Partner Track – Season 1 Episode 8 “Consequential Damages” Recap & Review

Consequential Damages

Episode 8 of Partner Track starts with Ingrid pacing in a jail cell. When she’s brought in for questioning, Nick’s earrings are brought up. Ingrid has no idea what’s going on so she keeps quiet and asks for her lawyer. Jeff shows up and manages to save the day. It turns out Lina actually stole the earrings and the police mistook the culprit for Ingrid. Fingerprint dustings confirm Ingrid is in the clear.

Later in the episode, Lina tries to justify her actions by claiming she needed the money for Cirque tryouts. Apparently she has every intention of buying them back but of course, that doesn’t exactly help Ingrid.

Ingrid has a big Thanksgiving Dinner to look forward to, while Tyler remains conflicted over his feelings. He speaks to Rachel about his lapse in the bar, snogging the bartender, Javi, and wondering how this is going to fly with Anthony. As for Rachel, she seems to have nailed her interview and she’s also bagged a good guy in Justin too, despite what she thought of him to begin with. Still, she’s suffering from serious writer’s block.

Back at the firm, Ingrid shows up with Jeff and they agree to keep the false arrest a secret, especially as they’re so close to the big announcement about who’s going to be made partner. Anyway, Marty facetimes from home and tells the pair that Ted Lassiter is getting anxious about the NewLeaf situation. He wants this deal closed before the shareholder meeting. He encourages the pair to think like partners and wishes them both a happy thanksgiving.

While the pair work together, Jeff opens up and admits that Victoria was actually his client in London. One thing led to another and they ended up together. She ended up rifling through his suitcase after the deed and found something she shouldn’t. She used that against him and blew up a huge deal in London for him.

As the duo continue on, they stumble upon a clause within the documentation. The Mins have snuck in extra terms to the contract, including something that relates to “excluding consequential damages.” That’s not in the original copy and it seems like they’re trying to pull a fast one. It’s going to take a long time to sort out and despite Jeff offering to take on the role himself, given Ingrid’s prior Thanksgiving plans, she refuses and the pair work tirelessly to try and fix this. Unfortunately, Ingrid’s parents aren’t exactly happy that she’s missing out.

It’s been a rough couple of weeks for Ingrid and she vents to Jeff about all her issues, including her friends snubbing her, the diversity gala fiasco and lying to Z. Jeff is super sweet and tells her he believes in her. Honestly, it’s a genuinely really nice moment and puts him in a positive light.

Meanwhile, Rachel decides to head over and see Justin on Thanksgiving, but when she meets his friends things are awkward. Tyler’s night is also awkward when he faces the wrath of his parents who look down on his unemployment and lack of business prospects. At least to begin with anyway. In Tyler’s room, there’s a really nice moment between Tyler and his dad, with the latter telling his son that he’s proud of him.

Jeff sorts out a beautiful Thanksgiving dinner for Ingrid and the pair end up sharing some home truths about their family lives. Oh, and with Ingrid sorting out the deal with Min Enterprises, she realizes this could well mean she’s going to be made partner. In her excited, flustered state she lets loose and kisses Jeff. The two get hot and heavy. Clothes fly off but Ingrid is about to get a serious less in humility.

Nick shows up and spies them together. He’s heartbroken and immediately breaks up with Ingrid.

Elsewhere, Tyler comes clean about sleeping with the barman but Anthony is understandably hurt and pissed off. Unfortunately, the pair go their separate ways.

The Episode Review

Good on you Nick, you can do better. I’ve really liked Ingrid through this season but her cheating has been a line too far. There’s a weird amount of skewed morality with female protagonists in western media right now, with a lot of them just nonchalantly cheating on their partners and acting like it’s not a big deal. Partner Track is another classic example. Cheating is never okay, it’s wrong and immoral and the fact that Ingrid didn’t just cheat on Nick once but did it multiple times whilst also stringing him along, just feels wrong and it actually damages her character quite a lot. Hopefully Ingrid can see the error of her ways going forward.

Tyler’s cheating also results in him losing Anthony while Rachel and Justin seem like a good match right now, hopefully that keeps up too! Beyond that though, there’s really not a lot of law drama-ing going on, with the focus resting squarely on the romantic drama for now.

With 2 episodes to go, it’ll be interesting to see exactly what direction this one takes next – and who Ingrid ends up with at the end.

Previous Episode

Next Episode

You can read our full season review for Partner Track Season 1 here!

  • Episode Rating

32 thoughts on “Partner Track – Season 1 Episode 8 “Consequential Damages” Recap & Review”

  1. I think that Nick was a decent person, but I must admit I thought that I wouldn’t be against Ingrid realizing she run a bit too fast, part amicably with Nick and maybe end up somewhere else dating Zi-Xin down the road (albeit I guess she would be involved in a similar kind of conflict of interest as Murphy with Victoria, so something in their respective positions would have to change). Not married to it because previous to this episode I also wouldn’t have minded her and Nick refocusing on their relationship, and move forward at a slower speed, either. But in some way, after this episode, I was glad that nothing ever happened with Zi-Xin… dodged a bullet! Like Nick, Anthony, they can do better (the latter two really deserve people that treasure them, as well as time to heal from the damage their now exes caused them).

    I was also happy to see Nick decisively cut off their relationship, and relieved that he is still one of NY’s most eligible bachelors, which makes me hopeful about his ability to bounce back, though make no mistake, bot for him and Anthony the damage had been done, and the damage is real, no matter how quick the show is to turn away from it in order to refocus on their ex partner’s self absorbed flailing around while trying to decide what they want, and hurting their (now former) significant others in the process. Anthony too seems to have his life rather well put together, I was momentarily afraid that he would put up with Tyler’s atrocious behavior, but thought that he carried himself with dignity after being dumped (though I wish he had been the one to cut things off, I think it would have been healthier for his self respect, self dignity and ability to move forward).

  2. Between Murphy’s past and the events in the previous and this chapter, I would say that learning some impulse control would do wonders for both Murphy’s and Ingrid’s lives. And maybe a thought to the Golden Rule as well. From his background, Murphy comes off more like an idiot than someone dark and edgy (dark and edgy is very immature teenage romance). Both him and Ingrid needlessly complicate their lives, justify why, and leave misery and wreckage in their wake. It’s both self centered and just plain down. Murphy created a good portion of his problems with his own hands, while Ingrid also seems determined not to choose the obvious solution that would merely require her to act like a normal human being for two minutes, namely having a phone call with Nick and, if she wants to, break things off. The pointlessness, stupidity and banality of it all is what I found most offensive. I must admit that I had a different reaction to the two: with Ingrid, I felt disappointment, similar to what I felt with Taylor, while with Murphy I really didn’t have expectations in the first place, and more than anything I felt offended that she would make such a demeaning choice and show such bad taste: it’s not even merely the fact that he is unreliable, untrustworthy and of questionable loyalty, it’s also the fact that he came off as plain dumb. But then again, given her actions, one cannot really say that she is cut of a too different cloth, if at all. In that sense they might deserve each other, but it does raise the question of what exactly makes her thing that he wouldn’t stab her in the back.

  3. Actually, I would say that viewers generally held FL, Murphy and Tyler accountable, which was really quite surprising to see, suggesting some more critical consumption than average. I guess that the closes thing I am reminded of is French people complaining the cheating and other stereotypes of French culture. in Emily in Paris. Possibly Partner Track’s is a similar phenomenon with New York in the place of Paris, and this might be the explanation rather than a general cavalier towards cheating attitude in modern western TV series. But maybe not, because, for example, Gray’s Anatomy was set in Seattle.

