"Why would you want to marry someone who doesn't even love you?"
I, as a male, am thinking the same. Just Why? but I don't know what to say about ML. Forcing your feeling!!!!!.... just let it go. lets nature take it course.
Just imagine if the roles are reversed( FL follow ML everywhere as puppy) , i can see the negative comments of many females watchers.
The complaint isn't that she hasn't fallen by episode 13—it's that her emotional withdrawal is so absolute that…
LiVvvvvvv, I completely agree that name-calling and shaming the FL is wrong. That kind of vitriol misses the complexity of her character entirely. But my critique was never that—it was about the emotional imbalance in the dynamic, not insulting her personhood.
Yes, she is consistent and upfront. But consistency doesn't make a choice beyond critique. A loan shark is consistent; that doesn't make them generous. She said she wouldn't give her heart, and she stuck to it—but she also accepted his life-saving risks, his vulnerability, and his protection without offering warmth in return. That is legally fair, but emotionally hollow.
And yes, she should change only when she wants to. But while she's deciding, she is actively consuming everything he gives. That is a privileged position—she gets to take her time because he bears all the cost of waiting. We can respect her autonomy while still noting that the dynamic is deeply one-sided. That isn't hate; it's honest observation of her brilliantly written flaws
The complaint isn't that she hasn't fallen by episode 13—it's that her emotional withdrawal is so absolute that…
I appreciate this thoughtful reply, but I think it conflates 'helping him strategically' with 'emotional reciprocity.' She cures his eyes because she needs him alive to protect her family—that's self-preservation, not love. The hallucination is a subconscious crack, but her conscious actions still refuse to acknowledge it, which is exactly what frustrates viewers—not that she hasn't fallen, but that she actively suppresses even gratitude.
Also, the 'I told him it was transactional' defense is weak. Warning someone you'll be cold doesn't make you admirable for being cold—it just makes you consistent. He bleeds for her; she accepts it and says 'not my problem.' That's legally fair, but emotionally hollow. She has every right to guard her heart. But we have every right to find that guard cold, especially when she consumes all his sacrifices without a single crack of warmth.
She is a brilliant character, but her choice to remain frozen while taking everything is precisely what viewers are critiquing—not her right to choose, but the emotional stinginess of that choice.
Can we normalize, or accept FLs who does fall in love because the script is romance coded, but when she wants…
The complaint isn't that she hasn't fallen by episode 13—it's that her emotional withdrawal is so absolute that it borders on ingratitude. She actively accepts his life-saving help, strategic protection, and vulnerable confessions, yet offers zero emotional acknowledgment in return. The ML's patience and free will are his virtues, but they do not make the FL's coldness virtuous in return. He chose to love her unconditionally—that makes him noble. She chose to accept everything he gives while giving nothing back—that makes her transactional, not empowered. She judges ML not by his specific, demonstrated actions, but by the general behavior of other historical princes. Yet, every single action he has taken so far proves he is an exception: he risks his life for her, exposes his vulnerabilities to only her, and explicitly tells her he will never take concubines (in many versions). By clinging to "all princes are the same," she is ignoring facts right in front of her. It is rationally safe, but it is also lazy emotional reasoning. She is punishing him for the crimes of other men. Her fear is understandable, but it is not unassailable. A truly rational person would adjust their thought process and mindset based on new finding but she refuses to. No one is asking her to "pin all her hope" on him overnight. But there is a massive middle ground between "I will trust him completely with everything" and "I will treat him like a stranger who happens to bleed for me." Instead, she remains frozen. Her refusal to take any emotional step forward is not pragmatism—it is emotional cowardice dressed in intellectual armor.
