Imadethisaccountforjicha

That was such lazy writing... like, the MC's getting hit in the head once per episode but THATS how you're gonna do it?

Meh... this season was not as good as the last one for me. I wish we got more into the mind of the villain from this season. They definitely tried with si euns growth arc, but it felt rushed and unfulfilling to me... and taking him out for an entire episode and a half with the white truck of doom didn't help. I get what they tried to do with that... it just didn't work for me.

Then the fight scene at the end... I didn't like it. Not only did it make the MC and his group look like absolute chumps, but it was super unrealistic. I know our MC is known for fighting dirty, but the fight became a 1v1 before he arrived, and Baku lost, then the MC taps in w/a weapon on and still loses, and then they SUCKER PUNCH the villain to win. Like come on... And why is it that the MC's side is allowed to lose 2x, and the fight isn't considered ended... but the Union leader goes down after winning 2x and then suddenly its over and Eunjang automatically wins? Like huh????

At least we got to see suho at the end. I wouldn't mind a season 3 where seong je returns as the main villain. And for as much complaining as I did, it was still better than a lot of dramas this year so far... so, I'll give it a 7.

It seems like you are having trouble understanding the misogyny I am talking about and that is why you keep acting as if I am advocating for male harrassment.

There are ABSOLUTELY times where you can make the "if the roles were reversed" arguments in kdramas. NO ONE IS ARGUING THIS.

But peeping through paper walls is a common kdrama trope. Characters of all genders and ages have done this in dramas, and 9 times out of 10, it is portrayed the same way and received by the audience the same way. The roles ARE reversed. So acting as if they aren't, and there is bias where there isn't, brings out ACTUAL bias. And here, that bias is directed at women.

I will give a comparison using race, maybe a similar situation will help.

Sometimes in the US you will see a news story of a black kid beating up a white kid, but it wont make front page news... you will see commentary like "oh well if the roles were reversed this would be a headline story". Implying that the news is being unfair and treating the black kid with more kindness than if it was a white kid committing the same crime. But if you know anything about racism in the US, you'd know the roles HAVE been reversed. STILL being reversed. So making commentary about role reversal becomes a very ignorant thing to say. Now apply this concept to gender in this situation with the context that I provided...

Again, see how you reframed the situation? This shows you know you are being disingenuous. She wasn't looking at young boys, she was peeping on a man and a woman. You can see the FL react when the woman takes her top off. SHE WAS WATCHING BOTH. The question you should be asking is, would we viewers be as understanding if ML was peeping on the couple?

To which I and other seasoned kdramas viewers would answer, YES (though idk why its assumed we are "understanding" of it, it seems like everyone agrees that its creepy but if you acknowledge that everyone is on the same page about that, then you would have to face the fact we might actually have a point -__-).

The reason: This poking the paper scene is a common TROPE! It is in so many kdramas. I have seen women, children, elders all doing this in various dramas. BUT IT IS MOSTLY MALE CHARACTERS. It's creepy everytime, regardless of who. But it is also depicted as "funny" everytime, regardless of who. There are so many creepy, stalkerish, peeping MLs to the point it is normalized and romanticized when MLs are basically stalkers. SO YES. Viewers react the same.

And this is why I'm checking you guys. Not because you rightfully called out creepy scene, but because you are creating a false narrative around it.

Again in simple language: calling out harassment of men - Good, weaving in a false narrative, bad.

And you don't realize how weird this response is? And how weird it is you keep speaking on a hypothetical of something we all saw DID NOT HAPPEN? Now were jumping to assume her sexuality???

Like this is what I mean... y'all are ignoring what I'm saying. You're being weird. Not by calling attention to men's victimhood, but by weirdly making this convo riddled with misogyny. This is the point I'm making. Standing up for male victims, good. Mixing misogyny into it, bad. Get me?

I'm sorry, I'm not reading this. You ended our discourse. Have a good day.

I think you guys didn't read my post all the way through or it was too long winded that you are missing my point. I'll make it shorter to clear up confusion.

It's fine to bring attention men being sexually harassed. But there are many commenters, including yourself SOMEHOW messing up what should be a good PSA on how anyone can be a perp and a victim, and inserting unnecessary misogyny into it.

And then due to that bias, it makes you unable to see the likelihood that the writer intended for that jarring scene to strike up discourse.

Yall didnt read my post... but its ok, at least there's productive convo going on from it lol.

The FL was peeping at the woman as well, was she invisible? You even contradict yourself on it. If the woman wasn't peeped on, what affected her dignity? This is what I was questioning. These inconsistencies.

And wanking off? Where was that shown? Surely you are aware women CAN actually do that and she surely did not do it here...Again pointing out how a woman just "looking" is the equivalent to a man wanking off... you don't see the bias there?

And 3 years, why so specific? Go a little further back and see if you can still call it hypothetical. As someone who has been watching these dramas for much longer than 3 years, there have definitely been male characters who have peeped. And I'm sure it has happened in the last 3 years as well, but haven't watched every drama, nor am I keeping a list of when I saw it. Again this is a common trope.

Pointing out bias isn't making light of it when were pointing out the bias towards men, but when I question if there is also some bias towards women here, its now me making light of it? I am not saying these things to make light of peeping toms. I am just:
1. pointing out inconsistencies
2. considering the possibility that the scene was meant to convey more than showing an "innocent" FL.
3. Question why people are rewriting history as if there are no male peeping Tom scenes? Must this be true in order for it to be wrong to peep on men? I and others find it strange.

