Rachel is too good for Ross, Monica (and everyone else) is too good for Chandler the girls have just as many, and I wou
-
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. -
morganseer — 9 years ago(October 09, 2016 03:22 AM)
I am not saying that this was clear in Rachel's mind or planned, but that if on some level, not necessarily completely conscious
Yes, this is what I wanted from you. And once you realize this part, then you begin to build understanding, even compassion for women like Rachel. Understand that I'm not saying you should be in a relationship with them, though some men know how to handle this behavior better than others. You can walk away, but you'll then be able to do it without a feeling of helplessness or major psychic injury. (That's why I was saying Ross is responsible for his behavior. I meant he has to control the harm done to him, because no one else will.)
We've been talking a lot about Rachel, who of course doesn't have any intent, evil or otherwise, because she's a TV character. But really, we're talking about ourselves, aren't we? I'm admitting to the world here that (hopefully on a much smaller scale) I've done some of the things Rachel did. At first I was totally clueless. I didn't understand why the guys didn't cross the barrier, because I didn't realize I put it there. It took me years to realize I was doing it, and even more years to stop it. IT'S THAT AUTOMATIC. Even after I understood, I'd act before I'd know I was doing it, then regret it and try to fix it. Sometimes it was too late.
So yes, I can have compassion for the Rachels in the world, male or female. And I know how to handle someone who does those things. A little bit of straight talk usually does the trick.
Where I still have a weakness is handling another person's rage. One rageful incident is enough to get me scared out of my wits and never come back. That's why Ross, in spite of his numerous good qualities would be the wrong pick for me. I'm not talking about lower level anger. I'm talking about high intensity rage, such as I see in Ross. I don't think a little bit of straight talk is enough for people who have such rage.
Again, don't misunderstand me. I understand Ross' anger is physically harmless, he never harmed any of the women in his life. I just don't have what it takes to be around it. It raises my discomfort level to a point that being around that person becomes aversive. That doesn't mean I will label him evil or selfish. He's just human, and we humans have many flaws, some of which I can deal with, others I can't. And I'm smart enough to know my limitations.
It's possible that Rachel's behavior is as powerful a trigger for you as Ross' behavior is for me. That's fair too. All I'd like from you is to concede that women like Rachel are not evil, that they don't deliberately try to harm. And I think you may be getting there. -
ppllkk — 9 years ago(October 09, 2016 09:23 AM)
morganseer
wrote:
Yes, this is what I wanted from you. And once you realize this part, then you begin to build understanding, even compassion for women like Rachel.
No, I do not have any understanding of how a decent person could for seven years lead on a person who loves them and cause them a great deal of emotional pain in the process. No, I do not have any compassion for Rachel or women like her.
There is something really wrong with a person who can cause another person who loves them that level of distress over that long a period of time. Rachel saw what this was doing to Ross on a daily basis, and it does not seem to have bothered her.
Understand that I'm not saying you should be in a relationship with them, though some men know how to handle this behavior better than others.
The way to handle women like Rachel is to not love them more than they love you. Actually, the best way to deal with women like Rachel is to not care if they leave or not.
You can walk away,
Sure, but that is very hard to do when you are really in love. Especially hard to do when the person keeps hinting that she may be available. That is what really stinks.
(That's why I was saying Ross is responsible for his behavior. I meant he has to control the harm done to him, because no one else will.)
Yes, certainly, but that does not absolve Rachel of responsibility for utilizing a psychological weakness that Ross has for her own very selfish purposes.
We've been talking a lot about Rachel, who of course doesn't have any intent, evil or otherwise, because she's a TV character.
Characters have intentions, and they are revealed in what the character does.
But really, we're talking about ourselves, aren't we?
I am talking about my sense of how you don't treat someone.
I'm admitting to the world here that (hopefully on a much smaller scale) I've done some of the things Rachel did.
Hopefully, on a much smaller scale. If Rachel had gotten back with Ross after he said her name at the altar in London the traditional Romantic Comedy ending I am not sure that I would have compassion or liking for her, but I would not see her as a bad person. Unfortunately, she didn't, and she continued for five years.