  4. If Ingrid had taken just a couple of minutes to answer the phone and tell Nick that she wanted to break up, she would have shown him basic honesty and avoided a situation where he basically caught her half naked at the office (and it could have been even worse had he shown up ten minutes before). Not that avoiding such a situation would have been the reason to do it, but it would have been a nice side bonus (incidentally, while she didn’t expect him to show up at the office, I guess that anyone with access to the building could have shown up and found her and her colleague roaming around half naked, if they didn’t have the misfortune of catching them while they were actually having sex together. All in all 1) having sex at the office when people could have randomly shown up: bad idea, 2) while it would have been better to do it in person, taking two minutes to answer the phone and break up with her boyfriend before sleeping with her colleague (maybe scheduling a longer in meeting person the next day) would have at least meant she treated him with basic honesty: in person is better tan on the phone, but breaking up before sleeping with her colleague would have been better than betraying Nick and deceiving him, and, while again this was not the main point, it would have avoided him making some traumatic memories by walking in on her roaming the office half naked after having sex with her colleague, which would have been a nice bonus (Nick not seeing that, not Ingrid sleeping with her colleague).

  5. I must say that one thing I wished I could see was contraceptives being mentioned… like, at all. I mean, maybe I have been spoiled by dramas like Let’s Talk About Chu, but it doesn’t seem like something that would take too much time. About as much as it would have taken for Ingrid to actually take Nick’s call and have the decency to tell him that she wanted to break up. An investment of time and effort so minuscule compared to the affair that I simply don’t believe it would have been beyond the abilities of anyone. Whether she was not willing or didn’t even think about hurting Nick, someone that did deserve basic honesty and respect, both options are very telling, and say much of her as a person, about how self absorbed and self centered one has to be to not even pick up one’s partner’s calls, ghosting them, when they were clearly at a point where they were ready to sleep with someone else behind their back: one could just as easily break things off instead.

    Two minutes of her time, before running off to sleep with her lover, is all it would have taken, and it would have spared the man she was engaged some traumatic memories and being made to feel as if he was unworthy of even basic honesty and respect, however minimal. Again, not that it wouldn’t have been better to talk to him face to face, but it would have been honest, at least, and it would have avoided a situation where he showed up and basically caught her half naked. And he could have just as well arrived minutes earlier and actually caught them having sex together. Unpleasantness that she could have avoided by dedicating just a couple of minutes of her time to call him and tell him that things were over between the two of them. Not much to ask at all, from anyone: I simply don’t believe there is anyone for which that would be too much of an effort. While having a face to face meeting would have been better than breaking up on the phone, the latter would have still been preferable to deceiving and betraying him, and have the situation they found themselves in (which would have been even worse had he come ten minutes before). A quick call to break up, and maybe scheduling a new meeting face to face tomorrow to talk things through calmly. Not too much to ask. The more I think about it, the more I feel that she didn’t show Nick even the slightest shred of consideration.

  6. Honestly, it would have been just so easy for Ingrid to pick up her phone and just tell Nick that she wanted to break up, instead of ghosting him with an excuse. It would have taken, what, two minutes, five tops? Either the thought of betraying and deceiving Nick, someone that did not deserve it, was no consideration, or it was but it was not important enough for her to do it anyway. Either way, it’s very telling, and indicative of a certain self absorption and self centered-ness.

    Even the way she reacts when he finds her without pants in the middle of the room, asking him what he was doing there, as if this was what was important. Again, it would have taken a phone call, it’s all that she needed to do to show him the barest shred of respect and honesty. Better to do it in person, but compared to the alternative, at least she would have shown him basic honesty and he would have avoided some rather unpleasant memories, seeing her like that at the office. Or felt deceived and betrayed, because he was. We are talking bare minimum, bottom of the barrel respect and honesty.

    A time investment of a couple of minutes, surely her colleague would have taken longer to reach for some food and drinks. And the most ironic thing was that Nick had called her and she was the one that ghosted him with a quick note instead of picking up the call, so it’s literally impossible to claim that the notion of picking up the phone and telling him what was up was never in the cards or had never been contemplated. And even if it was not, that too would, in and of itself, be telling: again, either he was no consideration, or he was a consideration but he chose to treat him with no shred of honesty and respect anyway, deceiving and betraying him.

    Surely a couple of minutes to pick up the phone and tell him she wanted to break up wouldn’t have been too much to ask from anyone, her included.

  7. Honestly, the fact that both Ingrid and Tyler *know* that Nick and Anthony are fundamentally good people that do not deserve to be treated without a shred of respect, and they don’t even bother to pick up the phone and call, makes the whole situation even worse in some regards. Ingrid in particular knew that this situation was going on for some time now, the attraction to her colleague is not out of the blue, and she had every opportunity to do the right thing: it would have merely taken her picking up the phone instead of essentially ghosting Nick, and telling him that it was over. She was rather intentional and deliberate in her dealings with her colleague, she knew what she was going to do, picking up the phone when she was at the office would have taken her one minute.

    Not that if this had been a one night stand that came out of the blue like in Tyler’s case it would have been any less unacceptable: Tyler, again, clearly had the choice to do this or not do this, and when push came to shove he prioritized a meaningless one night stand over showing basic respect and honesty towards his partner. But maybe it’s the fact that we see Ingrid get calls from Nick and intentionally ghosting him that just bring home the point for me of how utterly *easy* it would have been to treat Nick with basic decency and just tell him that it was over -and given she decided to sleep with her colleague behind his back, it was clearly over, so she could have just as well and as easily left Nick instead-.

  8. Let’s realize that all it would have taken for Ingrid to treat Nick with a shred of honesty and respect would have been for her to merely pick up the call and have a two minutes conversation with the guy. Not as good as actually meeting face to face -and they had lived under the same roof for almost half a year, and he had met her family, after all-.

    But certainly more honest than doing what she did. Again, if she was willing to sleep with someone else behind his back, then she was at a point where she could have just as well broken up with him. Even if it had taken merely two minutes, it would have still been more honest and respectful than the alternative.

    I mean, part of me wants to point out that it might not have been seven years, but it had been almost six months of them living together, her asking him to meet her family, and accepting to marry him (he even gave her his mother’s earrings and his family ring). Not a lot of time, but not exactly nothing either, and certainly more than a one night stand six years ago.

    But then I thought, actually, it’s not even really about the fact that one would hope that he mattered enough to deserve a shred of consideration, and he didn’t throw half a year of his life *completely* down the drain. Because the amount of time they spent together or even what she feels towards him are not really the key point here, the key point is that this is someone that does not deserve to be treated without a shred of honesty and respect, so she shouldn’t be inclined to treat him in this manner. Again, not asking for the world, we are really talking about the minuscule effort of picking up the phone and answering his call, and tell him “it’s over”. I don’t believe there is any universe in which that is a level of effort that is beyond her or anyone’s capability.

  9. The only consolation, I guess, is that Nick is still one of NY’s most eligible bachelors, while Anthony is a go getter that has it together. So, while it was bad for them to be exposed to this toxicity, they have all the tools to rebuild themselves and move forward. Also glad that at least Rachel was spared from the rather distasteful practice of throwing in infidelity for shock value.

    I really would have liked for the writing to surprise me, for Ingrid to arrive at the brink and decide that no, after all she is going to be honest and break things off with Nick cleanly, if that is her wish. After all, if she is at a point where she is considering betraying and deceiving him, she could have just as well picked up the phone call and told him that it’s over before sleeping with the guy.

    Certainly having a meeting face to face would have been preferable, but picking up the phone when he called would have taken two minutes, and it would have still been much more respectful and preferable and honest than what she ended up doing.