Well, yeah. She's been very honest about that. No backing. No powerful family. Short life. Enough power to save…
She never once told ML, "I am only marrying you because I think you are weak and easy to control." By omitting her true exploitative motives, she was absolutely leading him on, just silently. She let him believe their marriage was a normal political alliance, not a calculated plan to use his perceived weakness as a shield.Circumstances explain behavior, but they do not excuse it. Many characters in this drama have tragic backstories and face existential threats, yet they don't all treat people as disposable tools. Her family's danger makes her understandable, but it doesn't make her morally clean. You are confusing "justified" with "good" —she is the former, not the latter. She absolutely "led him on"—just not with romantic words. She led him on by pretending to be a harmless, conventional bride. If she had walked into that marriage saying, "I am only here to exploit your political weakness and will leave the moment you become inconvenient," that would be honest. But she didn't. Her entire engagement was built on a deception of intent. Discovery of his strength made her flee, proving her commitment was entirely conditional. That is the textbook definition of leading someone on for utility.when she discovered Xiao Huayong had more power than expected, she didn't think, "Great, now he can protect us better!" She thought, "I need to leave." That reaction reveals that her primary concern was never his capability—it was her own control over him. Her fear wasn't that he was dangerous; it was that he was no longer under her thumb. That is deeply self-serving, not pragmatically neutral.
just a thought ::::: Before the discovery, she was perfectly happy to marry him only because she thought she could manipulate him. She never once considered his feelings, his safety, or his humanity—he was simply a stepping stone for her family's survival. When she discovers he is strong, her first instinct is to flee, not because he is evil, but because he is no longer easily exploitable. It reveals a chillingly self-serving nature: her commitment was never to him, but only to the utility he provided.
After waiting 4+ yrs for subtitles, Today finally completed watching this drama. Some may find it boring, annoying, irritated by some characters and roles. Anyway, it's actually a good drama with full of Human Emotions (not only on romance) and Business Competition.
Just imagine if the roles are reversed( FL follow ML everywhere as puppy) , i can see the negative comments of many females watchers.
Yes, she is consistent and upfront. But consistency doesn't make a choice beyond critique. A loan shark is consistent; that doesn't make them generous. She said she wouldn't give her heart, and she stuck to it—but she also accepted his life-saving risks, his vulnerability, and his protection without offering warmth in return. That is legally fair, but emotionally hollow.
And yes, she should change only when she wants to. But while she's deciding, she is actively consuming everything he gives. That is a privileged position—she gets to take her time because he bears all the cost of waiting. We can respect her autonomy while still noting that the dynamic is deeply one-sided. That isn't hate; it's honest observation of her brilliantly written flaws
Also, the 'I told him it was transactional' defense is weak. Warning someone you'll be cold doesn't make you admirable for being cold—it just makes you consistent. He bleeds for her; she accepts it and says 'not my problem.' That's legally fair, but emotionally hollow. She has every right to guard her heart. But we have every right to find that guard cold, especially when she consumes all his sacrifices without a single crack of warmth.
She is a brilliant character, but her choice to remain frozen while taking everything is precisely what viewers are critiquing—not her right to choose, but the emotional stinginess of that choice.
The ML's patience and free will are his virtues, but they do not make the FL's coldness virtuous in return. He chose to love her unconditionally—that makes him noble. She chose to accept everything he gives while giving nothing back—that makes her transactional, not empowered.
She judges ML not by his specific, demonstrated actions, but by the general behavior of other historical princes. Yet, every single action he has taken so far proves he is an exception: he risks his life for her, exposes his vulnerabilities to only her, and explicitly tells her he will never take concubines (in many versions).
By clinging to "all princes are the same," she is ignoring facts right in front of her. It is rationally safe, but it is also lazy emotional reasoning. She is punishing him for the crimes of other men. Her fear is understandable, but it is not unassailable. A truly rational person would adjust their thought process and mindset based on new finding but she refuses to.
No one is asking her to "pin all her hope" on him overnight. But there is a massive middle ground between "I will trust him completely with everything" and "I will treat him like a stranger who happens to bleed for me."
Instead, she remains frozen. Her refusal to take any emotional step forward is not pragmatism—it is emotional cowardice dressed in intellectual armor.
Before the discovery, she was perfectly happy to marry him only because she thought she could manipulate him. She never once considered his feelings, his safety, or his humanity—he was simply a stepping stone for her family's survival. When she discovers he is strong, her first instinct is to flee, not because he is evil, but because he is no longer easily exploitable. It reveals a chillingly self-serving nature: her commitment was never to him, but only to the utility he provided.