Miso's Topics (44)

okay now im crying too what the hell

As far as I'm aware, two of the three children have their own spin-off novel... and let me break it to you, but they DO have a relationship... according to spoilers

please tell me you're joking what

I got randomly spoiled on twitter :( they even mentioned who's top and bottom... I don't want to spoil further, but it IS a sexual relationship at the very least. I'm guessing they're older in the novel?

I hope so cuz the og ends when they're max 10

Yeah, the novel is a spin-off and it's THEIR story so I'd assume you wouldn't really see much of them in this one...

Thank you, literally thank you for this

You took the words right out of my mouth.. The author did the character so dirty… ( I thought the aphrodisiac will be consumed by the Secretary instead and that’s how the 2nd couple’s relationship starts) Now I can’t look at him the same anymore.. the line was crossed

See, here we have another reader claiming the secretary was "a decent person until he raped MC."
Your sense of sexual ethics isn't much different from THIS author's.

Here's a part of my post from a conversation I had with another reader few days ago about the pathologies that stupid BL can create.↓

+++++++++++
Just by looking at many BL works (especially Korean ones) and comment section, you can see how many writers and readers lack logical thinking skills, literacy, and awareness of sexual abuse and harassment.
This is precisely the result of downplaying the impact of these issues because "it's just fiction."

Actually I was overwhelmed and appalled by the number of readers who claimed that this secretary was a "decent person" up until the rape, that he "respected MC deeply," and that "suddenly transformed into a completely different person."

After jacking off to MC's moans, he suddenly began to see MC solely in a sexual way as an omega, and only thought about becoming his procreation partner. Every time they were alone, he always did sexual harassment and SA.

A few days after that masturbation, after drinking alone with MC, he laid the heavily drunk MC down on the bed and leaned over him, "letting your guard down like this in front of me, an Alpha...", rubbing his forehead against his, and begging "choose me as your procreation partner."

Is doing something like this to someone who isn't even own partner considered "decent"?
The author depicted this scene as if it were beautiful and pure action. It's definitely the fuckin 'romanticizing'.
The sexual morality of those who didn't even perceive THIS as sexual harassment, and instead saw the secretary as a "decent Alpha who respects and cares MC," is not much different from that of this author.

Regarding the incident that he almost raped MC, I don't recall seeing any other character/alpha besides him being defended with excuses like "it was unavoidable because he was in a rut state" or "it was a sudden rut, so it doesn't count."

I'm pretty sure that if these things had done by some shabby old man, they would certainly not have viewed it that way.

(And, if he truly regret what he did and has any respect for the MC's dignity and safety, he would make every effort to avoid making the same mistake again and to never be alone with MC in a closed place, no matter what.)

You’re arguing against a point I never made. Saying the writing handled his character badly is not the same as saying his behavior before the assault was perfectly acceptable.
My point was that the story initially framed him as more restrained and self-aware compared to typical obsessive alphas, then suddenly escalated him into a rapist in a way that felt more like a narrative shortcut than believable character progression and that’s a criticism of the writing not a defense of his actions.
Also noticing that a character crossed a major line at a certain point does not mean readers “support sexual harassment” or “lack sexual ethics.” People are talking about how the story presented and developed the character, not writing a legal or moral analysis of every interaction.
You can absolutely argue that some earlier scenes were already inappropriate in hindsight. But acting like anyone who didn’t immediately read him as irredeemably predatory from chapter one is morally deficient is a huge stretch

He definitely had his shady moments, was sexually harassing MC and so on what was crossing the line for sure, but what author did in season 2 was just simply disgusting!! All these recent chapters feel just extremely ooc, like totally different narrative and characters and simply I'm disappointed! Not forgetting that this story was not marked as love triangle in season 1 at all! Seriously, it's a perfect example for author can destroy her work with her own hands! No respect towards her story and readers! Authors should learn that they take responsibility for their work and need to be prepared for consequences... and for this story, what's done is done, don't think there is any was to save this story, she has simply kinda ruined her future in the profession because people no longer trust her, and even Korean readers are disappointed and drop the series... wasted potential

You're saying is just sophistry. You judged him as "not the kind of person who would rape" based on things he'd done when he was alone with MC from the beginning until now, right?

Unlike you, I felt nauseous when this secretary went out drinking with MC a few days after he'd masturbated to MC's moans, and declared that "(without even knowing how much ML had endured for 10 years, completely disregarding his feelings) you should have children with someone who likes you even a little," and then, while sexually harassing a drunken MC in bed, begged him to "choose me." And thought 'I don't want him to be in my sight again.'

Since then, I've avoided seeing his face, and whenever he appeared, I reluctantly skimmed through only the dialogue, just glancing at it.

I haven't reread this manhwa since reading the spoilers for ch.31. Even before that, I naturally never reread any scenes featuring this secretary.
I remember how he's been even though I only read it once. Bcz I had a strong sense of him being "that kind of guy" ever since I witnessed that sexual harassment.

Even right after the attempted rape, he stopped the MC from leaving, didn't he? That's just insane. He never reflected on what he did, and acted solely on his own feelings and desires.

After masturbating, he's been nothing but someone who'd do "something like this".
There's nothing strange about him rape MC, and not OOC at all to me. He's the only character in the story who isn't contradictory.

Don't conveniently treat other people's opinions as 'afterthoughts', while conveniently ignoring your own numbness caused by the romanticizing of SA or harassment, which has made you unable to even recognize it as harassment.
That's how people like this author, whose senses have become utterly numb, become creators, further increasing the number of numb people.

To anyone reading this, the person arguing with me blocked me LOL I guess they couldn't admit to being wrong lolz

Omg thanks for the heads up

Yea ╥﹏╥
Felt so frustrating
Should have read this comment before

ukes don't shit, they're ethereal beings sent from heaven

LMAOOO

PLSSS

LITERALLYYYYYY WHAT IVE BEEN THINKING ABOUT LIKE HE 100% WOULD'VE SHIT

So true

Exactly what ive been thinking about the whole time lmaoooo thank god ukes in fiction is a myth

Beastiality is really what you draw the line at in THIS book?

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.