So ML has already a lover, the SFL, it will be interesting the romance part. I understand that he has a girlfriend,…
Is it confirmed that SFL and ML are together? I didn't see that in the trailers but if that's true I need to prepare myself for a silly love triangle lol
I thought about bad titles just a moment ago. What a coincidence. I feel like people don't talk enough about bad…
They can be difficult to translate, but what's funny is that the literal translations are almost always better than these corny and awkward English titles lolll. For example Sweet Stranger and Me. I don't hate this title, and to me it's not as bad as My Lovely Boxer, but I'm still not sure what it has to do with the drama and it doesn't make much sense in English. The literal title of the drama, The Man Living in Our House, makes much more sense and isn't so corny. Plus it makes you curious about the plot. I wish they would just stick with the Korean titles...
My lovely liar(it's a good series but the title is trash) and now my lovely boxer what's with these cringe titles
There's also My Perfect Stranger... I don't know what the deal is lollll they should just stick with the literal translation of the Korean title because most of the time those are just fine
I don't really understand the big deal about the age gap, even if there is romance. If it's really such a problem, why the heck does absolutely everyone seem to love Goblin so much? At least FL here is not a high school student, lol.
Which drama it was ? Just want to be careful before watching 😃
The drama was Glitch (2022). The netflix rating stated it was for violence and language I believe? And said nothing about sexual content lol. And yet the scene was the most explicit I've ever seen in a k-drama...
I'm ten years late but this review is one of the ones that really helped me decide to take the plunge and watch this drama, and overall I'm glad I did. I pretty much agree with everything you said here. The acting was indeed lovely, I was never bored thanks to the shorter length, and I felt like the drama did not actually feel over-the-top dark, despite the dark subject matter. I was, however, quite disappointed with the ending and I'm curious about whether the plot hole you mentioned could be related to my confusion about the events of the finale xD
Sex scenes are the least concern when it comes to kdramas ,u can find in there movies though
It's the higher rating from PG-13, which is what most K-dramas are rated. The drama I mentioned that had the weird sex scene was rated MA as well but aired on Netflix which is probably why it contained that scene...
I wouldn't imply that she had zero responsibility for her own actions. Getting drunk was ill-advised but she should…
"Then he took advantage of her by drugging her which is him playing a different trick altogether." Why does it matter if it's a "different trick"? You said this: "If she didn't drink herself into a state of not being able to take care of herself the guy would never have been able to play the trick he did. " I was merely pointing out that your statement is false, and that there are other ways that he could have fooled her into thinking they had spent the night together. I don't see why it being a "different trick" is relevant at all.
"The drama blamed the FL because she made a dumb decision that left her vulnerable." No, the drama blamed FL for potentially cheating. They never brought up the dangers of drinking and leaving yourself vulnerable, which I wouldn't have minded. The entire point the drama was making was about infidelity.
"I'm not trying to teach the FL." I'm very confused about why you said this. Why would you be teaching a fictional character? Where did I say you were teaching a fictional character? That makes no sense. I only brought up teaching because you mentioned it before when you said this: "If you do not victim blame people that put themselves needlessly in danger by making idiotic decisions then you do not teach people to take care of themselves and accept responsibility for their own safety."
"Teaching safety and precautions against such things are victim-blaming victims that didn't follow that safety in the past." Totally disagree. Teaching precautions is telling people how to prevent something bad happening in the future, has nothing to do with blaming people for mistakes in the past. I don't understand why you're equating the two.
I wouldn't imply that she had zero responsibility for her own actions. Getting drunk was ill-advised but she should…
"If she didn't drink herself into a state of not being able to take care of herself the guy would never have been able to play the trick he did. " I find this comment funny considering he could have easily slipped something into her drink, as happens so often in real life. We live in a world where date r*pe happens shamefully often. I have heard first hand accounts of women who were in control of their faculties one moment and the next thing they remembered was waking up AFTER being assaulted.
