I cannot STAND how much worse they treat the guys than the girls
-
ppllkk — 9 years ago(June 13, 2016 09:28 AM)
timmysdf
wrote:
i just think it is funny that he/she cherry picked rachel's worst moments
Rachel's worst moments stretched over seven years.
and then acted like ross never did terrible things himself
What terrible things did Ross do that are in any way comparable to what Rachel did.
Rachel did not want Ross, but she did not want another woman to have him. She did not want him, but she would not let him go. Rachel always left Ross a little bit of hope that maybe, some time . . . She reinforced this idea by occasionally having sex with him. And she did it for seven years.
So just what did Ross did do other than love Rachel and not want to lose her. And be a fool about what Rachel is really like. -
imaneassi — 9 years ago(June 12, 2016 07:54 PM)
Actually Ross is the one who claimed to love her all these years, did nothing about it till he saw her with Paolo. Rachel flying to London to tell him she loves him wasn't horrible. Horrible would have been if she had actually told him her supposed feelings and tried to stop him. Instead Rachel did absolutly nothing. She congratulated him and watched him marry Emily.Ross didn't find out why she was there till later. All characters are flawed but Ross was plain unrootable, failed big time a romantic lead
-
ppllkk — 9 years ago(June 19, 2016 07:20 AM)
morganseer
wrote:
I just love how people point at others who aren't exactly like then and call any differences flaws.
As far as I can tell, you clicked on reply to my post. I don't have any idea what you mean by that. Can you explain because what you wrote does not seem relevant to anything that I wrote. Or what anyone wrote.
Women are picky until they find a guy they love.
Across a great many species, females are quite picky when they are able to be because they are the ones that get pregnant. They have a limited number of offspring to carry on their genes.
Men do the same.
I assume that is an imperative not an observation. Unfortunately it ignores how strong the sexual drive is in males. Across a great many species, males are not limited reproductively the way that women are, and so males have little incentive to be picky. -
morganseer — 9 years ago(June 21, 2016 04:10 AM)
I think I was responding to the whole argument you and another poster had about who was worse, Rachel or Ross. Your answer to him was: "Rachel's worst moments stretched over seven years."
It got me thinking how we view people through our biases. If I had to pick a roommate between the two, I'd pick Rachel in a minute. She certainly had her selfish moments, but I'd know what to expect from her, and would for the most part be comfortable with her. With Ross' explosive and downright bizarre behavior, I'd never be able to relax.
That's my bias. -
ppllkk — 9 years ago(June 21, 2016 06:31 AM)
morganseer
wrote:
I think I was responding to the whole argument you and another poster had about who was worse, Rachel or Ross.
I was responding to this:
i just think it is funny that he/she cherry picked rachel's worst moments and then acted like ross never did terrible things himself
Your answer to him was: "Rachel's worst moments stretched over seven years."
Rachel's prick teasing of Ross stretched over seven years. That is hardly a matter of cherry picking things. Ross had his bad moments, but he did not string anyone along for seven years because he thought that maybe he might eventually want them. That is what Rachel did.
If I had to pick a roommate between the two,
Picking a roommate is very different from evaluating a person as a mate. The latter is the context in which we have been talking the characters. .
She certainly had her selfish moments, but I'd know what to expect from her, and would for the most part be comfortable with her.
I think that Rachel would be all right as a roommate. The problem is that she is a disaster to be in love with at least if you love her more than she loves you because she exploits the power that gives her over the person who loves her, Ross. She doesn't get back together with him, but she doesn't let him go. She keeps her hooks in him by always leaving him with a little hope that maybe she will get back with him. For seven years.
With Ross' explosive and downright bizarre behavior,
I don't agree that there is very much of that. And I would point out that Ross is under a lot of stress from his relationship with Rachel. She is driving him batty. If Rachel just ended it for good, Ross would move on, but Rachel doesn't. When Ross tries to move on with Emily, Rachel successfully interferes. But Rachel does not get back with Ross when he is available after he has broken up with Emily.
Ross broke up with Bonnie thinking that he was getting back with Rachel, but then she set conditions that ensured that they wouldn't. She did everything that she could to destroy Ross's marriage including telling Ross that she still loved him when he was trying to get back with Emily. She took it right back, but you can't take something like that back completely. Ross heard it, and it is sitting there in his mind when he has to decide if he wants Emily badly enough to not see Rachel.
