oppa_

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.

not confronting your cheater wife can not be seen as equally bad as cheating..

Confused about what, exactly?
She is not confused about:

who her husband is

who her ex is

what sex means

what marriage means

A married woman sleeping with her ex is not a philosophical gray area. It’s called an affair in every culture, every legal system, every moral framework. There is no confusion there.

And calling it a “mistake” is also wrong.

A mistake is:

sending a message to the wrong person

saying something without realizing it would hurt

making a bad judgment without full awareness

What she did was:

intentional

repeated

hidden

done with full knowledge that it would destroy her marriage

That is active betrayal, not a mistake.

People love to say “humans are flawed” — fine. But flaws don’t erase agency. She knew the consequences. She chose to proceed anyway. She chose to lie afterward. And she chose not to take responsibility.

“Don’t be sexist” is a lazy shield here. Calling both of them “evil” and “equally guilty” is not nuance — it’s false equivalence.

Cheating and lying to your spouse is an active moral choice.
Suspecting your partner, staying silent, or failing to confront them is a reaction to wrongdoing, not the wrongdoing itself.

She lied.
She cheated.
That happened before any lack of communication became relevant.

He did not fabricate stories.
He did not sleep with someone else.
He did not betray the marriage.

Not asking questions when you already know the answer — especially after finding proof (the photo at the journalist’s apartment) — is not “lying.” It’s withdrawal. It’s shock. It’s someone processing betrayal. That does not make him equally guilty, and calling it “evil” is wildly dishonest framing.

You come across as judgmental, not independent. You keep claiming you don’t care what others think, yet you repeatedly bring up how people rate shows and use that to dismiss them. That’s a contradiction.
You judge people based on whether they agree with your taste. If someone doesn’t like what you like—or likes something you dislike—you immediately treat their opinion as inferior, as if you’re somehow above everyone else. That’s not critical thinking; that’s arrogance.
Take Alchemy of Souls for example. The show was marketed as female-driven, yet the narrative consistently revolves around the male lead, who conveniently falls for every woman living with him. That’s a valid criticism. But instead of debating the writing itself, you act like anyone who disagrees with you “doesn’t understand complexity.”
You also dismiss popular opinions while constantly referencing them. First you say “people say it’s good,” then you claim you don’t listen to people at all. If others’ opinions truly don’t matter to you, there’s no reason to keep bringing them up.
Disagreeing with you doesn’t make someone clueless, inferior, or incapable of understanding storytelling. It just means they don’t share your taste. If you can’t separate personal preference from objective discussion, that’s a you problem—not everyone else’s.

I get the idea of character development, but development doesn’t mean consequences disappear. Making mistakes is one thing; how a story treats those mistakes is another.
This is a 12-episode drama and we’re already 2 episodes in. The direction so far doesn’t look like redemption—it looks like justification. Either the husband will be forced to “accept” the betrayal, or he’ll be slowly turned into the villain so her cheating feels excusable.
Some actions can’t be undone. You can’t undo intercourse. You can’t undo betrayal. And if pregnancy happens, that’s a permanent consequence—not a metaphor. Reflection alone doesn’t erase harm done to another person.
Redemption requires accountability, confession, and real consequences—not narrative shortcuts. Expecting realism from a drama isn’t wrong; it’s the bare minimum. If the story avoids that, then it’s not character growth—it’s moral convenience.

Where are those people who says it's good ?

Strong woman” should mean someone who faces the consequences of her actions, not someone constantly protected from them.
Accountability matters. Strength would be confessing infidelity to her husband, not hiding behind silence and self-justification.
Strength would be standing firm even if a phone recording gets exposed—not panicking because the truth might come out.
Stealing a murdered victim’s phone from a crime scene isn’t empowerment. It’s obstruction of justice.
And when lawyers break the law this casually, it shows not rebellion—but entitlement. It sends the message that rules are optional for those born into privilege, while everyone else must suffer consequences.
Is deception supposed to feel empowering? Does betraying trust make someone strong?
If the show wants to call these women “strong,” then it should also show them owning their mistakes, paying the price, and growing from it. Without accountability, this isn’t strength—it’s immunity dressed up as feminism.

Being called “strong” doesn’t mean mistakes magically become justified. And context matters.
A CEO at her own home, in a firm funded and protected by her mother, isn’t the same as building authority independently under real pressure.
A lawyer who barely understands the law and instead intimidates her own client—who is grieving and traumatized—doesn’t represent strength either. That’s misuse of power, not resilience.
As for the third lead: having trauma doesn’t excuse the conscious choices she makes. Meeting an ex after seven years is one thing. Allowing intimacy, consenting to a kiss, and then crossing marital boundaries is another. Strength includes self-control and accountability, especially when you know the consequences.
What bothers me is that the show labels them as strong while repeatedly showing them evade responsibility, blur ethics, and lean on privilege or desire rather than competence and integrity.
Real strength isn’t about position, validation, or being desired. It’s about standing by your values when it’s inconvenient. If the writers want flawed women, that’s fine—but flaws shouldn’t be romanticized or protected by the “strong woman” tag.

