I'm sure this has been discussed a lot before... but I don't care!
Personally, I think that they were in a break, but not a 'Break-UP', so although Ross is right in saying"We were on a break" that still doesn't justify what he did.
A relationship doesn't just abruptly come to an end any more so than it instantly comes into being on the first date. Most people acknowledge this without looking for technicalities or loop holes (presumably because they don't watch friends).
If you ended a relationship and then discovered that the person you thought loved you was fücking someone else three hours later, I can assure you;
1) You'd feel cheated on.
2) You'd question whether you really knew this person at all.
And you'd respond to the excuse... "but we were broken up"... with utter disdain.
Well precisely,break or break up, he proved that his so called love for Rachel was a huge lie, he's been cheating her about the strengh and deph of his feelings.No one would bed someone else 3hrs after a break or break up with the so called love of his life.But in order to save the "endgame" couple, the writers needed to focus on what didn't matter( break or break up?)in a desperate attempt to make us forget that Ross's so called love for Rachel lost all credibility
sharethe break-up isn't what led him to that though, hearing Mark on the other end of the phone i think temporarily deadened his feelings toward Rachel and combined with the drinks plus the level at which Chloe was coming onto him that night, it was a reactionary thing based on the fact that he thought Rachel was already doing it herself anyway
i've always been on Ross's side on this for what it's worth, though i can obviously see why Rachel would be hurt
What break up? There was no break up till she found out he cheated. There is no way he thought after the phone call that she dumped him. Did he think that she was cheating? If he did, he cheated too. In order for it to not be cheating, he should have ended it before hunging up.But he didn't, so no break up happened,so he cheated
sharewhat break up? the one that was acknowledged in that very episode, by both of them
Rachel literally telling Monica they broke up, for one
Again when did the break up happen? Rachel assumed that Ross dumped her when he hung up on her but fact is that he didn't.He should have said so saying that they were done, before hinging up.
Rachel dumped him? When? When she said a break from us? Then why didn't she break up with him like she did when she found out he cheated? Why would she be happy he called,try to hide and explain the presence of the man she supposely broke up for? Why would she allow that man in the appartement she shares with Ross's sister knowing how she would react?
Fact is there was no break up.Ross does what every cheater does: Blame his girlfriend for his cheating.
I have no idea why I'm joining this convo since the show ended over a decade ago but:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJq3_FVR894
4:24 Rachel: "We kinda broke up, instead."
And Ross is wrong for sleeping with Chloe, Rachel is wrong for saying "Let's take a break", and then letting Mark come over.
They were both in the wrong and it was a stupid fight that lasted until the end of the show.
I love trolls, they taste like chicken.
Rachel never said : we broke up instead
She said: we kinda broke up instead
And that was after he hung up on her( showing clearly that she didn't know if he dumped her or not but was gonna fight for him) Oh and thanks for the clip that shows clearly how confused she was about wether they were broken up or not.
It was Ross who said:" we're gonna break up instead
And that was before the phone call
And at no point Rachel says that SHE broke up with him,like Ross claims she did to justify his cheating
Why is Rachel wrong to let Mark come over? Because she didn't want him there so she should have been more clear or because she has to obey Ross's friend rules?
-
Consider the daffodil. And while you're doing that I'll be over here looking through your stuff.
Because she knew Mark was a big part of the problem and having him come over at that moment was not a good idea.
And, I'm done with the convo. Later!
I love trolls, they taste like chicken.
He invited himself over.
But yeah, you're right... having him come over is the same as screwing another person.
Definitely 50/50 responsibility
Sorry but no. Ross doesn't get to choose her friends and she had made very clear to Ross more than once that Mark was just a friend. Mark was a big part of the problem? Heck no. Mark was just the excuse Ross used .The problem was Rachel's passion for her job, enjoying something for herself, not being all about Ross,having a life outside of him.Ross knew there was nothing between Rachel and Mark, also knew that Mark had a girlfriend. Mark was just an excuse
shareBecause she knew Mark was a big part of the problem and having him come over at that moment was not a good idea.