On an irregular schedule, Rachel gives Ross hope partly by having sex with him. The technical term is "irregular reinforcement," and it is very powerful.
Ross is one of the most reliable and responsible people that you will ever meet, but unrequited love that is irregularly given hope will drive most people nuts. -
morganseer — 9 years ago(June 21, 2016 09:03 AM)
Rachel's prick teasing of Ross stretched over seven years.
Ppllkk, you and I have talked about these two charakters before, on a thread that no longer exists. We saw things differently then too. Where I'm coming from is that each person has to learn to manage their emotions. It's really more up to Ross to set some limits with Rachel, than it is up to Rachel to stop trying. Rachel isn't a good monitor of others' feelings, which I find forgivable because really most people aren't. Ross knows the depth of his feelings, and he needs to learn to say "enough; either sht or get off the pot." Or stay away from her for a while if that's what it takes. I see it as HIS weakness that he keeps changing his mind about women and going back to an old girlfriend with whom he can't make it work. And then getting all rageful when it doesn't work - again. I don't see either one of
them being mature enough to talk about what the rules of the relationship should be, and whether both partners are willing to abide by them. -
ppllkk — 9 years ago(June 21, 2016 12:38 PM)
morganseer
wrote:
on a thread that no longer exists.
Threads here only last a few months. It is exasperating and ridiculous.
Where I'm coming from is that each person has to learn to manage their emotions.
I am sure that what I said then was something very much like what I'm going to say now.
The problem with your attitude is that you are trying to impose on reality your conception of what people
should
do. Reality doesn't give a damn about what you think people should do.
I see it as HIS weakness that he keeps changing his mind about women and going back to an old girlfriend with whom he can't make it work.
Yes, but it is an extremely common weakness when people are compulsively in love.
Let me encourage you to read this about the intensity of love and of unrequited love.
https://www.ted.com/talks/helen_fisher_studies_the_brain_in_love?language=en
You can watch it in about 16 minutes or you can read it in a lot less. It will explain some things to you about people in love that you do not seem to understand.
Helen Fisher is a very respected researcher in her field, and she deals with things that you can measure, such as the chemicals in the blood and what parts of the brain light up under certain stimuli.
Here are a few snippets.
So, several years ago, I decided to look into the brain and study this madness. Our first study of people who were happily in love has been widely publicized, so I'm only going to say a very little about it. We found activity in a tiny, little factory near the base of the brain called the ventral tegmental area.
We found activity in some cells called the A10 cells, cells that actually make dopamine, a natural stimulant, and spray it to many brain regions. Indeed, this part, the VTA, is part of the brain's reward system. It's way below your cognitive thinking process. It's below your emotions. It's part of what we call the reptilian core of the brain, associated with wanting, with motivation, with focus and with craving. In fact, the same brain region where we found activity becomes active also when you feel the rush of cocaine.
But romantic love is much more than a cocaine high at least you come down from cocaine. Romantic love is an obsession. It possesses you. You lose your sense of self. You can't stop thinking about another human being.
And indeed, it has all of the characteristics of addiction. You focus on the person, you obsessively think about them, you crave them, you distort reality, your willingness to take enormous risks to win this person.
And it's got the three main characteristics of addiction: tolerance, you need to see them more, and more, and more; withdrawals; and last, relapse.
You are asking Ross to learn to do something that basically no one can do. That is not realistic.
When you talk about Ross going back to Rachel please remember that she always leaves the door open a little bit. There is always the possibility that she will get back with him. She never definitively ends it and that is extremely difficult to deal with.
Basically, Helen Fisher is saying what the writers and the poets have said all along.
It is also what I believe that most people have experienced but did not necessarily know how common the intensity of it is.
Some people have said, "I got over something even worse. Why can't Ross?" I think a couple of things feed into that and Rachel always giving him hope is the largest one. Remember that when the series starts his wife has just left him. He is at perhaps the lowest point in his life. And then the woman that he was in love with in high school comes in and out of the rain wearing a wedding dress.
There is something special about that sort of early attachment for a lot of people.