    And considering she had kissed the guy, etc. it’s not as if this attraction is a new thing, nor is her hesitation about her relationship with Nick something that she just discovered. So there was literally no reason for Nick to be the one that knew least of all, among her friends, family and even the guy she cheated with, about the status of his own relationship and how she felt about it. Talk about being ridiculously uncommunicative with the one person that it was important to keep aligned.

    And that’s on her: you don’t get to use your personality, feelings, etc. to explain away deceiving and betraying your partner: as Astrid in the Crazy Rich Asians movie rightfully explained, her cheating husband’s insecurities stop being relevant to the discussion as soon as the topic moves to his betrayal, and he doesn’t get to hide behind them: he stop getting any slack as soon as they are brought up in the context of him stabbing her in the back. They are not a valid or adequate explanation for what he did to her, he doesn’t get to push this on her, and it’s not her job to fix his insecurities. He is a coward that was unwilling to fight for their relationship.

    I basically feel the same way about Ingrid here, and I was very glad that she didn’t try to push this on him or that she didn’t try to pathetically use her insecurities to blame her lack of communication on him (or, indeed, on her insecurities). Because at the end of the day this was not about her feelings, this was a bout her choice, and hiding behind her insecurities is not a valid move: it just means that when push came to shove, whatever reason/excuse meant that she didn’t care enough to show him basic honesty and respect.

  10. I agree with the reviewer’ assessment of how disturbing the way cheating was treated with a cavalier attitude, not really acknowledging in a serious manner the repercussions and effects beyond a nod and a wink and quickly brushing the situation aside to push ahead, as if it was not really a concern anymore beyond that, and the focus had to be on “self discovery”, rather than on the wreckage they left in their wake, which seems incredibly self centered. After heaping such emotional abuse on their partners, they say their little spiel, then walk away without looking back and it’s all about themselves and their new age, narcissistic “self discovery” and “knowing what they want out of life”, as if this was some kind of spiritual retreat and they had been merely carrying out some experiments with new hobbies to try to see what fit them best, rather than essentially toying and upending their partners’ lives.

    I must say that the silver lining was the fact that Rachel, who in some way might have seemed the one more positioned to go down a similar route plot wise, did not. So at least one of the three’s character was not completely trampled by the writers. I must say that for the two affairs, Tyler’s was the less “telegraphed”, thought honestly, if as a spectator one can guess the plot then maybe giving Ingrid this plotline might not have been the best decision in terms of writing. On one hand, banality is giving people what they expect, and while it might be acceptable it if wouldn’t have made sense otherwise, in this case her being risk averse with her future marriage to someone she had known for six months and she had brought to meet her family, and then going ahead to have an affair with someone she had merely had a one night stand six years prior and that seems anything but trustworthy -willing to walk over other people and not seeming to have much problem stabbing people in the back, not that she has any right to complain given that she is the same way-, seems like the opposite of not wanting to jump in head first. Plus the notion that she, a career woman in her thirties, would still be hung up over a one night stand six years ago, is really somewhat sad and pathetic -it would be even for a teenager, honestly, it’s just so immature and I would say even unrealistic… I mean, it almost seems like she has more history with her colleague, who she had a one night stand more than half a decade ago, than with someone that she had been living for almost six months and that had met her family… which is not a long time, but it’s at least a relationship, while her colleague is just some guy she had sex one night six years prior-.

  11. I must admit that I really liked Anthony, I very much hope that he gets to heal and have a relationship with someone that would treat him better. But I liked the dignity with which he carried himself (though I didn’t really appreciate the fact that he would have been willing to put up with what Tyler had done to him had the latter not chosen to leave him… I would have felt better if he had shown more self respect and self dignity and left him because he knew that he deserved better than to be treated this way… in that respect, I liked Nick’s no nonsense breakup with FL).

  12. I have to say that, despite disliking what they did with FL’s and Tyler’s characters, I at least appreciated the reaction of the people they cheated on.

    Regarding Fl’s colleague, while the relationship with Victoria was… complicated (but it’s not as if he couldn’t leave here, self evidently), the fact that he was willing to sleep with FL while she was engaged (while supposedly apologizing for the kiss before), as well as various other aspects of his behavior clearly shows that he is more than willing to hurt people that never did anything to him, and to stab people in the back. While FL has no right to complain, since she does the same, it does raise the question of why exactly she things she couldn’t be next.

  13. Frankly, in terms of FL’s characterization, while I can see why marrying someone she has known for six months would make her want to take a step back and reassess, I fail to see how it would then make sense for her to want to pursue a relationship with someone she had a one night stand six years ago instead.

    I mean, while the former stems from her wanting to be conservative and proceed with caution because she doesn’t want to take a risk, cheating on the guy you are engaged to -and that at least never demonstrated commitment issues- with someone that is currently in another relationship and is ready to disregard that as well as the fact the fact that she is engaged to someone else, does seem to go very much in the “risky” direction.

    Let’s just say that her colleague has shown himself to be willing to walk over people that never did anything to him (Nick) and to have no big issue betraying someone. Not that she can complain, given that she was ready to do the same. Plus, while six months might not be a lot, they are more history than a one night stand six year prior (Nick even met her family).

    So, let’s just say that the calculation in terms of the risk simply does not make sense to me. One one hand, she does not want to marry yet -> risk aversion, not wanting to jump into things head first.

    On the other hand, she is willing to throw everything away and even betray her partner that she had been living with for half a year and that met her family, for someone that she had slept with six years prior and that has shown himself to be willing to hurt people that never did anything to him, and to stab people in the back (of course, she did the same thing, disregarding both Nick and Victoria, the mess with the friends, etc., so it’s not as if she has any right to complain) -> quite risky move, definitely being willing to jump into things head first.

    I don’t really know that this all makes sense in terms of what she wants. I guess that what would have made sense would have been for her to actually talk with her fiancee and tell him that she wants to take things a bit slower. That would have been in line with the “risk averse, not wanting to jump into things head first” part. Having an affair with a one night stand from more than half a decade ago, who was with someone else, while she was engaged herself, very much not compliant with the “risk averse, not wanting to jump into things head first” part.

    Again, it’s not really that she even had “history” with her colleague: however small a time she spent living with her fiancee, they had at least had a six month relationship where they mostly lived together, he met her family, etc., so in terms of “history”, however little, it would still be more than a one night stand six years ago -which, like an immature teenager, she still seems to be hung up on-. And what more she has learned about him since then certainly wouldn’t fill anyone with confidence. Again, not that she has any right to talk in light of her own actions, in that sense they certainly deserve each other, but certainly her colleague doesn’t seem like the most trustworthy person, and if she felt unsure with the guy she was engaged with, certainly her colleague raises orders of magnitude more red flags (again, not that she is in any position to complain).

  14. I think that at a basic level, there is a clear distinction to be made between ending a relationship you don’t want to be in anymore, and betraying and deceiving your partner.

    It’s not as if the mere fact that you do not love your partner or you think that the current relationship is not working out for you means that you would feel they do not deserve basic honesty and respect, and you would feel inclined to betray and deceive them. That’s simply a non sequitur. I simply does not make sense to treat betraying them and terminating the relationship in a honest manner and each going their own way as if they were equivalent.

    In terms of the relationship with Nick, honesty I don’t even think that it was so far gone as to throw it away before she cheated on him. She had been genuinely happy with him, and merely felt that things were progressing too fast and wanted to think about it more. Which she should have told him. But even so, he had actually met her family, and they have lived together for almost six months, while her and her colleague had merely had a one night stand more than half a decade ago, plus he was the kind of person that would sleep with someone who was in a relationship (even engaged to someone else) when being in a relationship himself… not that she has any right to complain, given that she was willing to do the same (well, her colleague was not engaged with Victoria -and I won’t go into the messy details of *that* relationship, though self evidently it’s not as if he was unable to leave the woman-, and she was engaged with Nick -who never raised any red flags in terms of his commitment-). Point being, even in terms of their history, however short six months might be, they were still more than what she had with her colleague, but you instead get the idea that the latter is the one she had more history with. Frankly, I found the notion of being so hung up on a one night stand from six years ago rather immature.

