calling it realistic and then hide behind “it’s only actors playing roles” the second the logic falls apart. By that logic, nothing in the story is realistic—it's all fabricated, including the so-called moral high ground the characters keep claiming.
Marriage or commitment mean nothing.
And her husband is not human but a decoration item
In a realistic scenario, a man with any self-respect would not simply accept what happened and beg to keep the marriage. Most people — man or woman — would immediately walk away and file for divorce. The only reason he doesn’t is because the story needs him not to, so the female lead can avoid consequences and still look sympathetic.
So when people defend this as “realistic,” it feels selective. Realism suddenly disappears the moment it would hold the female lead accountable.
And the issue isn’t just the affair or the divorce. It’s the bigger actions she took — stealing evidence, manipulating crimes, interfering with justice. In real life those actions have serious legal consequences. People go to prison for that. Yet the story barely addresses it.
Saying “men in other dramas get away with worse” doesn’t actually justify it either. Wrong actions don’t become acceptable just because someone else also escaped consequences.
If the show truly wanted realism, then actions like those would lead to real repercussions — legally and socially. Instead, the husband is written to tolerate everything, which conveniently protects the female lead from facing the consequences that real people would face.
That’s not realism. That’s narrative protection.
In Honours, they say the ending is realistic because not every criminal faces justice. Fine, that part can be realistic. But somehow that realism never applies to the female lead.
HHJ cheats on her husband, gets pregnant from the affair, hides the truth, steals evidence, manipulates a murder investigation, and treats her marriage like it’s some game she can step in and out of whenever she wants. On top of that she’s supposed to be a righteous lawyer defending victims, yet behaves in a completely unprofessional and unethical way.
But where are the consequences?
She doesn’t face legal consequences for evidence tampering. She doesn’t lose her career. She doesn’t even properly face the fallout in her marriage. Instead the story bends around her so everything somehow works out, including a husband who still wants to stay and raise a child that came from her affair.
People call that “realistic,” but honestly it just feels delusional. In real life, any person with even a little self-respect would walk away from a situation like that. The show wants to claim realism while protecting the character from every consequence. That’s not realism — that’s just the plot bending to protect her.
In Honours, they say the ending is realistic because not every criminal faces justice. Fine, that part can be realistic. But somehow that realism never applies to the female lead.
HHJ cheats on her husband, gets pregnant from the affair, hides the truth, steals evidence, manipulates a murder investigation, and treats her marriage like it’s some game she can step in and out of whenever she wants. On top of that she’s supposed to be a righteous lawyer defending victims, yet behaves in a completely unprofessional and unethical way.
But where are the consequences?
She doesn’t face legal consequences for evidence tampering. She doesn’t lose her career. She doesn’t even properly face the fallout in her marriage. Instead the story bends around her so everything somehow works out, including a husband who still wants to stay and raise a child that came from her affair.
People call that “realistic,” but honestly it just feels delusional. In real life, any person with even a little self-respect would walk away from a situation like that. The show wants to claim realism while protecting the character from every consequence. That’s not realism — that’s just the plot bending to protect her.
In Honours, they say the ending is realistic because not every criminal faces justice. Fine, that part can be realistic. But somehow that realism never applies to the female lead.
HHJ cheats on her husband, gets pregnant from the affair, hides the truth, steals evidence, manipulates a murder investigation, and treats her marriage like it’s some game she can step in and out of whenever she wants. On top of that she’s supposed to be a righteous lawyer defending victims, yet behaves in a completely unprofessional and unethical way.
But where are the consequences?
She doesn’t face legal consequences for evidence tampering. She doesn’t lose her career. She doesn’t even properly face the fallout in her marriage. Instead the story bends around her so everything somehow works out, including a husband who still wants to stay and raise a child that came from her affair.
People call that “realistic,” but honestly it just feels delusional. In real life, any person with even a little self-respect would walk away from a situation like that. The show wants to claim realism while protecting the character from every consequence. That’s not realism — that’s just the plot bending to protect her.
In Honours, they say the ending is realistic because not every criminal faces justice. Fine, that part can be realistic. But somehow that realism never applies to the female lead.