I’m with you on the confusion. The show keeps piling flaws onto the female lead in the name of “complexity,” but never bothers to set moral boundaries or clarify perspective. It leaves viewers stuck—are we supposed to root for her, or for her detective husband to uncover the truth and expose her self-righteousness?
Doing pro bono work or having a demanding career doesn’t automatically grant moral immunity. Cheating is still cheating. Career pressure isn’t a justification—plenty of men carry heavy professional responsibilities without betraying their spouses.
What bothers me most is how empowerment is portrayed here. It feels less like independence built on skill, integrity, or purpose, and more like validation through desire and external approval. That’s not empowerment—it’s dependence dressed up as liberation.
If the writers want morally grey characters, fine. But they need to be honest about it. Right now, the show wants us to excuse harmful choices while simultaneously framing these characters as moral representatives of the law, and that contradiction is doing more harm than depth.

Yes that would be likely happen or atleast they will make him a cheater so his cheating will be called evil while hers is all okay...

Interesting how disagreement suddenly becomes “spoiling it for everyone” and criticism turns into “you’re missing the point.” That’s not winning an argument — that’s shutting one down when it stops being comfortable.

Dismissing my view doesn’t make it invalid, it just makes it inconvenient for you. Calling it “skewed perception” without actually addressing the points I raised is not engaging with the argument, it’s declaring intellectual superiority and walking away. That’s not analysis, that’s avoidance.

And no, focusing on one character does not make an argument invalid when that character is positioned as a moral lead and a professional defender of victims. Characters don’t exist in a vacuum, and calling betrayal a “slight judgment error” minimizes choices that the story itself gives serious screen time to. If it’s important enough to show, it’s important enough to critique.

You say you see the “overall picture,” but an overall picture is made of individual actions. Ignoring contradictions because they don’t fit a preferred reading isn’t maturity — it’s selective interpretation.

Ending a conversation by declaring the other person incapable of understanding isn’t strength, and it isn’t confidence. It’s just a refusal to tolerate a different opinion.

If being a “strong woman” means dismissing dissent instead of responding to it, then that strength is fragile.
I don’t need your approval for my argument to stand — and you don’t need to invalidate mine to keep enjoying the drama.

You’re free to disengage.
But disagreement does not equal inferiority, and criticism does not equal ignorance.

Calling me a “bot” doesn’t make your argument stronger, it just avoids engaging with what I’m actually saying.
English is not my first language. I use AI to translate or structure my thoughts so you can understand them. If English is the gate you’re putting on “freedom of speech,” then maybe ask yourself who that gate really serves. Ideas don’t become invalid because of the tool used to express them.

Now, to the actual issue — and this is where your defense falls apart.

I understand the difference between portrayal and approval. I’m not asking fiction to spell out a moral lesson or ban uncomfortable topics. My problem is how this cheating is portrayed and who is doing it.

This character cheats with shocking ease.
No real internal conflict.
No visible moral struggle.
No meaningful consequences in how the narrative treats her.

That matters.

She isn’t some morally gray side character — she is framed as a hero, a protector of victims, someone the audience is expected to root for. Yet she:

cheats on her husband without hesitation

is still emotionally attached to her ex after seven years

cries more for her ex than shows any respect for her marriage

defends her ex as “innocent” while dismissing her own client’s rape allegation

accepts an unconsented kiss from a married standpoint with barely any response

is surrounded by friends who hide her cheating and don’t even acknowledge her husband

At some point, this stops being “exploring consequences” and starts being moral incoherence.

You say the drama shows what happens when vows are broken — but where are those consequences?
As a viewer, why am I expected to root for her success when she has no moral compass even for herself?

This is not about discomfort. It’s about credibility.

How am I supposed to believe she can judge right and wrong in court when she cannot apply the same standards to her own life? How am I supposed to believe she fiercely protects women when she instinctively protects the man she loves — even against another woman’s testimony?

Her ex kisses her without consent, knowing she is married.
They haven’t met for seven years.
Yet she immediately trusts him enough to believe he could never rape someone — while doubting her own client.

That isn’t “complexity.” That’s bias, and a dangerous one.

And yes, this portrayal does disturb me — not because cheating exists in fiction, but because:

loyalty is treated as optional

accountability is outsourced to “life is messy”

and a working married woman is written as someone who collapses morally the moment her ex reappears

If you want to explore cheating, fine.
If you want to explore hypocrisy, fine.
But don’t ask viewers to cheer for someone while refusing to seriously interrogate her actions.

Rejecting cheating while criticizing how it’s framed is not asking for censorship.
It’s asking for better writing and honest moral weight.

And that’s a completely valid criticism — no matter what language I speak it in.