    So, half a year with someone that might be moving fast -but the again, she agreed to move in with him and to marry him, and was the one that invited him to meet her family-, and that seemed committed to her, versus a one night stand more than half a decade ago with someone that raised more than one red flag in terms of his willingness to hurt and walk over people he never met and had never done anything to him (Nick) as well as not having many issues betraying people. Not, again, that she is in any position to complain, and in that sense one could even say that they are more suited for each other. But let’s just say that nothing indicates that he wouldn’t betray her just as well. Again, she has known Nick for six months, which are not many, but they are at least more than a one night stand, and with a guy that certainly does not inspire confidence or trustworthiness.

  15. Agree 100% about the cheating heavily impacting the characterization, and I feel that most people share my and the reviewer’s opinion that -the ones willing to go along or even brush it under the rug as if it didn’t have any implication about the kind of person the character was, etc., as if it was absolutely normal behavior that just anyone would do… self serving cynicism-.

    I would also say that the very small minority that engage in victim blaming here also do not hesitate to hold Nick to a very different and more strict standard, nitpicking and essentially blaming him for not being a mind reader. But people do get blindsided, particularly if their partners are uncommunicative or dishonest, as was the case with Ingrid.

    The fault is then on the ones hiding things from them or deceiving them, not on the partner that is kept in the dark about issues or outright lied to. You cannot know what you have been kept in the dark about or lied to. I also think that the default assumption of people is that if you don’t tell them about issues, they assume that everything is okay, and that yes means yes. They are not mind readers, after all.

    I find it rather ridiculous that people would at the same time stress how their different background means that he cannot understand her, but at the same time expect him to just be able to read her mind when the closest she comes to talk about the issue with him was a cryptic phrase about not being able to say no in the context of discussing her delivering a speech she didn’t want to. I mean, the two are obviously mutually contradictory, you cannot have it both ways.

    The fact that she would talk about the problem with basically anyone, from friends to family to the guy she slept with, but not with her boyfriend, is indeed a problem, but it’s not up to *him* or *them*, but to *her*, to fix it, as she is the only one that knows what goes on in her head, and other people obviously cannot know if she doesn’t tell them.

    You cannot blame other people for not knowing what is going on if you are uncommunicative or even outright lie to them. Perceptiveness can only go so far, particularly in the context of a relationship where he has known her for six months, and while one might argue that this means that he should not be marrying her yet, this is obviously a separate issue from her decision to cheat on him.

    I guess that any slack I am willing to cut extends only to the degree that her issues are not used as an excuse or justification for her stabbing her partner in the back. In that sense, it’s perfectly analogous to my feelings towards Astrid’s husband in the movie Crazy, Rich Asians, where any leeway for his insecurities due to her atrocious family gets thrown out of the window the moment he tries to use that to explain away his cheating.

    More than anything, I object to the notion that Nick *not* being completely perfect, a flawless Gary Stu, or their relationship not literally being the happily ever after of a fairy tale, means that him or flaws in the relationship are at all to blame, even in minimal part, for her decision to betray him. Let’s be perfectly clear: make him flawed, make the relationship one where they are completely unsuited for each other, as long as he is not someone that would deserve to be treated with no loyalty, respect and honesty, then her betrayal cannot be placed on his inadequacies or the flawed relationship: she is an adult, and is therefore solely responsible for her decisions and actions. It would have been a different situation had he, for example, been sleeping around behind her back, in that case he couldn’t exactly complain about her doing the same thing, but the key question here is: does he deserve to be treated in such a manner? Clearly not, and she does not even pretend that it does, thankfully.

    Point being, him being unsuited for her, or the relationship being unsuitable, are an entirely different matter from her cheating. It might mean that she needs to end the relationship, but it cannot be offered up as an explanation, let alone justification, for her choosing to hurt, humiliate and deceive her partner. That’s simply a non sequitur, they are different things. It’s not as if your current partner is not “the one” it follows that you would, let alone should, feel inclined to treat them without a shred of honesty and respect. The normal reaction would be that you would still find the idea of hurting or deceiving them repulsive and unacceptable and wouldn’t be inclined to do it.

    Said in other words, merely being unhappy in not a sufficient explanation, while being unwilling to show your partner any honesty and respect when push came to shove is a necessary one, given that you were ready to deceive and betray them. If you do not love someone, you should not be in a relationship with them. That doesn’t mean that you should betray and deceive them. Or that a normal reaction would be to feel inclined to do so. Just because you don’t love someone does not mean you feel they don’t deserve basic honesty and respect. The latter simply does not follow automatically from the former.

    Actually I guess that in many examples in recent TV series even being so called “endgame” is not enough for people not to stab each other in the back, which in some way I find even more appalling -basic self respect and the realization that there exists literally billions of human more deserving of your affection: merely not being a liar and a cheater means they are already way ahead of the sunken cost you are afraid to leave as a defense mechanism because you don’t want to admit that choosing them had been a mistake and the person you thought you knew, that would never betray you, never existed outside your head-.

    But if the argument is that the relationship was not going to work out and she didn’t love him, it clearly cannot be used to explain why she would feel inclined to betray and deceive him. Clearly, not being in love with someone does not automatically imply that you don’t think they deserve basic honesty and respect, or that you would feel inclined to hurt and deceive them. They are different things.

    And I would say that the relationship with Nick was clearly not at a stage where it was unsalvageable before she decided to cheat on him: she was happy and attracted to him at some point, she was just unsure whether she wanted things to progress so fast, and honestly, while one might say that they had only been together for six months, she and her colleague had merely slept together once six years prior, so that’s an even more tenuous connection.

    It’s why I found rather ridiculous that she behaved as if they had this kind of deep history together, when in reality she never even had a relationship with him, while at least she had an actual relationship with Nick. In that sense, the history with Nick really was the more deep and significant of the two, but watching the show one got the impression that it was still eclipsed by the one night stand more than half a decade prior: I mean, it’s not as if her and her colleague had been together for years in the past. It’s the exact opposite vibe I get: it seems as if her and her colleague are the old couple with a long history, and Nick is the new shallow thing that cannot compare… while in reality, while it might not be a long time, she and Nick had been together for six months and she had even brought him to meet her family, while her colleague is merely someone she had a one night stand more than half a decade ago.

  16. I must admit that I was relieved that the reviewer and most of the viewers were aligned with my opinion on Ingrid’s cheating. Though that doesn’t meant that some small fraction of viewers was not unfair and utterly deranged in their takes, probably forgetting that Nick does not share their bird’s eye view and is not privy, nor should he be expected to be, to things that Ingrid either does not tell him, or tells him the opposite of, like when she agrees to marry him (after agreeing to live with him and asking him to meet her family, mind you).

    No, in terms of miscommunication, you should not be required to be Sherlock Holmes and read between the lines if your partner does not tell you things or outright lies to you. Yes, in order to communicate you need to actually, well, communicate, which means speaking, and when you do speak, not lying.Ingrid fails on both counts. She does not tell Nick about the issues she has with moving too fast, in fact she says the exact opposite, saying that yes, she wants to move in with him, and yes she wants him to marry her, and asking him to meet her family. He is not a mind reader nor a private investigator, and he is not and should not be required to, for example, hallucinate something based on what she doesn’t say that contradicts what she explicitly says when he asks her to live with him and marry him (or when she asks him to meet her family). Or when he calls and instead of talking to him about her issues with the relationship she pushes him away by using her work as an excuse, really.