If Rachel had disrupted Ross's wedding, and prevented his marriage from getting off the ground, because she loved him so much and only realized that the last minute, and then got back with him, I would not blame her.
But she does not get back together with Ross for five years.
She could have at any time if she really wanted to.
At first I was totally clueless. I didn't understand why the guys didn't cross the barrier, because I didn't realize I put it there.
Now I am really confused because that is not what Rachel is doing, and I fear we may have completely different understandings of Rachel and her motives.
It is not that Rachel is afraid of intimacy, or even afraid of commitment, she just doesn't want to be in a long-term relationship
now
. She wants to be a single in New York pursuing a career. Fine, but she also doesn't want Ross to get into a permanent relationship with another woman because then he won't be available when she is ready to settle down. That is pure selfishness, egregious selfishness.
So yes, I can have compassion for the Rachels in the world, male or female.
If the issue was that Rachel is afraid of commitment or afraid of intimacy, I would agree with you, but that is not the case here at all.
And I know how to handle someone who does those things. A little bit of straight talk usually does the trick.
You think that it would be possible to have a rational conversation with Rachel that would solve the problems? When in the 10 years did Rachel ever respond to a rational conversation? When was she even willing to engage in one?
Where I still have a weakness is handling another person's rage.
Do you mean the sandwich? If you don't, I have no idea what you are talking about.
One rageful incident is enough to get me scared out of my wits and never come back.
Okay. Perhaps you came from a family in which people don't express their emotions so any expression of emotion is earth shattering. There was nothing that Ross did that is out of the norm of what happens routinely at least on occasion.
Some cultures scream and yell all the time. It doesn't mean anything.
That's why Ross, in spite of his numerous good qualities would be the wrong pick for me.
Okay, I will certainly not argue with that.
I'm not talking about lower level anger. I'm talking about high intensity rage, such as I see in Ross. I don't think a little bit of straight talk is enough for people who have such rage.
I truly have no idea what you are talking about.
Again, don't misunderstand me. I understand Ross' anger is physically harmless, he never harmed any of the women in his life. I just don't have what it takes to be around it. It raises my discomfort level to a point that being around that person becomes aversive. That doesn't mean I will label him evil or selfish. -
ppllkk — 9 years ago(October 09, 2016 07:38 PM)
morganseer
wrote:
Ok then.
I am afraid that I don't understand your reply. I thought that maybe I had figured out where you are coming from, but now I am not sure.
If you are sympathetic about Rachel because you see her as being afraid of commitment and afraid of intimacy and have had such issues yourself then I can understand how you feel.
But if you think that Rachel is justified, not a bad person, not evil because she has some psychological need to keep her hooks into Ross for years and prevent him from getting on with his life, then I don't understand how you could think that.
I don't think there's a snowball's chance in hell that the issue is that Rachel is afraid of commitment. She simply does not want to be committed
now
.
As I said several times, I simply do not have a clue what you are talking about with Ross's anger. Would you care to elaborate?
I think that Ross behaved remarkably well through all of this. Much better than most people would under similar circumstances. -
ppllkk — 9 years ago(October 08, 2016 08:51 AM)
morganseer
wrote:
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 is quite a recognizable storyline, and a reasonably common storyline. It is also quite a good storyline,
but that is not the storyline in Friends
.
The storyline in
Friends
is about compulsive, unrequited love. -
Moonlighty — 9 years ago(June 13, 2016 12:40 PM)
Wow every thread you create is more over the top complaining. Why does a sitcom offend you constantly and so extremely?
Consider the daffodil. And while you're doing that I'll be over here looking through your stuff.
-
ppllkk — 9 years ago(June 13, 2016 12:51 PM)
Moonlighty
wrote:
Wow every thread you create is more over the top complaining.
You are just making that up. That is one of the most ridiculous things you have ever posted, and that is saying a lot.
Why does a sitcom offend you constantly and so extremely?
I think it is true of most people that there are some things in the series they are not happy about. Isn't that true of you? -
-
perfect_lover2012 — 9 years ago(October 09, 2016 09:00 AM)
Phoebe was just bitter that she's the appendix of the group and she always had something negative to say about Chandler and Ross.
"When life gives you lemons"
Jessica
sleep with their fathers and have secret lemon children