I believe that a large factor is that Ross never gets angry enough at Rachel to get over her. -
morganseer — 9 years ago(June 21, 2016 02:00 PM)
I agree with all of that. Even the part about reality. Except you apply all those things only to Ross. They also apply to Rachel. She leaves the door open because she also loves Ross, and also can't be all rational about it either. She's just as frustrated, because she can't have Ross under the rules she has about love, just as Ross can't have Rachel under his own rules. But people, at least some people, do learn to eventually plug in the rest of their brain and either meet their partner somewhere in the middle, or go off to take care of themselves emotionally. Rachel and Ross can't seem to do it. And they're both equally innocent/guilty, whichever way you want to see it. When I say Ross is responsible, I'm not saying he has to do it my way. I'm saying either he takes care of himself emotionally, or he doesn't and continues to suffer. It's up to Ross. Rachel's gonna take care of Rachel, either well or badly, and not because she's mean. Because she's also human.
-
ppllkk — 9 years ago(June 22, 2016 09:13 AM)
Ah, I remember you now. Your username was familiar, but I could not put it together with any attitudes until your last post.
morganseer
wrote:
They also apply to Rachel.
Well, yes, if Rachel was desperately, compulsively in love with someone, but she isn't.
She leaves the door open
No, Rachel does not "leave the door open" in the sense that Ross can walk through it at any time. That is exactly what he can't do. Rachel leaves open the possibility that she will get back with him which keeps him from moving on with his life.
because she also loves Ross,
You have one strange definition of love. I would say that you are confusing love with wanting to get something and not caring how much you hurt the person that you claim to love.
and also can't be all rational about it either.
I believe this situation comes up a fair amount. When it does, I believe that usually one person says, "I am not ready to settle down now." Rachel never tells Ross what the real problem is.
She's just as frustrated, because she can't have Ross under the rules she has about love, just as Ross can't have Rachel under his own rules.
Rachel seems to want a relationship without any commitment. Ross wants to receive and give a commitment. Okay fine, but Rachel resolves the dilemma by playing on the fact that Ross loves her to keep him from giving and receiving a commitment from another woman.
Ross finds that woman in Emily, and Rachel makes sure that the relationship will not work. Rachel destroyed Ross's marriage to Emily but did not get back together with him herself. Do you regard that as acceptable behavior?
And they're both equally innocent/guilty, whichever way you want to see it.
I don't agree at all. I regard what Rachel did to Ross as morally reprehensible. I believe that almost everyone who understands it would.
I'm saying either he takes care of himself emotionally, or he doesn't and continues to suffer.
I believe that when he finally breaks up with Emily, he has decided that he'd rather suffer in the hope of Rachel than build a life with another woman.
Rachel's gonna take care of Rachel, either well or badly,
Yes, and without regard for anyone else's feelings.
and not because she's mean.
Because she is extremely selfish. Do you regarded it as acceptable behavior to systematically lead a person who is in love with on for years because you think that maybe someday you will want them and you want them to be available if you do? -
morganseer — 9 years ago(June 22, 2016 10:09 AM)
You have one strange definition of love. I would say that you are confusing love with wanting to get something and not caring how much you hurt the person that you claim to love.
I didn't say it's a mature love. That's the point, I see them both as immature. They both offer "gimme exactly the type of love I want or I'll make you miserable" type of love.
I believe that usually one person says, "I am not ready to settle down now." Rachel never tells Ross what the real problem is.
Rachel tells Ross exactly what the problem is. The problem is she wants a boyfriend who doesn't freak out if she talks to another guy. You may have a different rule about that, but you can't say she doesn't tell him.
Rachel seems to want a relationship without any commitment.Not true. Rachel is perfectly willing to commit to a sexually monogamous relationship. Just not one without male friends.
Rachel destroyed Ross's marriage to Emily
No, Ross destroyed his marriage to Emily. He tried to marry her while he loved another woman. How Rachel behaved was irrelevant. His marriage didn't have a prayer of succeeding.
Look, I know you think getting over a love is impossible under these circumstances, but I know for a fact it can be done. I wouldn't be arguing with you if I hadn't been through it, and hadn't had to find a way. Trust me, there are plenty of male Rachels out there. It's the oldest dance in the world. You step forward when I step back, you step back when I step forward It's what people do until they learn to do better.