    I would say that there are definitely no two sides about their miscommunication, either. There is simply one side that does not communicate, hides things, or outright lies, and one side that cannot be reasonably expected to ear things that are not being said, or to ear the opposite of what she actually said.

    Her inability to refuse and her being completely uncommunicative are entirely on her, and, for that matter, while they might be problematic for the relationship in an abstract sense, they have really nothing to do with her cheating on him and him finding out and breaking things off: while one might wonder what might or might not have happened to their relationship in a universe where she didn’t betray and deceive him, they were not in that universe, and their relationship did end because she cheated and he caught her with the hand in the cookie jar, metaphorically speaking. So I guess that it’s a moot point. Bottom line, her cheating is a separate matter from the more general topic of the relationship, and mixing the two together is just an attempt at muddying the waters or, worse, victim blaming.

    Really, channeling Astrid from the Crazy, Rich Asians movie, she told her cheating husband that she was not to blame for this and he didn’t have any right to turn it on her when it was him that messed up, and correctly pointed out that he was a coward and it was not her job to fix his insecurities (i.e. make him into someone he is not, meaning a man). I wholly agree with the concept and would like to point out how in that circumstance it was not that the point about her family being horrible, and him feeling insecure, are to be dismissed out of hand in general, but it does need to be perfectly clear that this has no bearing whatsoever with his decision to cheat. And it was in any case on him to face those issues and insecurities and communicate clearly, and not cheat, which as already mentioned is a separate issue from the rest of the points brought up. Similarly in this TV series Ingrid’s reluctance to refuse people and her being completely uncommunicative are separate issues from the betrayal, and they might have an impact on the relationship as a whole, and whether the relationship would or would not have worked long term is a moot point because it crashed and burned after she stabbed Nick in the back and he found out.

    I don’t know if I agree with the reviewer where they say that the cavalier attitude towards cheating is characteristic of specifically female characters in western TV series, although I do feel that her being completely uncommunicative is something he would have gotten much more flack for had their roles been reversed (and the cheating too, if we are being honest, if Wilderness, for example, is any indication), and I would be completely in favor of the Astrid treatment from the Crazy, Rich Asians movie to be applied equally (when there is a disparity, there is also the question of which direction to resolve it towards, and having standards and boundaries and holding people accountable seems utterly reasonable). I do wonder about series such as Gray’s Anatomy where there is a frankly ridiculous amount of cheating, and where I feel that the reactions towards the phenomenon are in no way uniform in terms of the perception and willingness to engage in copious excuse making… though, on the other hand, I do feel that at least a portion of the audience seems unbothered by Mc Steamy or, in this TV series, the English guy that Ingrid cheated with, who was absolutely toxic. And that kind of makes me wonder if it’s the TV series or a fraction, albeit tiny, of the audience, because I feel that Tyler cheating on his BF and the guy Ingrid cheated with cheating on Victoria were also kind of brushed aside (particularly the latter’s breakup happened off-screen). But I do think that even the tiny fraction victim blaming and having unfair and unrealistic expectations of Nick has a subset that dislike the guy Ingrid cheated with. So, nitpicking and blaming the victim, and being possibly harsher with the other guy (not that I disagree with the notion that one should judge the latter harshly, quite the contrary: don’t mistake a desire for consistency for lack of appreciation of the fact that people are half right).

    I did appreciate that the show, despite the cavalier attitude towards cheating, at least was sane enough not to blame and gaslight the victim in what I feel would be a completely unfair and deranged manner.

  17. I do think that most people have similar views to mine and the reviewer’s towards Nick and the cheating situation, though there is a very small minority with utterly deranged and morally bankrupt views that apparently would find fault even with a Saint rather than admit that no, there are not two equally valid sides to every issue, and yes, it’s a simple as: do they deserve to be treated without a shred of loyalty, honesty and respect? If not, then if you stab them in the back you are at fault, no ifs or buts.

    I also think that such people apparently forget that they are seeing the situation from a bird’s eye view and Nick doesn’t have the full context. Not that it matters: Ingrid having second thoughts and wanting to want the relationship but not really wanting it like she thought she wanted are her mental contortions to deal with, it does not entitle her in any way to, for example, hurting, humiliating and deceiving her partner. I would also like to see whether such people with very selective open mindedness (who apparently consider a marriage proposal that arrived before their mental schedule, and one Ingrid, very importantly, agreed to, worse than a deliberate betrayal).

    In general, people have various levels of perceptiveness, and not being able to read between the lines is in no way a moral fault, nor should it be required to have effective communication. In fact, I would say that most people that think they are very good at reading between the lines in fact are very much not, and it often happens that people are not on the same page about a number of issues.

    Communication requires, well, the person to communicate. Which Ingrid did not. She didn’t tell Nick about her reservations and issues. No, telling him that she tends to agree in the context of discussing her giving a speech she didn’t like does not count, nor telling him she needed to go home to think. And she very clearly was not deluded enough to deceive herself into thinking that he didn’t think they were exclusive because of that: she was fully aware that she had betrayed him. What she did actually communicate him was that she wanted to live with him and marry him, as expressed by her answering “yes” to both questions. She also told him she wanted him to meet her family. Now we are asked to believe that someone her not saying the words “I love you” (assuming she didn’t, given that we are not given a minute by minute recollection of their six month of love life) should have been a stronger signal to him than her agreeing to live with him, asking him to meet her parents, and saying “yes” to marrying him. I would say that the notion that hallucinating something from what she didn’t say in terms of her willingness to marry him and going with that over what she actually answered him, namely “yes”, is frankly a delusional position to take.

    Again, no, it’s not as if not being a mind reader is in an way, shape or form a fault, nor should it be a requirement. We are not even saying that the person communicating has the responsibility to make themselves understood (though certainly that is the case in our daily lives: if she is in court, certainly she cannot utter something contradictory or unintelligible and expect the judge to roll with it and mind-read what she actually meant). We are at the point that she is either not saying anything (to him… she is singing like a canary to basically everyone else, including the guy she cheated with), or saying the exact opposite than what a very small minority of people hold Nick responsible for not understanding: namely, she agrees to live with him and to marry him, and asks him to meet her family. Which kind of says “love” and “commitment”. And I assume that “yes” means “yes” when it comes to living together and marriage, because that’s the only meaning of the word “yes”.

    Again, Nick not being a mind reader is not a flaw in any sense.

  18. I think that a big difference between her actions towards Nick and a lot of the other things she does or is on the verge of doing is that contrary to those other situations, there is really nothing she can do to undo her betrayal, just like Taylor. And yes, the trauma is real.

  19. I do agree about Nick. I would go further and say that it is sick to put this on him (which the show thankfully didn’t do), as if he was supposed to be able to read her mind. I think that the small minority with deranged takes like that forgets that he is not seeing what the viewer is seeing, but is operating merely based on what he is told by her, namely that she wants to live with him and marry him, and she proactively asks him to meet her family.

    I also think that such people voluntarily muddle the waters by not addressing her betrayal, but moving the goalpost to talk about the relationship at large.

    Let’s put it this way: the relationship might have ended because of some other issue at some point down the line, or it might not. We simply don’t know. And we will never know, because what *actually* happened was that she slept with her colleague behind her boyfriend’s back, and he discovered it, and *that* prompted the breakup.

    Yes, a ninety nine years old senior citizen would likely die anyway of old age. But if you run them over with a car, then the reason they died was you running them over with the car. Something *else* might have happened in a different universe where you didn’t run them over with a car. But you are not living in that alternate universe. In the same way, in some other universe they might have continued their relationship and them not being on the same page might have caused their break up down the line. But they never reached that point, because she chose to lie to him and stab him.