"If the FL didn't drink so much would the guy have been able to play this trick on her? We both know the answer to this question because the trick relied on her being so drunk as to not remember anything the next day." Again, he could have EASILY done this by drugging her.
"If you have a conversation about trust right before your partner goes out party then that pretty much always includes not getting so drunk that you can't take care of yourself." I'm not being obtuse, I'm addressing what was in the drama. If I'm remembering correctly, the drama never established FL as a heavy drinker. Why on earth would it cross ML's mind that she might get drunk and get into trouble? She was at a celebration surrounded by FRIENDS, not partying in a random club. Her friends should have been looking out for her. It certainly never crossed my mind as a viewer that she might get taken advantage of. And ML specifically mentioned the second male lead in the conversation––implying that this was his meaning when he mentioned trust.
At the end of the day I don't think we will ever agree on this subject, and while I knew that at the beginning of the discussion, I thought I should at least represent the other side of the issue. You are advocating victim blaming, which you seem to think can be a good thing at times, whereas I believe it will never be a good thing, and nothing anyone can say will change that for me. It's specifically called victim blaming because it's blaming the victim of a crime for the crime, rather than the criminal, and I will always disagree with this.
And as far as using victim blaming to teach women, it will never work. If you blame someone for the unbelievable crime and trauma that befell them, you will only alienate them, hurt them, and worsen the effects of the trauma, and they won't listen to you. Not the best way to teach someone how to be responsible, is it? I believe proper safety and precautions against such things should be taught, but that should never include blaming the victim.
I wouldn't imply that she had zero responsibility for her own actions. Getting drunk was ill-advised but she should…
"I feel like you are so hell bent on not accepting the truth even though you know it's the truth so you write possible true" It's not a matter of not accepting the truth. I just don't agree with you, simple as that. I think you make a few points that are reasonable, but your overall message is something I simply do not agree with.
I think bringing marriage into the issue is combining two different problems. Being sexually assaulted and being unfaithful are two completely different things. Being sexually assaulted is not acting in bad faith or breaking trust––going out and getting drunk after promising not to would be acting in bad faith/breaking trust. In the instance of this drama, FL getting drunk was never brought up in the "trust" conversation. I believe when he said he trusted her, he was referring to her relationship with the second male lead. He was trusting her not to cheat on him. The conversation had nothing to do with her drinking habits. (I'm curious whether you even watched the drama?)
"Well if my wife get willingly drunk as hell at a club and put herself in danger (especially if we just had a discussion about me trusting her not doing anything dumb) then I'm gonna blame her if she ends up getting taken advantage off." Thank you for clarifying where you stand on this, because I now know that it's not semantics. We truly are on opposite sides of this issue. My advice: Blame her for getting drunk. Don't blame her for getting taken advantage of. There's actually a big difference between the two.
"If you do not victim blame people that put themselves needlessly in danger by making idiotic decisions then you do not teach people to take care of themselves and accept responsibility for their own safety." Teaching responsibility and victim-blaming are also two completely separate things. I really hope you're not equating the two right now.
"If you do idiotic stuff to put you in danger then you are responsible for you ending up having problems in life - that's just reality." And yet there are many, MANY instances in which people are extremely careful and work very hard not to do idiotic things, and yet they end up with terrible problems and trauma, through no fault of their own. I wonder if your ideology includes that simple truth.
I wouldn't imply that she had zero responsibility for her own actions. Getting drunk was ill-advised but she should…
Personally I agree that wearing a short skirt probably has very little connection with r*pe but I was using that as an example because it's often brought up when someone is victim-blaming.
"The FL didn't share the responsibility of the guy to trick her - that's his responsibility 100%. She has not fault in his decision to do that. " That's exactly what I've been saying.
"The guy taking advantage of her isn't at fault that she decided to make herself an easy target - that's her responsibility. " Possibly true, but that doesn't force him to assault her, and it also doesn't mean she deserves to be assaulted--contrary to what a lot of people seem to believe (I'm not claiming that you believe this, by the way).