But at some point I realized only I can get myself out of that situation, no-one was going to do it for me. Only then could I move on and make a true commitment to someone else. And then it didn't matter how the first guy behaved. -
imaneassi — 9 years ago(June 22, 2016 11:15 AM)
Except that Rachel wasn't playing any games. The times she stepped back were for very valid reasons, wether it's the list, or him cheating and refusing to take responsibility for it and even blaming her for itThese are very valid reasons to end a relationship.Ross claimed to love Rachel since hs but never did anything about it till he saw her with Paolo. Ross had no problem making his move on Rachel the very same night she broke up with Paolo but Mark is the "bad guy" who gave her 3 weeks after the actual break up before making his move. Ross had no problem putting his job before his first date with Rachel but can't stand Rachel working late, dealing with a crisis on their anniversaryand so much more.
-
ppllkk — 9 years ago(June 22, 2016 11:57 AM)
morganseer
wrote:
I didn't say it's a mature love.
It isn't any sort of love when you do that to a person for years.
The problem is she wants a boyfriend who doesn't freak out if she talks to another guy. You may have a different rule about that, but you can't say she doesn't tell him.
That was never the real issue. Ross wants to settle down and Rachel doesn't, and Rachel knows that the longer she stays with Ross the harder it will be to get out if she wants to.
Rachel is perfectly willing to commit to a sexually monogamous relationship. Just not one without male friends.
That is complete crap. Mark is a very special case, not just some random man. I have been through that so many times is that if you can't figure it out I don't think there's any point to going through it again. Ross is not a basically jealous person.
He is jealous of Elizabeth going to a period of licensed sexual promiscuity with a bunch of men her age. When is he jealous other than of Mark and that?
If Rachel had gotten the job through, say, a friend of her father's, then Mark would just be another coworker and probably none of this would've come up.
But Mark chatted Rachel up in a restaurant and essentially got a job for her that she could not have gotten on her own. Most people would regard his intentions as suspicious. He registered with Ross, and with me, as a womanizer the first time that we saw him.
It is a very unusual person who is not jealous when they think that the person that they love may be leaving them. Rachel was certainly acting that way, and her unwillingness to reassure Ross in any significant way reinforced that.
Rachel could've defused the situation at any point by telling Ross sincerely that she had no interest in Mark.
She never does that.
The first time she sounds sincere is in her telephone answering machine message, and then Ross believes her.
He tried to marry her while he loved another woman.
That is one of the major ways that people get over the sort of compulsive love that Ross feels. You get involved with someone else who wants you and build a life with them.
How Rachel behaved was irrelevant.
Emphatically no. If Rachel had not flown to London and behaved the way that she did, particularly at the airport, Ross and Emily would've been together.
His marriage didn't have a prayer of succeeding.
I don't agree with that at all. They seem to be highly compatible and Ross is looking for a woman to commit to. The best circumstance would've been if Ross had been willing to move to England, but I have no reason to believe the marriage wouldn't have worked if Rachel had stayed out of it.
They both wanted it to work.
Look, I know you think getting over a love is impossible under these circumstances,
"These circumstances" are quite precisely the person that you are in love with continuing to give you hope. The technical term is irregular reinforcement and it is a very powerful force. That makes it vastly more difficult than it usually is. And it is usually hard.
Ross tries to get Rachel out of his mind by marrying Emily but Rachel blocks that. That is how it works. You get involved with someone else and the previous person who didn't want you fades away.
Another way is to get really angry and understand what the other person is really like. But Ross never gets really angry at Rachel, and he never understands what she's really like. -
ppllkk — 9 years ago(June 22, 2016 01:03 PM)
Ross
: A big idiot. Just you have to realize is, this whole Mark thing is kinda hard for me.
Rachel
: Honey, why is it hard, I mean we've been together for almost a year now?
Ross
: Well, I was with Carol for like eight years and I lost her. And now if it's possible I think I love you even more. So, it's hard for me to believe that I'm not gonna, well that someone else is not going to take you away.
Rachel
: Honey, that's very sweet, it just seems to me though, that if two people love each other and trust each other, like we do, there's no reason to be jealous.
Ross opens his heart to Rachel, and she just blows him off.
The whole question is whether or not Rachel loves him so much that he doesn't need to worry.
If a woman said that to me under those circumstances, my blood would run cold, and I would assume that she was either cheating or thinking about cheating.