    Very simple, very clear: she is an adult woman with agency who is responsible for her actions. Blaming the victim of her cheating for her decision to cheat is in no way taking adult responsibility for her actions, and thankfully the show doesn’t attempt to gaslight Nick in that manner. So I would say that as disgusting the cavalier attitude towards her betrayal was, it was still better than the attitude of some -fortunately very little- people that attempt to absurdly both-sides this engaging in some morally obscene victim blaming.

    I guess that the overall point is that Nick might not be perfect, but he doesn’t have to be in order to deserve to be treated with basic loyalty, honesty and respect. By that standard, frankly, nobody would be treated with dignity because nobody is perfect. But not being perfect is not the same thing as being the kind of person that would be willing to hurt, humiliate and deceive their partner. There are flaws, and then there is utterly repulsive behavior of that manner, where it’s not that she doesn’t know that she would be utterly devastated and object to being treated that way, she is simply too self centered to care when it comes time for her to choose to betray Nick. Being oblivious is not intentional, and Nick was not even oblivious, by which I mean unreasonably “dumb” about the situation: he simply was not privy to details that the viewer knows because of their bird’s eye view, but that he could have obviously not known.

    Nick is not perfect. The type of person that attempts to victim blame exaggerates his flaws, and seems to forget that they were discussing him being betrayed and deceived, not the fact that their relationship might or might not have otherwise survived into the future. The reality is that him not being a mind reader is both something that shouldn’t be required in order for him to be treated with basic loyalty, honesty and respect, and it’s something that the viewer wouldn’t be either if they didn’t have the bird’s eye view.

    There are more and less perceptive people, and being Sherlock Holmes is not and should not be required in order to communicate with your partner, nor should it be a pre-requisite to be treated with basic human dignity. And Nick was not particularly lacking in perception: he merely didn’t know what FL didn’t tell him, and believed what she actually told him, when she agreed to live with him, which they did for almost half a year, when she asked him to meet her family, and when she said yes, Y-E-S, when he asked her to marry him.

    Again, as for putting the cart before the horse and jumping the gun, let’s not forget that Ingrid somehow considers the guy she cheated with her “soulmate” after they had slept together once more than half a decade ago. Not sure in what universe that is any more reasonable than Nick asking her to marry him too soon for some people’s arbitrary standards (including mine, to be honest), and, very importantly, FL answering yes, Y-E-S.

    Of course, if he had done the opposite and ghosted her, he would have been crucified over *that* instead. He simply cannot win in some, thankfully very few, people’s eyes. The fact that the vast majority shared my and this review’s opinion somehow makes me retain hope for humanity in a way that the script of this series simply does not.

  20. I would add to the assessment of FL and Nick, which I 100% agree about, that it’s utterly unfair to hold him to task for 1) not knowing things she didn’t tell him, and 2) believing her words. He does listen, it’s just that things are simply not being said, or the contrary of what is the case is being communicated. She doesn’t tell him about her reservations about things moving too fast, while she does ask him to meet her parents, and says yes both when he asks her to move in with him, and to marry him. She tells him she wants to go home to think, and that she is the type of person that has issues refusing people, but that was in the context of her giving a speech she didn’t want to give, so it’s simply not reasonable to expect him to hallucinate her not wanting to marry him when she gave him the exact opposite signals: answering yes when he asked her to live together and to marry him, and being the one to ask him to meet her family, for example.

  21. Agree completely with your assessment that Nick deserves much better. So does most of the population.

    Then there is the isolated deranged take where, somehow, people conveniently move the goalpost and subtly change the topic of discussion, starting to talk about the relationship as a whole when one was discussing her affair.

    Then one hears things such as him moving too fast. Which I agree with, but which is also not a moral fault of any reason: if he wants to marry her and she agrees, there is absolutely nothing wrong, morally, with that situation, despite the fact that it might be unwise -and not merely because the time was too short (six months, by the way)-. And that it the exact issue: she agrees. She basically tells that they are moving too fast to everyone *besides* the one person she should tell it to, namely her partner. So it’s not as if he didn’t listen to her or wanted to live in an alternative reality: he listened to her, and he heard her say that yes, she wanted to marry him (and before that, it was living with him and having him meet her family).

    Also, if he jumped the gun with the marriage proposal, what about her considering the guy she had an affair with her “soulmate” after sleeping with him once six years prior? Because *that* was the “history” between the two of them. Which I kind of found demeaning to her character as well -she is not a teenager, after all-.

    As for him proposing to marry her when she didn’t say she loved him, here I must say that we are amply in the region of clutching at straws, if even that. She agreed to live with him, accepted the earrings his dead mother as a gift, she chose to present him to her family, and more importantly, when he asked her to marry him and presented her with his family ring she said… yes. So let me get this straight: somehow, he is supposed to treat the fact that she didn’t explicitly tell him she loved him (she might have in the scenes we are not shown, for all we know) as her communicating that she was uncomfortable with how fast they were moving and didn’t want to marry him, while at the same time he is supposed to treat the fact that when he asked her to marry him (which she knew was going to happen, having found the ring) she answere yes, let me spell it againg Y-E-S, as her saying no? In other words, not trust what she actually, explicitly says, but somehow ear what she didn’t say as the opposite of what she said and mind-read an entire book about her conflicting emotions that she told about basically everyone else besides him? And this is somehow not on her not communicating properly (and really, just outright lying to him), but on him not being a mind reader (they would say not listening, but as already clarified, he did listen… and what he heard was what she told him, which is not a peep about them going to fast, but instead her saying yes to going to live with him for almost half a year, proposing he meet her family, and accepting his marriage proposal). No. And not only this is not on him, it’s not even fifty-fifty. It’s fully on her. It’s not a case of not listening, it’s a case of listening and hearing her say absolutely nothing about things going too fast, and saying “yes, I want to move in with you”, “what do you think about meeting my family” and “yes, I want to marry you”. So, he listened, and she heard her say either 1) nothing, or 2) yes to moving in together and marrying him, and proposing he meet her family.

    In other words, don’t trust what she actually says she wants, but rather imagine a whole book of things she never told him (but told basically almost anyone else in her life) based on what she didn’t say?Insane.

    Again, when she accepted moving in with him, living with him for almost half a year, proposed he met her family, and more importantly *agreed* to his marriage proposal, I would say that the expectation was pretty much that she was into him and she intended to marry him (which is what she after all *explicitly said*… he is supposed to judge her consent/assent not on what she explicitly tells him, but on what he imagine she would think? Again, are we really asking him to be a mind reader rather than trust her actual words?).

    I re-watched again the scene where she tells him about her having issues refusing. but frankly, they were talking about the speech she accepted to give, so there is absolutely no way for him to imagine that this also applied to her accepting his marriage proposal: that’s not reading between the lines, that’s ChatGPT level hallucination about what is being said. He did understand that there were some issues, what with her saying she was going home to think, but obviously that was in no way equivalent to her breaking things off with him, and it was pretty clear that she was very much not convinced they had decided to break up and her sleeping with her colleague was okay: she knew that this was a betrayal and not okay. Obviously, if they were broken up Nick should have been informed, it cannot be something that simply happens within her head, but in practice, everyone from her sister to the guy she slept with behind her boyfriend’s back knew more about her and her boyfriend being in a crisis than her boyfriend herself, because she told *them* about her issues with the relationship, but she didn’t tell the one person she should have told, namely her actual partner.