As I'm sure you did see, it wasn't addressed only to you. I wrote it for people actually interested in discussion. So I will follow your lead and stop after the first sentence, allegedly lol.

Unless its a site like viki or bilibili where there are payment subscriptions available, you should be careful about sharing it on forums. Every few months/years, Forums are swept to find those sites to take them down. We recently had a big sweep and major sites that existed for years were taken down and now so much media is at risk of being lost. So Im just reminding people to be a little more on the hush about them because there are so much fewer sites after the last big sweep.

Why is Sung Joon not listed in the actors? Even if its a supporting or guest role? Are they trying to hide his role? Is he the secret Male Lead or a secret villain? I get suspicious when an actor who has been on a long hiatus but has been an ML in many dramas returns and plays "minor" roles. Like, he is someone who has acted as the main romance interest of HUGE actresses. Yet he's not even listed as a character? Strange....

Please delete this. Directly message people when they ask this.

There are times when sexual harassment specifically against men is overlooked but I don't think this is one of them. Historical korean dramas often reference the practice of "poking holes through the paper wall". Apparently back in the day watching newly married couples copulate was normal and it was done so much that poking holes in paper walls and doors became an innuendo. It is framed as a silly and comedic thing in many dramas, but in reality it is about people being peeping toms, which is sexual harassment.

The reason why I and others are giving you some push back is to expand your thinking on this is the claim that there is bias here, and you coming to a one dimensional conclusion about the intent or lack of consideration of the writer. But the writer probably did this purposely, as this drama is intended to be open minded, so they are making scenarios that are making you think deeper than surface level.

You can stop reading here if you want....This is gonna be long winded but I'm writing it for those who are open to it, not just you:

I've seen a few comments that said something like "If this was a man peeping on a woman, it would not be tolerated in a drama". My first response is, are there not two people being spied on? Why are people calling this a woman harassing a male and not a woman harassing a couple? Why is the harassment of the woman in the room not acknowledged? Even if she is a courtesan, she has a room for a reason. We also ignore the other men gathered around peeping, and the fact that once dressed as a man, she is allowed to join in on peeping...but we expect that of them, right? They are merely background male characters so it doesn't count?

And frankly, there have been dramas where male characters that were relevant to the storyline "poked holes in the paper" on female characters and it was taken comedically or framed as an innocent act of curiosity. In fact, this innuendo is usually a male peeping. But you do not see it being a main point of contention in comment sections of those dramas. At most you see a comment or 2 about it being creepy and then the audience moves on once the character does something nice for the FL.

With the nudity in this drama, we can already assume the writers are very open minded. So I think writers purposely wrote this jarring scene not simply to comedically laugh at a man getting harrassed but to establish this female character as someone who is no different than "the boys". It is also being overlooked that the FL is a friend to her brother's fiance and is spying on his unfaithfulness (do you think the FL simply made the public bet just for fun and it was a coincidence or was she being smart to knowingly spread the word for the fiance to find out?) This is NOT an innocent and well mannered FL and I believe the writers made this scene to establish that she is to be viewed as an male character would.

Now it is up to the audience to reflect, would you truly stop watching the drama or got as upset over a peeping Tom scene if the genders were reversed? This is rhetorical, you don't have to prove it to me that you would. I'm sure the true answer for many is yes and that they react the same to all depictions of sexual harrassment. But many would not. Many would use this as a chance to call out a bias towards men, not realizing in doing so, they are acting out a bias towards women. And the proof is in the pudding by how many call this out in this section..... but can we even remember drama scenes of men doing this? Nope. And not bc it doesn't happen. How else would I know about this part of Korean culture if I hadn't seen it before? But it is bc its not memorable when a man does it...its a non-issue.

I definitely agree there are situations where harrassment against men is treated as if its impossible... but is this really the case here?

Just food for thought...

SHHHHH. Just quietly delete this post please. You cant mention the name of where you are watching unless its something like Viki where they make people pay to watch most of the dramas.

Please delete this comment. If you leave it up, dont be surprised when the site is gone.

People are really so proud to make such ignorant statements lol

uh oh.... I was looking forward to this but now its gonna be overhyped and have so many haters in the comment sections talking about how "its a good drama, but not 50 billion won good". Luckily it'll be on Netflix where ppl who aren't kdrama stans can watch and give unbiased input.

She's really an inspiration to idols and solo artists who go into acting. I remember when her acting was shaky and ppl would complain about her casting in dramas and I got to see her bloom into one of the best actresses in the industry.

It's weird, but it doesn't make you a bad person.

The ONLY real problem with getting with a biological sibling is inbreeding. Inbreeding causes real mental and physical harm for generations and even chancing that is super selfish.

Everything else is just social stigma. "what will ppl say?" "how will your parents feel?".... thats all down to just humans judging other humans. If society decided to accept it, no one would be hurt by it except inbreeding victims. Thats how you differentiate what is REALLY good or bad. Would the harm remain the same if the rule was gone?

So if its not blood related...no REAL harm done. Ppl can easily just get over it. "Its strange" "I wouldn't do it".... TBH big deal, no one is truly harmed, its not our business. Things that make someone a bad person is when it causes harm to others.

My only side eye with this story is the Older/younger sibling dynamic. The older sibling being the guardian of the younger one in this story is where we get into murky waters morally. The power imbalance due to age and guardianship makes the relationship a problem...but not them being fake siblings.