If you want to make up with your boyfriend after a fight, it's just really strange to invite the guy you had a fight about into your house
I also don't get how she still couldn't see what Mark's true intentions were.
She did invite him INTO her house.
Sure, Mark races to Rachel's house even though she told him he didn't need to come over just to bring her some Chinese food.
You're not much different than ppllkk, now are you...
Ppllkk is mentally unwell.
So if a colleague of yours invites himself over after finding out you're upset about a breakup, you won't let him in coz... he might have ulterior motives?
Are you also mentally unwell?
Seriously, the paranoia you people display is sincerely worrying. Perhaps consult a mental health professional.
I do not invite colleagues into my house to discuss my relationship issues, especially not if I just had an argument about them having ulterior motives.
Are you also mentally unwell?
Seriously, the paranoia you people display is sincerely worrying. Perhaps consult a mental health professional.
I do not invite colleagues into my house to discuss my relationship issues, especially not if I just had an argument about them having ulterior motives.
You don't really sound right in the head yourself, buddy.
Rachel was not close with Mark, she only went to a fashion show with him. She had other friends to talk to about her relationship.
Rachel called a break because they had another fight about Mark. She tried to get back together with Ross, letting Mark in was not a smart thing to do.
What paranoia are you talking about? Did your mother drop you on your head?
Of course she was close with him, you utter moron. He was her colleague and friend -- the guy who helped her get a foot in the door. She socialised with him, you retarded muppet.
Rachel called a break because they had another fight about Mark. She tried to get back together with Ross, letting Mark in was not a smart thing to do.
What paranoia are you talking about?
Did your mother drop you on your head?
Do you live in the same mental institution as imaneassi and ppllkk? You're quite disturbed to get so worked up about other people having a different opinion about a tv sitcom.
shareI'm simply correcting you.
The relationship ended because Ross was paranoid about Mark, because he smothered her, because he constantly needed reassurance, because he wasn't getting her all to himself anymore, because he was way too needy, and oh yes... because he fücked the copy girl.
The idea that Rachel should have placated him, indulged him or accepted his paranoia is the opinion of either someone who has a personal bias or is (like ppllkk) a misogynist.
She has a right to a career, she has a right to male friends and she has a right not to be as eager for a relationship as serious as the one Ross wanted.
She had no obligation to reassure Ross. He is a grown man.
I've never like Rachel but people who apologise for Ross's smothering behaviour, his unjust paranoia and his eventual infidelity... utterly perplex me.
You're not correcting me at all. The fight was about Mark. Ross brought him up out of nowhere because he was the one he really had a problem with, not her career. And Rachel even said she didn't want the same fight again and again.
I never said she had to indulge Ross. I said that if you want to get back with your boyfriend it's weird to invite the guy you had a fight about into your house. And I said it was weird Rachel still didn't see Mark's true motives.
The rest you're just making up yourself. It perplexes me that you feel the need to call people names over something like this.
She didn't invite him indeed and more importantly the fight wasn't about Mark,it was about her job
shareMoonlighty wrote
Why is Rachel wrong to let Mark come over?Because any normal person would understand that it would inflame Ross's jealousy, and he would come to the conclusion that he did when he realized that Mark was there.As someone wrote a long time ago, most people have an instinct about that.Sheldon Cooper might well not understand that, but all normal people would would have the same strong emotional reaction that Ross does whether or not they will admit it here.Of course, if you don't care if you keep the relationship, sure, let the guy in. I believe that was the case here. share
God forbid she inflame Ross's jealousy.
Is that also advice you'd give to a battered wife?