HHJ cheats on her husband, gets pregnant from the affair, hides the truth, steals evidence, manipulates a murder investigation, and treats her marriage like it’s some game she can step in and out of whenever she wants. On top of that she’s supposed to be a righteous lawyer defending victims, yet behaves in a completely unprofessional and unethical way.
But where are the consequences?
She doesn’t face legal consequences for evidence tampering. She doesn’t lose her career. She doesn’t even properly face the fallout in her marriage. Instead the story bends around her so everything somehow works out, including a husband who still wants to stay and raise a child that came from her affair.
People call that “realistic,” but honestly it just feels delusional. In real life, any person with even a little self-respect would walk away from a situation like that. The show wants to claim realism while protecting the character from every consequence. That’s not realism — that’s just the plot bending to protect her.
In Honours, they say the ending is realistic because not every criminal faces justice. Fine, that part can be realistic. But somehow that realism never applies to the female lead.
HHJ cheats on her husband, gets pregnant from the affair, hides the truth, steals evidence, manipulates a murder investigation, and treats her marriage like it’s some game she can step in and out of whenever she wants. On top of that she’s supposed to be a righteous lawyer defending victims, yet behaves in a completely unprofessional and unethical way.
But where are the consequences?
She doesn’t face legal consequences for evidence tampering. She doesn’t lose her career. She doesn’t even properly face the fallout in her marriage. Instead the story bends around her so everything somehow works out, including a husband who still wants to stay and raise a child that came from her affair.
People call that “realistic,” but honestly it just feels delusional. In real life, any person with even a little self-respect would walk away from a situation like that. The show wants to claim realism while protecting the character from every consequence. That’s not realism — that’s just the plot bending to protect her.
In Honours, they say the ending is realistic because not every criminal faces justice. Fine, that part can be realistic. But somehow that realism never applies to the female lead.
HHJ cheats on her husband, gets pregnant from the affair, hides the truth, steals evidence, manipulates a murder investigation, and treats her marriage like it’s some game she can step in and out of whenever she wants. On top of that she’s supposed to be a righteous lawyer defending victims, yet behaves in a completely unprofessional and unethical way.
But where are the consequences?
She doesn’t face legal consequences for evidence tampering. She doesn’t lose her career. She doesn’t even properly face the fallout in her marriage. Instead the story bends around her so everything somehow works out, including a husband who still wants to stay and raise a child that came from her affair.
People call that “realistic,” but honestly it just feels delusional. In real life, any person with even a little self-respect would walk away from a situation like that. The show wants to claim realism while protecting the character from every consequence. That’s not realism — that’s just the plot bending to protect her.
You’re basically left with a situation where the husband still wants to fix the marriage, while she’s the one saying it’s “unfair” to stay — yet she never fully confesses everything or shows the level of remorse you’d expect after what she did. On top of that, the show glosses over the fact that she manipulated evidence and interfered with a murder investigation, which for a lawyer should be career-ending.
So yeah, it ends up looking like husband plot armor rather than character writing. He’s written to absorb everything and still stay, which makes him feel less like a real person and more like a narrative device to protect her character.
If the writers wanted her to be morally gray, that could have worked. But when the story refuses to let her face legal or personal consequences, while still framing her as a heroic lawyer, it creates a huge contradiction in the character writing.
That’s why calling it “realistic” feels dishonest. Realistic writing doesn’t mean everyone gets a happy ending, but it does mean actions have logical consequences. When characters are protected by the plot instead of facing the fallout of their choices, that’s not realism — that’s just weak writing.
What bothered me too is how people keep calling it “realistic.” Realism would mean actions have believable consequences. Here it feels like the female lead gets massive plot armor. She cheats, lies, tampers with evidence, and even risks damaging serious cases she supposedly cares about — yet the story barely holds her accountable.
In real life, a situation like that would completely destroy trust in a marriage, and it would definitely destroy the professional credibility of a lawyer working on sensitive cases. But in Honours, the narrative just quietly moves past it and expects the audience to accept that everything somehow works out.
That’s why calling it “realistic” feels dishonest. Realistic writing doesn’t mean everyone gets a happy ending, but it does mean actions have logical consequences. When characters are protected by the plot instead of facing the fallout of their choices, that’s not realism — that’s just weak writing.