Rachel is too good for Ross, Monica (and everyone else) is too good for Chandler the girls have just as many, and I wou
-
alexaw9 — 9 years ago(June 12, 2016 12:18 PM)
Yes, it bugs me too. And it especially bugs me that everyone saying it are people that are part of the five other 'Friends', people that are supposed to be his best friends in the world. Even Monica has voiced that opinion at least once.
None of the guys are unattractive, and if anything, in terms of Ross and Rachel, he is settling for her. -
ppllkk — 9 years ago(June 12, 2016 02:23 PM)
alexaw9
wrote:
if anything, in terms of Ross and Rachel, he is settling for her.
Yes, Ross is "settling" for what looked good to him in high school not always when we have our best judgment.
Ross is no longer a high school nerd. At the beginning of the series, Ross is a PhD in paleontology; by the end of the series he is a tenured professor at NYU. He could've done a lot better. -
alexaw9 — 9 years ago(June 12, 2016 04:43 PM)
Well, I don't think judging by career is much better than looks. What I meant by him settling for her (in some respects) is that even though he can be whiny and he can be an entitled brat (mainly just between him and Monica), he is such a kind, sweet, selfless, loyal person, in relationships and in friendships. Rachel got in the way a lot, but he gave everything to Carol for years, he was willing to give up everything for Emily, he just cared so much. Rachel is a very selfish, spoiled, self-obsessed person, making bad decisions like flying to London to tell Ross she loves him, or convincing Bonnie to shave her head, in the name of "love". She really only wants Ross when he's not available. She can be entertaining as one of the friends, but I think she is not a good person. Ross definitely deserves better, someone who appreciates his love instead of just feeling entitled to it.
-
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.