Idk it feels so unfair on both sides. Junhyeok was blatantly using Su-Ah for his career kn...

This is getting tiring..Juhyeok would've never put Suah in such dehumanizing position if he didn't do it to J first. He erased J's ability to control his pheromones & made most other alphas repulsing to him by continually scenting him without consent even after knowing better. The only thing J's guilty of is smacking Suah with the flower bouquet when they were kids. The rest was on Suah for not respecting J's boundary.

Tho I agree with the last part. Suah needs to piss off (preferably after getting beat up) and Juhyeok needs to accept himself first

I agree. They both need to be apart and sort their shit out first. Hopefully they learn and grow without hurting each other too much.

Trying to equate being rude or a social rejection with years of secret biological manipulation and a violent assault is a truly delusional take. You cannot compare being honest about a transaction to a literal crime. Juhyeok was transparent about his intent while Suah spent a decade secretly sabotaging Juhyeok body to force a dependency that did not exist naturally.
Being treated like a sperm machine is the direct consequence of Suah own actions because if you create a biological cage for someone you do not get to act like a victim when they only interact with you to survive that cage. Suah is not lost in his feelings he is a predator who ignored literal tears and pleas to stop to satisfy a manufactured fantasy.
Claiming Juhyeok needs to make peace with his status while he is being systematically broken by the person who groomed him is pure victim blaming. You are essentially saying the victim needs to accept his submission so the predator can be loved properly by someone else. If you have to redefine a violent violation as a clash of interests to keep the story palatable you are not reading for complexity you are just normalizing abuse.

Taurine spitting faxx yet again

Thank you for you're service taurine!

I’m not denying that what Suah did can be read as abusive. The issue is that you’re treating that as the only possible interpretation and reducing the entire story to a simple predator–victim dynamic. The relationship is clearly toxic, but that doesn’t automatically make the characters one-dimensional or remove any emotional complexity from it.
Portraying manipulation or harm in a story isn’t the same as endorsing it. Some narratives are meant to be uncomfortable and explore unhealthy attachment, control, and dependency. Reducing all of that to a moral label kind of misses what the story is actually doing.
Not every story that includes abuse is trying to justify it, sometimes it’s trying to examine it.

Claiming that a violent assault can be read as abusive is like saying a house fire can be read as warm. It is not one of many possible interpretations, it is a baseline fact of the narrative. Using the word complexity to hand wave a literal violation of consent is just a high brow way to normalize predatory behavior.
The issue is not that the story is uncomfortable or explores unhealthy attachments. The issue is that the narrative is already pivoting toward a redemption arc that the character has not earned. You cannot claim the story is examining abuse if it uses chibi comedy and hand biting to distract the reader from the actual trauma. If the victim has to comically punch their assaulter five minutes after the crime the story is not examining anything, it is trivializing it.
Labeling a predator a predator and a victim a victim is not being one dimensional; it is being accurate. If you have to strip away the moral weight of a crime just to see complexity you are the one missing what the story is doing. You are ignoring the actual mechanics of grooming and assault to maintain a shipping fantasy. Complexity in writing comes from dealing with the devastating consequences of these actions not from pretending they are just part of a toxic clash of interests.

You’re arguing against something I’m not actually saying. I’m not redefining assault as “just one interpretation,” and I’m not stripping away its moral weight. If anything, I’ve already acknowledged that what happens can be read as a clear violation.
The point is that recognizing harm doesn’t automatically mean the entire narrative can only function on a single axis of “predator vs victim” with no further analysis. Stories can depict something as wrong and still explore the psychology, dependency, or emotional entanglement around it. Therefore it's not normalization but examination.
Where I think you’re making a fair criticism is about tone and framing. If the story undercuts its own serious themes with comedy or rushes toward redemption without properly addressing consequences, that’s a writing issue. But that’s different from saying that any attempt to engage with complexity is inherently excusing the behavior.
Calling something abuse is accurate. Claiming that this accuracy is the only meaningful way to engage with the story is where I disagree. You can acknowledge the harm and still discuss how and why the story presents it the way it does, even if that presentation is flawed.
Critiquing how the story handles abuse is valid. But shutting down any discussion beyond labels doesn’t really engage with the story either.

Also you cannot claim to be examining the story while simultaneously ignoring the facts that make your complexity argument impossible. There is no emotional entanglement or psychological dependency to analyze here, there is only a victim trying to survive a biological sabotage that has lasted a decade. You are trying to treat a crime scene like a valid romantic conflict. Admitting the writing is flawed while still fighting to keep the predator in a sympathetic light is just a sophisticated way to normalize abuse. You are not looking for complexity, you are looking for an excuse to ignore a violation so you can keep your shipping fantasy intact. If you were actually interested in examination you would start by acknowledging that a victim using a resource they were forced to need is not a bad behavior that balances out a violent crime.