The reason I said it was a slippery slope is because depending on what your logic and brain tell you, you could end up blaming anyone for just about anything. Everyone's logic will tell them something a little different, so I don't think that's a reliable measure for deciding who is at fault in a situation like this. Even statistics are unreliable and open to interpretation/bias. That is why I was using the law as a measuring stick (and why the law exists).
"I'm 100% sure though that getting black-out drunk at parties increases the risk of getting raped or taken advantage of in other ways." This is also probably very true. Honestly, I can't figure out if we actually disagree on this issue or if it's just semantics, but I'm erring on the side of staying away from victim-blaming which is why I'm hesitant to say I agree with your argument. You can call me politically correct for it if you want lol.
I wouldn't imply that she had zero responsibility for her own actions. Getting drunk was ill-advised but she should…
I think I do understand the concept, actually. I think your point is that there is shared responsibility in the situation, and while I didn't deny that, I think you're in dangerous territory because you might be edging into victim-blaming.
I'm never going to advocate acting foolish (getting drunk or leaving your house unlocked for example) but who decides what's foolish? Is wearing a short skirt foolish, and is a woman to blame for being assaulted if she does such a thing? That's a slippery slope, isn't it?
I wouldn't imply that she had zero responsibility for her own actions. Getting drunk was ill-advised but she should…
"She's not at fault" and "she's 100% at fault this happened to her". I feel like you're contradicting yourself. You're also just restating everything you said in your original comment: she's to blame for what happened, which I will always disagree with.
If you leave your house unlocked and someone breaks in, guess who goes to jail? The person who broke in, NOT you, who was stupid for leaving your house unlocked. That's just the way it works.
3 
1 
1 
Why does it matter if it's a "different trick"? You said this: "If she didn't drink herself into a state of not being able to take care of herself the guy would never have been able to play the trick he did. "
I was merely pointing out that your statement is false, and that there are other ways that he could have fooled her into thinking they had spent the night together. I don't see why it being a "different trick" is relevant at all.
"The drama blamed the FL because she made a dumb decision that left her vulnerable."
No, the drama blamed FL for potentially cheating. They never brought up the dangers of drinking and leaving yourself vulnerable, which I wouldn't have minded. The entire point the drama was making was about infidelity.
"I'm not trying to teach the FL."
I'm very confused about why you said this. Why would you be teaching a fictional character? Where did I say you were teaching a fictional character? That makes no sense. I only brought up teaching because you mentioned it before when you said this:
"If you do not victim blame people that put themselves needlessly in danger by making idiotic decisions then you do not teach people to take care of themselves and accept responsibility for their own safety."
"Teaching safety and precautions against such things are victim-blaming victims that didn't follow that safety in the past."
Totally disagree. Teaching precautions is telling people how to prevent something bad happening in the future, has nothing to do with blaming people for mistakes in the past. I don't understand why you're equating the two.
I find this comment funny considering he could have easily slipped something into her drink, as happens so often in real life. We live in a world where date r*pe happens shamefully often. I have heard first hand accounts of women who were in control of their faculties one moment and the next thing they remembered was waking up AFTER being assaulted.
"If the FL didn't drink so much would the guy have been able to play this trick on her? We both know the answer to this question because the trick relied on her being so drunk as to not remember anything the next day."
Again, he could have EASILY done this by drugging her.
"If you have a conversation about trust right before your partner goes out party then that pretty much always includes not getting so drunk that you can't take care of yourself."
I'm not being obtuse, I'm addressing what was in the drama. If I'm remembering correctly, the drama never established FL as a heavy drinker. Why on earth would it cross ML's mind that she might get drunk and get into trouble? She was at a celebration surrounded by FRIENDS, not partying in a random club. Her friends should have been looking out for her. It certainly never crossed my mind as a viewer that she might get taken advantage of. And ML specifically mentioned the second male lead in the conversation––implying that this was his meaning when he mentioned trust.