Muppet.
log705 wrote:
though i can obviously see why Rachel would be hurtSure, but the question is why, under the circumstances, it took Rachel seven years to get over it. In the real world, for most sexually experienced women, I would guess a week or two or maybe a month.Rachel knows that Ross thought she was having sex with Mark when he bedded Chloe. share
harry-browne8 wrote:
so although Ross is right in saying"We were on a break" that still doesn't justify what he did.Just one more comment and then I will quit. I think I can quit.Ross's tagline, "We were on a break," was a joke that the writers played on the audience. Whether or not they were on a break was not an issue at the time. In the conversation the next day, Rachel was the one who said they were on a break, and Ross said they were broken up. Rachel did not argue about that but described being broken up as a "technicality."It was a very successful joke as an awful lot of people still think that break or no break was the issue. It was not. share
For the purpose of the many threads and disagreements about this on this board, the question isn't really whether they were on a break. It's how wrong of Ross was it to do what he did?
I'm in the "It was a break, and Ross had legitimate reason to believe they were broken up" camp.
Even so, I most definitely no in the "therefore Ross was perfectly OK to do what he did" camp. It was disrespectful and a huge mistake.
And on the flip side, I'm not in the "Rachel was right to make Ross take complete ownership over everything that happened." Duh; that's clearly a ridiculous, small-minded notion.
Seems to me that's really what this is all about.
What this is all about:Ross's feelings for Rachel's credibility.How is she supposed to believe he has real deep feelings for her after that,no matter if he cheated or not? What's the difference between Rachel,the so called love of his life and other women for him?None.If they were broken up,he didn't try to fight for her and replaced her moving on in 3hrs.If they weren't broken up,he cheated.
He fought so much for Carol, tried to get her back, didn't have sex with someone else hrs or even days later, despite of knowing for sure,with evidences that she was leaving him for someone else.
Ross's behavior proved that Rachel meant nothing to him, that she was just a challenge, an obsession for him.Nothing to do with love.
You never disappoint.
shareI think I've lost the point of this discussion. Either a) they both knew it was a break up and Ross's actions hooking up immediately after killed any chance of reconciliation or b) they misunderstood if it was a permanent or temporary break and Rachel found his actions of hooking up too hurtful and made it permanent. What does it matter if Ross is right or not? It's necessary at the beach house for them to agree to something went wrong and how to keep that from happening again, but they didn't have a mature conversation, but whether or not Ross's actions were cheating or not, Rachel found them impossible to get passed which is her right.
-
Consider the daffodil. And while you're doing that I'll be over here looking through your stuff.
Moonlighty wrote:
Either a) they both knew it was a break up and Ross's actions hooking up immediately after killed any chance of reconciliationI don't know why this is so hard for people to understand, but it was not as if Ross and Rachel had a fight and broke up. Then the prospect of reconciling would be very real. Ross thought that Rachel was sleeping with Mark and leaving him for Mark. Their relationship was over because Rachel is with another man. Reconciliation was not an issue. share
They did have a fight, and both of them acknowledged this. Ross told the boys at the bar they'd had "a big fight," and Rachael told Mark they had "a big, stupid fight" and that she didn't really want a break from Ross.
Ross assumed that because he heard Mark's voice in the background that Rachel had left Ross for Mark and was sleeping with him. but he was wrong. Not only was he wrong about that, but even weeks after they actually were broken up, and Mark asked her out, she said she didn't want to accept because it felt like she was being unfaithful to Ross. Even though at that point she would have had every moral reason to, if she'd wanted to. But she didn't want to.
catbookss wrote:
Ross assumed that because he heard Mark's voice in the background that Rachel had left Ross for Mark and was sleeping with him. but he was wrong.Yes, he turned out to be wrong, but under those circumstances, 99% of the time he would've been right. Ross came to a conclusion that almost everyone would've come to. I certainly would have. Rachel letting Mark into her apartment under those circumstances does not make any sense. No one would do that if they wanted to keep their relationship.
