Deal-breakers and TLDR:

1. Revolting sexualization of minors: The author portrays children as young as 10 in s*xual scenarios, which is profoundly disturbing and utterly unrealistic.
2. Twisted family dynamics: The protagonist's wife offers up her 17-year-old daughter (the protagonist's stepdaughter) for marriage, leading to in*estuous encounters. This depiction of family relationships is both fantastical and morally repugnant.

I'd ignored the warning signs for about 100 chapters, clinging to hope for improvement. It never came. What could've been a phenomenal read was obliterated by yet another male author's compulsion to indulge his warped fantasies and drag readers through his depravity.

I'm not opposed to exploring dark themes when they serve the narrative, but this doesn't. There's zero grasp of these situations' gravity. No 10-year-old would eagerly offer themselves sexually. A real child would be terrified, not blushing shyly. They'd be traumatized, not coyly flirtatious.

Historically, 10-year-olds weren't considered for childbearing because it made no sense. Girls reached puberty much later and had better odds of surviving childbirth when older. Even in the most misogynistic societies, there was a basic understanding that human survival hinged on women's survival. There's simply no logic in having girls die needlessly. Humans who had mastered cooking and animal husbandry certainly grasped this obvious fact. So there's no justification for sexualizing children. Men who sold or wedded literal kids were seen as social pariahs. It has ALWAYS been abhorrent. In a story with extended lifespans, what's the rationale for this mindset? There isn't one. It's nothing but a depraved wish-fulfillment fantasy. It wasn't crafted to make a poignant statement or further the plot. There's also no cultural justification like we see for the prevalent violence.

Sure, you could argue the MC is an unreliable narrator, but what about his wife offering up her 17-year-old? No sane mother would do that! This wife is supposedly deeply caring and 'virtuous'. It's telling that his depiction of a 'virtuous' wife is one that allows him to use both her and her daughter sexually. An act that has ALWAYS warranted widespread disgust and a trip to the gallows if the perpetrator wasn't powerful. So, it can't be hidden under the guise of 'historical accuracy'.

As our author explores the complexities of human relationships and life through his ML's search for 'Dao', we see every other morally bankrupt act our MC commits cushioned with some introspective commentary, making it clear that both the author and the MC are aware of the immorality. We understand the rationale behind these acts, justified or not, and sometimes the ML faces consequences later. Yet nothing of the sort happens for ML's s*xual depravity.

Why does the story conveniently ignore the trauma of child s*xual ab*se or a mother pimping out her daughter? Because the author doesn't see things that way. It was just thoughtlessly written because the servant girls, ML's wife and stepdaughter exist solely for the author's twisted wish fulfillment. It's vile, immoral, abhorrent, and reflects the licentious author's twisted desires. I'm out!