The results would've been quite different if Rachel had said something like this:
I know that Mark is after me. I have had men after me since I got the nose job. But I'm a big girl and I can take care of myself. I am not interested in Mark and I'm not going to leave you for Mark.
As has been pointed out a number of times, Chandler is jealous of Richard, and Monica believes that he has no reason for concern, but she wants to keep the relationship, and so she says she will not see Richard again.
Please don't tell me the situations aren't exactly the same. The basic principle is that if you want to keep your relationship, you need to take your partner's insecurities seriously. If they are constantly insecure, that is a different matter.
P.S. About a minute after Rachel says, "it just seems to me though, that if two people love each other and trust each other, like we do, there's no reason to be jealous," she is extremely jealous of Ross's play date. It would seem that she does not trust him. -
ppllkk — 9 years ago(June 22, 2016 02:30 PM)
morganseer
wrote:
Look, I know you think getting over a love is impossible under these circumstances, but I know for a fact it can be done.
So do I.
Will you agree that it is an order of magnitude harder to get someone out of your head if they if they act as if they might get back with you part of the time?
Trust me, there are plenty of male Rachels out there.
Oh, I know that.
Tigerlily wrote that if a man treated a woman the way that Rachel is treating Ross, a number of women would be all over her for putting up with it. I understand Ross's part in this, but I do not think that it in any sense justifies Rachel's behavior or makes it anything less than pathological.
It's the oldest dance in the world. You step forward when I step back, you step back when I step forward
Except they aren't really dancing around each other. It's completely one-sided. Ross loves Rachel. He would always get back with her. When he isn't available, Rachel seems to want him, but then she doesn't want him when he is available again.
But at some point I realized only I can get myself out of that situation, no-one was going to do it for me.
I have described Ross as a pathetic, pussy whipped wimp, and ultimately he deserves what he gets. I have trouble blaming Ross because some of the reasons that he has so much trouble getting over Rachel would be virtues in another relationship. His faithfulness. He doesn't really get angry at her. He doesn't want revenge on her. He is just a really nice guy.
Only then could I move on and make a true commitment to someone else.
Granted that rebound relationships typically don't work, I believe that making commitment to someone else and building a life with them works. It can be argued that you never completely get over the sort of thing that Ross feels, and I think that is largely true. Ross got over Rachel after high school, married Carol and build a life with her. But the feelings for Rachel were still there in some hidden part of his brain like a dragon waiting to be awakened. That happened when Rachel appeared on the same day that Carol moved the last of her stuff out.
A note on Mark. It was not just a matter of Rachel talking to a man. She was seeing him typically more than eight hours a day at work. He was her mentor and, although Ross may not have known it, becoming her confidant. He certainly knew that they shared a passion that Ross does not share with Rachel. Those are exactly the circumstances under which someone may fall for someone else, and I believe falling for someone else occurs more often in the workplace than any place else. It is simply a matter of time spent together.
And Monica described Mark to Ross as "dreamy." If he had been like Chandler or Gunther or even like Ross himself, it would not have been that much of a concern.
The situation of one person being jealous of their partners "friend" seems to come up fair amount. The usual advice is to have the "friend" be a friend of both members of the couple. Have him over for dinner. Meet him in a restaurant. Whatever, but have him be a friend of both of them. -
ppllkk — 9 years ago(June 22, 2016 08:11 PM)
morganseer
wrote:
She leaves the door open because she also loves Ross . . .
No, Rachel does not leave the door open. What she does is open the door when Ross can't come through it because he is with another woman, and then when he can come through it, she closes it again in his face. -
morganseer — 9 years ago(October 07, 2016 03:44 PM)
ppllkk, you make some very good points. Yes, I do agree that it's harder to leave a woman who gives you hope. I also agree that Rachel does blow Ross off when he tries to share his fears with her.
I'm not claiming Rachel does all the right things. I do think you're demonizing her, assigning her bad intentions where there don't have to be any. Lots of people do the step-forward, step-back dance. It's motivated by fear, not by a desire to hurt. In fact, the more people care about the relationship, the more fearful and silly they act.
That's just it. I see them as equally culpable, and equally innocent. They each bring their fears and bad habits and bad communication into the relationship. They don't mean to hurt each other, but they do.