At the end of the day I don't think we will ever agree on this subject, and while I knew that at the beginning of the discussion, I thought I should at least represent the other side of the issue. You are advocating victim blaming, which you seem to think can be a good thing at times, whereas I believe it will never be a good thing, and nothing anyone can say will change that for me. It's specifically called victim blaming because it's blaming the victim of a crime for the crime, rather than the criminal, and I will always disagree with this.
And as far as using victim blaming to teach women, it will never work. If you blame someone for the unbelievable crime and trauma that befell them, you will only alienate them, hurt them, and worsen the effects of the trauma, and they won't listen to you. Not the best way to teach someone how to be responsible, is it? I believe proper safety and precautions against such things should be taught, but that should never include blaming the victim.
It's not a matter of not accepting the truth. I just don't agree with you, simple as that. I think you make a few points that are reasonable, but your overall message is something I simply do not agree with.
I think bringing marriage into the issue is combining two different problems. Being sexually assaulted and being unfaithful are two completely different things. Being sexually assaulted is not acting in bad faith or breaking trust––going out and getting drunk after promising not to would be acting in bad faith/breaking trust.
In the instance of this drama, FL getting drunk was never brought up in the "trust" conversation. I believe when he said he trusted her, he was referring to her relationship with the second male lead. He was trusting her not to cheat on him. The conversation had nothing to do with her drinking habits. (I'm curious whether you even watched the drama?)
"Well if my wife get willingly drunk as hell at a club and put herself in danger (especially if we just had a discussion about me trusting her not doing anything dumb) then I'm gonna blame her if she ends up getting taken advantage off."
Thank you for clarifying where you stand on this, because I now know that it's not semantics. We truly are on opposite sides of this issue. My advice: Blame her for getting drunk. Don't blame her for getting taken advantage of. There's actually a big difference between the two.
"If you do not victim blame people that put themselves needlessly in danger by making idiotic decisions then you do not teach people to take care of themselves and accept responsibility for their own safety."
Teaching responsibility and victim-blaming are also two completely separate things. I really hope you're not equating the two right now.
"If you do idiotic stuff to put you in danger then you are responsible for you ending up having problems in life - that's just reality."
And yet there are many, MANY instances in which people are extremely careful and work very hard not to do idiotic things, and yet they end up with terrible problems and trauma, through no fault of their own. I wonder if your ideology includes that simple truth.
"The FL didn't share the responsibility of the guy to trick her - that's his responsibility 100%. She has not fault in his decision to do that. " That's exactly what I've been saying.
"The guy taking advantage of her isn't at fault that she decided to make herself an easy target - that's her responsibility. " Possibly true, but that doesn't force him to assault her, and it also doesn't mean she deserves to be assaulted--contrary to what a lot of people seem to believe (I'm not claiming that you believe this, by the way).
The reason I said it was a slippery slope is because depending on what your logic and brain tell you, you could end up blaming anyone for just about anything. Everyone's logic will tell them something a little different, so I don't think that's a reliable measure for deciding who is at fault in a situation like this. Even statistics are unreliable and open to interpretation/bias. That is why I was using the law as a measuring stick (and why the law exists).
"I'm 100% sure though that getting black-out drunk at parties increases the risk of getting raped or taken advantage of in other ways." This is also probably very true. Honestly, I can't figure out if we actually disagree on this issue or if it's just semantics, but I'm erring on the side of staying away from victim-blaming which is why I'm hesitant to say I agree with your argument.
You can call me politically correct for it if you want lol.
I'm never going to advocate acting foolish (getting drunk or leaving your house unlocked for example) but who decides what's foolish? Is wearing a short skirt foolish, and is a woman to blame for being assaulted if she does such a thing? That's a slippery slope, isn't it?
If you leave your house unlocked and someone breaks in, guess who goes to jail? The person who broke in, NOT you, who was stupid for leaving your house unlocked. That's just the way it works.