    I don’t know in what world one can spin this around and put this on him, or even make this a “both sides” issue. No, she was the one that either didn’t communicate, or communicated the exact opposite of what people want Nick to read between the lines, first agreeing to live with him for almost half a year, then asking him to meet her family, and when asked to marry him, saying yes, Y-E-S. He should have hallucinated that “yes” somehow meant “no”? And I do get that she has issues refusing people, but while that might mean that she might call off the engagement, that has absolutely zero to do with her choosing to sleep with her colleague behind her fiancee’s back.

    I think it’s massively unfair to make Nick the bad guy of the situation that refuses to listen and that she is not comfortable with speaking about her issues with the relationship, moving too fast or refusing to marry him. Or as if him proposing marriage is somehow breaking her boundaries. No, her telling about her issues with things moving too fast to everyone else, including the guy she slept with behind his back, or, indeed sleeping with said guy behind his back, was breaking Nick’s boundaries. Asking your partner whether they want to do something, and them agreeing, be it living together or marrying (or in the case of having him meet her parents, it was something that she asked him), is a perfectly fine move, as is her responding that she didn’t feel ready yet. Perfectly legitimate. But if he asks and she says yes, than it is a problem only in the respect that it might be too soon (for her… and would be for me as well, but let’s not pretend there is a guidebook that says that sets a timeline and anything earlier constitute a *moral* failure even if it’s just asking a question… imprudent, as it turned out, yes, but not immoral by any stretch… and again, she was the one that asked him to meet her parents, in addition to agreeing to live with him for half a year and saying yes to his marriage proposal, so I wouldn’t say it was a one sided delusion: he was not told about the issues she shared with her friends, family and even the guy she cheated on him with) or she might not really be ready… which is a problem with her saying yes, not with him asking her a question, frankly.

    Do I think they moved fast (and I say “they” because she is an adult, responsible for her actions, and she said “yes” when he asked her to move in, she told him she wanted him to meet her family, and she said “yes” when he asked her to marry him… frankly, if I cannot take a grown up lawyer at her word and hold her accountable for what she actually said and did, but have to treat her like a child that answers “yes” when asked whether they did their homework, but really didn’t, then I don’t know what planet we are living in)? Yes. At the same time, though, this is in no way a moral fault, and they are free to move at whatever speed they wants: he is *asking* her if she wants to move in with him or marrying him, she has the ability to refuse, and for that matter she is the one that proposes he meets her parents, so it was certainly not a situation where the “signals” came unilaterally from him.

    Frankly, her *not* telling about things moving too fast and having issues refusing and their relationship having issues to basically *everyone* from friends to family members to even the guy she slept with behind her boyfriend back, but not the actual person she had agreed to marry, is a problem. But it’s her problem, her lack of communication, not his or theirs. Hers. Again, it’s not that he didn’t listen or hallucinated an alternative reality where she wanted to marry him for no reason. He listened, and he *didn’t* hear her talk about them moving too fast or not really wanting to say yes or their relationship being in trouble, because she didn’t tell him any of that. He did hear say yes to moving in with him, asking him to meet her family, and responding yes, Y-E-S, when he asked her to marry him. She told him she needed space to think, but that’s it. When he called her, it’s not as if she picked up and explained the situation to him, she made up excuses about needing to work. So, I would say that the situation was him living for almost half a year with someone that accepted to move in with him, asked him to meet her family, accepted his dead mother’s earrings and his family ring and his marriage proposal, and merely asked to go home to think without communicating anything else in terms of issues they had. Basically, a relationship that slowed down, but where it does not seem unreasonable for him to think that she was still invested in the relationship.

    Bottom line, he asks. He listens to her actual answers. He is not a mind reader that can know what she tells her friends, family and even the guy she cheated with, but that she doesn’t share with him. He has absolutely no way of knowing that when she says “yes” she means “no”. And it’s not all clear that she meant no, either: she very much meant yes when she answered yes, she was not under any delusion that she had been telling him that she *didn’t* want to proceed in that direction (in fact, not only she accepted his proposal to move in with him and marry him, but she was the one that asked him to meet her family).

    I really think that people hold Nick to an unrealistic standard because we, as the viewer, see things from FL’s perspective and have the full context of what she tells other people (but not Nick). But he is neither a mind reader, nor is it reasonable to expect him to treat his relationship as if he was Sherlock Holmes reading between the lines and somehow hallucinating she said things she never said to him (such as wanting to take things slower), or the opposite of what she actually said (such as her not wanting to marry him, when she answered yes). The bit about her having issues with saying no was the most cryptic thing imaginable, and it was in the context of them discussing her giving a talk she was not comfortable with. When she called her and she didn’t respond she used excuses related to being busy with work, she certainly didn’t explain to him the relationship crisis, so how was he supposed to be aligned with all these issues, or even her feelings for the guy she cheated on him with, without her telling him?

    Again, I think that the very, very few viewers that I feel are judging Nick unfairly seem to forget that they have the benefit of seeing the thing from a birds’ eye view, while he doesn’t have access, quite simply, to all that information and everything she doesn’t tell him or outright lies to him about

  22. Agree on Nick. Like most people. The exception being the person or small group of people that would, apparently, consider running over someone with a car not murder because they were sick, maybe terminally so -by following that reason to its logical conclusion, note that in any case, by that token, even if they had been perfectly healthy, in the long run, they would have ended up dead anyway… of course, nobody *really* reasons like that about any topic, as it’s completely absurd, and that imho includes the very people making this point, who are just trying to score a cheap rhetorical point-.

    It boils down to simple golden rule stuff: would she have liked to be treated in the way she treated her partner? Likely not. And that really is the start and the end of the conversation. The rest is noise .

  23. Completely agree on Nick deserving better. This was pretty much the feeling of the majority of people, though I did see the occasional insane take gaslighting/victim blaming accusing him of essentially not being a mind reader.

    Muddying the waters and intentionally mixing up the relationship not working out anyway (very possible) with FL cheating (entirely her decision, as an adult responsible for her own actions), when, obviously, the former is completely irrelevant and entirely a separate matter when discussing the latter.

    A bit like someone that smothered a heavily injured patient that might have died trying to convince people it was okay because they would have ended up dying anyway. Maybe, but this does not change the fact that they didn’t die of natural causes, they were murdered by them, instead.

    Again, maybe they would have split up anyway, but

    1) She didn’t really make any effort to protect the relationship, I don’t think that one can claim definitely that it would have never worked given that she didn’t really make any effort at, i.e. communicating with him about her reservations -again, I understand her reluctance to say no, but ultimately, she is the only one that is in a position to communicate what is going on inside her head, he cannot be expected to be a mind reader, despite the delusional request from some deranged takes that he should magically read her mind and know what she is not sharing with him, otherwise he is… what, a bad person responsible for the betrayal and emotional suffering he had to endure?

    2) In any case, it’s not as if she clearly broke up with him. No, her unilaterally thinking that things were not working out and not picking up his calls and lying to him, i.e. ghosting him with an excuse (not that this seem to bother the few people with such deranged takes, -which likely would have quite a different perspective on this kind of behavior if the roles were inverted, considering how ghosting is usually treated-), do not constitute her clearly breaking up with him. She didn’t honestly and respectfully end things, she back-stabbed him and lied to his face.

    The cherry on top is the inflated and non corroborated statistics (with almost 50% variance between estimates, in and of itself an indication of the poor quality of the number) -indeed, a quick search shows much lower numbers-, which could have basically come from a redpill thread, as if the mere fact that a behavior occurs justifies it. Newsflash, racist takes like Dan’s also occur, and this does in no way make them right. Tribalism and intolerance surely are not new phenomena, but it would be just weird to try to use that as a justification. Now, encouragingly, the reality of the situation is that, despite the self servingly cynical takes (as if the mere fact that *some* people behave awfully makes the behavior non awful), the reality of the situation is that most people are decent people, loyal to their friends, partners and loved ones, and will not casually walk all over other people with sociopathic indifference for any trauma or damage they might cause. Point remains that her decision to cheat and whatever might have otherwise happened to her relationship are not related, unlike, one suspects, the parents of some of the proponents of the idea that they are. I must say that no matter how awful the characterization, despite her cavalier attitude towards cheating, in the show neither she nor anyone else attempted to absurdly blame the victim of her backstabbing and lies for her betraying him.