In real life, when the Rachel-like partner realizes their error and changes their way, the other partner more often then not starts to back away. They are just as addicted to the dance, but didn't have a chance to experience their fear while they were doing the chase thing.
You couldn't be in a relationship with Rachel, and that's fair. I know how to handle Rachel-like behavior better than Ross-like behavior. Surely that's fair too? -
ppllkk — 9 years ago(October 08, 2016 07:26 AM)
morganseer
wrote:
I do think you're demonizing her,
Well, she does prick tease Ross for seven years, wanting him when he is not available and then not wanting him when he is. I believe that sort of behavior is routinely condemned in our society, but somehow Rachel gets a pass.
assigning her bad intentions where there don't have to be any.
I'm assigning to Rachel extremely selfish intentions. She keeps her hooks into Ross for seven years because she thinks that she may want him when she is ready to settle down.
Lots of people do the step-forward, step-back dance.
But they're not dancing. There is no back-and-forth. It is more like a chase in which Ross always wants Rachel, and sometimes Rachel almost lets him catch her to prevent him from getting involved with another woman.
They don't mean to hurt each other, but they do.
Looking at the entire 10 years, I do not see how Ross hurt Rachel. Rachel was clearly hurting Ross over a long period of time.
It might help if I explain what I think is really going on.
In the pilot, Carol has just moved the last of her stuff out and Ross says that he wants to be married. At that moment, a dripping wet Rachel comes through the door in a wedding dress. She decided that she does not want to be married, and I don't think it was just Barry. That goes on for 10 years.
Ross wants to be married, and Rachel does not want to be married. That is the core that the entire 10 years are built around.
My understanding is that this is a common problem. One person wants to settle down and start a family and the other person doesn't. There is nothing unusual in this. What is unusual is that the person who doesn't want to settle down strings the other person along for seven years.
When Rachel got her job, suddenly she had the opportunity for career rather than marriage, and she had not had that before. I have no clue what goes on in Rachel's mind, how much of it is conscious or unconscious, planned or just instinct, but on some level Rachel really wants to break up with Ross because she simply doesn't want to be in any long-term relationship at that point, but she thinks that she may well want Ross at some point in the future.
I believe this is a common problem, but normally people are honest about what is going on. Rachel isn't, and she causes Ross a great deal of pain in the process. I certainly blame her for that.
So why doesn't Rachel reassure Ross about Mark? Because on some level she does not want the relationship with Ross. There is no way that he could guess that. He thinks that Mark is the problem.
Ross is going to be difficult to break up with because he is so faithful and will be so hurt without Rachel becoming the villain.
Why does Rachel let Mark into her apartment? It is something that no one would do if they wanted to keep the relationship that they have. But Rachel doesn't.
Why does Rachel want to get back together with Ross? Breaking up with Ross permanently is a big step and there is doubtless some ambivalence about it.
Also, if Ross does not believe that there was nothing between her and Mark, she may never get him back.
And then she gets the perfect reason to break up with Ross. She can plausibly argue that it was Ross's fault, not her fault, and she does.
I am not saying that this was clear in Rachel's mind or planned, but that if on some level, not necessarily completely conscious, you want to get out of a relationship, you may well do things that move in that direction. That is by far the best explanation that I have for Rachel's behavior.
You say that I am demonizing Rachel, but my explanation has Rachel acting in a selfish, but rational way. The alternate explanation is that she is
PSYCHO BITCH
.
Rachel knows that they were broken up when Ross bedded Chloe. She acknowledges it several times. She describes being broken up as a "technicality." Rachel also never uses the word "cheat" or any of its other grammatical forms about Ross. "Cheat" is well-defined in that you cannot cheat on someone that you are not in a relationship with.
To be "unfaithful" to someone is less well-defined, and I believe you can be unfaithful to someone even when you are not in a relationship. Rachel certainly thinks that.
Given the circumstances, if Rachel wanted to be in a relationship with Ross, she would've gotten over Chloe within, I don't know, days, weeks, months. That is what happens in the real world when people want to be together and something happens. If Rachel had wanted to be with Ross after the break, she might have understood that it was more her fault that his fault. But she doesn't.
Ross is devoted to Rachel and he is extremely faithful. That is what you want in a lover that you want to be with. Someone who will commit to you completely. But if you don't want someone to commit to you completely, Ross is a nightmare.