You’re still framing this as if I’m trying to balance or justify the harm, which I’m not. Acknowledging that what happened is a violation doesn’t prevent further analysis, it just sets the baseline.
Where we disagree is that you’re insisting there’s nothing to examine beyond that baseline. I don’t think recognizing abuse automatically erases any possibility of looking at how the story constructs dependency, perspective, or character dynamics even if those elements are handled poorly.
Also, I’m not treating it as a “romantic conflict.” If anything, the discomfort comes from the fact that the story tries to frame aspects of it that way. Pointing that out isn’t the same as endorsing it, it’s engaging with how the narrative presents itself, including its contradictions.
You’re right that a victim responding to a forced situation isn’t morally equivalent to what was done to them. I haven’t argued otherwise. But saying that means we should stop at labels and not examine anything else about the writing or structure feels unnecessarily limiting.
Criticizing the story for mishandling serious themes is fair. Assuming that any attempt to discuss nuance is just “wanting an excuse” shuts down the conversation rather than strengthening your point.
You’re treating analysis as endorsement, and those are not the same thing.

You are fundamentally contradicting your own opening statement. You started this entire exchange by explicitly saying it feels unfair on both sides and that you could not blame the predator for getting mad at his victim. That is not analysis. That is a literal attempt to balance the scales of moral responsibility between a groomed victim and his assaulter. Now that your both sides logic has been dismantled you are hiding behind the word nuance to pretend you were just performing a neutral literary examination. You cannot claim to acknowledge the violation while simultaneously arguing that the victim treating his predator like a resource is a behavior that makes the situation unfair for the predator. Accuracy is not a shutdown of discussion. It is the refusal to entertain a narrative that centers a predator hurt feelings over a victim trauma. If your version of analysis requires ignoring the factual mechanics of grooming to find an emotional entanglement you are not examining the story. You are rewriting it to fit a shipping fantasy. Calling a crime a crime is the only meaningful baseline and everything you are trying to build on top of it is just a sophisticated way to normalize abuse.

The very literal quote of yours “ Idk it feels so unfair on both sides. Junhyeok was blatantly using Su-Ah for his career knowing full well that Su-Ah's in love with him and basically treating him like a cum dispenser and I can't really blame Su-Ah for getting mad at him for that, not to mention that Junhyeok even went as far as to go to another alpha which in omegaverse that must be like a blow to the gut to an alpha.”

It is embarrassing to watch you pivot this hard. You started this exchange by explicitly stating it was unfair on both sides and that you could not blame the predator for his anger. In that first comment you never acknowledged that a rape occurred. Instead you framed a violent violation as a blow to the gut and a clash of interests.

You’re right about one thing, my initial wording was off. Saying it felt “unfair on both sides” without clearly acknowledging the violation was a bad way to phrase it, and I get why that came across as minimizing what happened. That’s on me.
But what you’re doing now is taking that one statement and using it to define everything I’m saying after, even though I’ve already clarified my position. Acknowledging that something is a violation doesn’t lock the discussion into only one way of engaging with the story.
I’m not arguing that the victim’s behavior “balances out” what was done to him, and I’m not saying the predator’s feelings take priority over the victim’s trauma. What I’m saying is that a story can depict something as clearly wrong and still attempt to build emotional or narrative layers around it, and those attempts can be flawed, uncomfortable, or even poorly handled.
Pointing out those layers, or even criticizing how they’re written, is not the same as rewriting the story or normalizing abuse. It’s engaging with how the narrative presents itself, including where it fails.
You’re focused on enforcing a moral baseline, which is fair. I’m talking about how the story operates beyond that baseline, even if it doesn’t do it well. Those aren’t the same conversation.
At this point you’re not responding to what I’m saying now, you’re arguing against my first comment. I’ve already moved past that.

You are not just moving past your first comment, you are attempting to erase it because it exposed your actual bias. Your original post was not just a poor choice of words. It was a clear defense of a predator that centered his hurt feelings and gut blows while telling the victim to make peace with his submissive status. That is not an academic layer, it is the textbook definition of victim blaming. Claiming to engage with layers beyond the baseline is a hollow argument when you still refuse to accept that there are no layers to analyze in a decade long grooming project. There is no emotional entanglement here to examine because the entire relationship was manufactured through biological sabotage. By trying to separate the moral baseline from your analysis you are effectively saying that the rape is just one detail among many rather than the defining fact of the entire narrative. Semantics and pseudo sophisticated tone shifting do not change the fact that you tried to equate a social transaction with a violent crime. You are only pivoting now because your previous stance became indefensible. Accuracy about abuse is not a limitation of discussion, it is the only way to have an honest one. If you have to ignore the mechanics of trauma to find a deeper conversation then you are not analyzing the story; you are just performing mental gymnastics to keep a predator sympathetic. Let's respect each other's time. I will not be responding to you further.

You’re reading intent into my words and treating it as fact, which is why this isn’t going anywhere. I already acknowledged that my initial phrasing was poor and clarified my position, but you’re choosing to ignore that and stick to your first impression.
At no point did I argue that the victim is responsible for what happened to him or that it “balances out” the abuse. You’re insisting on that interpretation, not demonstrating it.
We clearly approach this story from completely different angles, you’re focused on enforcing a strict moral reading, while I’m talking about how the narrative presents and handles those elements, even if it does so poorly.
If you’re not interested in engaging beyond assuming bad faith, then there’s nothing more to discuss.
You’re not correcting my argument, you’re replacing it with a worse version and arguing against that.