    I feel that the misuse of statistics, the coupling of unrelated concepts (the relationship in general versus her decision to cheat on her partner) and the blatant and repulsive victim blaming/euphemism/minimization/excuse making/gaslighting (if not outright lying) are thankfully relegated to a very small fraction of the viewers.

  24. I agree on the rather disturbing tendency to normalize cheating, treating lying to one’s partner and putting them through this emotional abuse as somehow negligible. No implications about what kind of person you are, or your personality, etc. Let’s just say that if the majority of people demonstrated this level of self centeredness and sociopathic indifference -and apparently, inability to adhere to basic golden rule standards of decency- we would live in a quite worse society. Not sure whether it’s a specifically western media related trait, though. It’s self serving cynicism.

    I must say that I was happy to see most reactions were equally baffled (barring the isolated deranged take where the victim is blamed for not knowing this was coming because he was not a mind reader… of course, if he had been suspicious he would have been accused of being irrationally jealous and controlling: he simply can’t win… not that one needs to be absolutely perfect in order not to deserve to be treated with basic loyalty, honesty and respect: if they were willing to treat their partner in such a manner, there is absolutely no reason they should expect anything less in return, no reason to settle for anything different, and thankfully Nick didn’t).

    I guess it all comes down to people having a big mouth, but I would hope behaving differently in their personal lives.

    One variation of this is using the fact that she was even more ruthless in her work, in terms of being okay with some pretty shady stuff such as the environmental angle, the refugee issue, etc. someone making her atrocious behavior in her personal life not matter. That, of course, doesn’t make any sense on multiple levels. First because the fact that you are even worse that the actions in your personal life would imply in no way makes the latter any less atrocious. It’s not as if the damage she caused to her partner is in any way lessened by the fact that she was also willing to hurt other causes to advance professionally. Secondly, because disloyalty towards your loved ones, family, friends, partner, signals something quite specific about the kind of person one is, and is in some way much more blatant, close to one’s personal life and hard to rationalize away. Kind of like the morally ambiguous GoT characters, who operated very much in a gray environment, but for which the question of personal loyalty, etc. was still very relevant (in GoT Jamie’s commitment to Cersei, etc.). Plus, one might call it a trope, but it’s true that disgust is not something that operates in a cold mathematical way where we do an assessment of the objective damage caused to society at large to assess how we feel about someone’s actions (i.e. in GoT a Bolton compared to, say, a Jamie). For example, if one of the lawyers on the show turned out to be a convinced, irredeemable racist, we would probably feel quite differently about them even if they never ended up doing anything criminal. Personally, I felt much more repulsed by Dan than by Lina, despite the latter being a thief. For that matter, I felt more repulsed by Ingrid’s actions that by her sister’s, as well.

    It’s not as if it becomes a moot point once you do something else that is objectionable. There is a difference between operating in a law-of-the-jungle environment where you take self serving decisions to get ahead, and not having a shred of personal loyalty towards the people that are close to you. Furthermore, on some level I can see one rationalizing, say, damage to the environment, etc. as things that have a “macro” impact that is detached from one’s personal experience. Hurting your partner, family, friends, loved ones, is very much in a different category in terms of being “personal”, and altogether much more difficult to ignore. It’s not really about scoring the negative impact of one’s actions in a sort of quantifiable calculation and dropping the cheating and deceiving bit off as a rounding error. That’s simply not how humans operate.

  25. Objectively speaking, I must say that from the reactions I saw, most people are basically sane. There is the occasional deranged take (I only saw one) where they try to make this into a fifty-fifty thing, blaming Nick for not being a mind reader, or pretending that not being utterly perfect means that there is some kind of moral equivalence, or any other sort of equivalency, here. I think that this very much warrants channeling Astrid from Crazy, Rich Asians, where she told her cheating husband that he doesn’t get to turn this on her, and that he was the one that messed up. Exactly. I must say, though, that at least the show didn’t try to blame this on Nick. Which is really basic sanity.

    I think that in similar cases one other notable tendency is what I would call “self serving cynicism”. Pretending that basically everyone behaves this way and there is nothing to see. Well, clearly, for example, Nick didn’t behave this way, and honestly, her fighting for their relationship doesn’t seem too much to ask. I don’t think that not expecting her to cheat on him when they were together and she even agreed to marry him, he visited her parents, and even gave her his mother’s earrings, would have been in any way unreasonable.

  26. 100% in agreement with Nick being able to do better. I must say that I did like both his and Anthony’s reactions. Thankfully there was no gaslighting, and they didn’t try to minimize what happened to them or blame themselves for the emotional abuse they had been subjected to by their partners on account of not being a mind reader.

    I must say that I certainly didn’t see the majority of the people thinking of both-siding the situation with Nick, as if him wanting to marry her and believing her when she said yes, or not being a mind reader, were 1) faults (they are not: he trusted her, and he didn’t know what he didn’t know… not sure how one not knowing what he didn’t know is supposed to be a moral failing, in fact I would say that the opposite, i.e. knowing something one didn’t know, is by definition impossible: the very point of not knowing something is that you… well, don’t know it, aren’t aware of it, etc.), 2) in any way comparable to intentionally deceiving someone and hurting/humilitaing them… I mean, this is golden rule level stuff, not doing to him something that she would never want him to do to her.

    Again, I did find strange that they were moving so fast towards marriage… but then again, that is in no way a moral failing in the same way as lying to one’s partner, etc.: it’s something that he has every right to want to do, and to ask her if she wants to do, and if she says yes, it’s utterly unreasonable to expect him to read her mind and somehow know that she really meant no instead. Surely he would have been the first that would have very much preferred to know that she was lying to his face.

  27. 100% in agreement with you. Absolutely crazy that some (well, to be honest I really saw just one person) still try to make this a fifty/fifty thing where he is essentially blamed for not being a mind reader. If she doesn’t tell him things, or worse actually deceives him, he can hardly be blamed for not knowing what is going on. Her not telling him things, or outright lying to him, are in no way equivalent to him being unaware of things he was never told.

    Not knowing what she never told him, or believing something false she told him, are in no way a moral failing on his part, while certainly deceiving her partner is. And she cannot exactly not tell them things and expect him to just read her mind: it’s not about being unwilling to listen, it’s about there being nothing to actually listen to, because she was not telling him things.

    I certainly didn’t see it as him not caring about what she thought or not being empathetic: he called her, she was the one that made excuses not to talk to him. I did feel that they had known each other far too little to take such a big step as marriage, but she knew the proposal was coming, having seen the ring, and ultimately she was the one that accepted it, and also the one that lied or hid things from him about Murphy.

    Again, while I get that she had issues saying no, she is an adult: if she feels that things were moving too fast, she was the one that was responsible to tell him so. She simply cannot expect him to just know that by magic, if when he asks her she tells him yes, and she doesn’t mention any problem. It’s not on one’s partner to be a mind reader if nothing is being communicated to them, and worse if they are lied to.

    Now, I do think that he was aware there were some issues there, but, as he said, he expected her to fight for their relationship, and I do think that it is not an unfounded expectation. And this doesn’t really have anything to do with her not being able to say no to people even when she wants to. That’s a separate issue. Lying, betraying, hurting and humiliating your partner have nothing to do with her lack of communication, they are a separate issue.

Leave a comment