Even though at that point she would have had every moral reason to, if she'd wanted to. But she didn't want to.I do not understand your point. If you mean that Rachel never had any interest in Mark, that may well be the case, but how is Ross supposed to know that given the way that she is acting. And given that she refuses to talk about Mark.
While Rachel could have given Ross a *bit* more reassurance than she did,This attitude comes up a lot, and it is quite annoying. Rachel did not do anything serious to reassure Ross. The idea that "she could have given him a bit more reassurance" doesn't make any sense when all she did were the clichés "Trust me" and "He's just a friend." At least in fiction, that is what people say when they are cheating. She does nothing more. She doesn't do any of the things that a normal person would do if they wanted to keep their relationship.This is a crucial point, because Ross wants very badly to believe Rachel, and she gives him nothing. What is Ross supposed to think?Did you look at the survey that I sent you a link to? Ross's attitudes are very normal. share
Huge difference between Rachel's feelings and Ross's feelings
Rachel felt guilty dating someone else 3 weeks after the break up
Ross had no problem bedding someone else 3hrs after a fight/break/break up and played victim trying to blame her for it
Even Ross knew he did something wrong. He worked very hard to keep Rachel from finding out. I think he just used it as an excuse once she knew.
sharebtlehfeldt wrote:
Even Ross knew he did something wrong.Ross knew that he had made a mistake. He also knew that he had never intentionally cheated on Rachel. Rachel knows that too by the way.
He worked very hard to keep Rachel from finding out.Of course, because he knew how she would react. Rachel knew that they were broken up, but she described that as "a technicality."
I think he just used it as an excuse once she knew.The, "We were on a break thing," thing was a joke the writers played on the audience. At the time, it was Rachel who said they were on a break, Ross said that they were broken up, and Rachel described that as "a technicality."The writers took Ross from a very strong position. "It was clear to me that you were sleeping with Mark and leaving me for Mark and that our relationship was completely over," to a very weak position, "We were on a break." Ross did not think that they were on a break; he knew that they were broken up and so did Rachel.If Ross had ended up in bed with Chloe because he thought they were on a break, I would condemn him. But that is not what he thought. He thought that Rachel had left him for another man. share
Let's say that it was absolutely and clearly a break-up, but Rachel regretted it quickly afterwards. Do you think she would be happy finding out Ross already slept with another woman? Ross hid it because he knew she would be upset. It doesn't have anything to do with the question whether it was cheating or not.
This. Same reason Rachel lied to Ross on the phone and said nobody was there when she had Mark over.
She wasn't sleeping with Mark, but she knew Ross would be upset if he knew, so she lied.
__________
If you're gonna pretend to cut her hair, at least put some scissors in your hand!
Yes, exactly.
shareRachel lied to avoid another pointless argument,unlike Ross who lied to save his cheating ass.And Rachel broken up with Ross or wanted to break up with him like he and his defenders claim,she wouldn't have bothered to try to hide or explain Mark's presence.
shareSilverWolf442 wrote:
She wasn't sleeping with Mark, but she knew Ross would be upset if he knew, so she lied.Yes, and when Ross heard Mark and hung up, she knew perfectly well what Ross thought.But instead of immediately leaving the apartment and trying to find Ross to correct that misunderstanding, she stayed and talked to Mark and only after that left the message for Ross.I have never understood that. If I were in Rachel's position, I would've been out the door within seconds. share
That is one thing I disagreed with Rachel on.
I don't understand why she let Mark come over in the first place. It's like why did she think that was a good idea? She was perfectly capable of telling him no.
flowerchild-15037 wrote:
I don't understand why she let Mark come over in the first place.The best explanation that I have for that is that Rachel, perhaps unconsciously, wants to break up with Ross. So, she is not concerned if Mark coming over provokes a dispute with Ross. It would just be another example of Ross as jealous boyfriend. Another fight that might lead to a breakup.But as it worked out, Ross concluded that Rachel was sleeping with Mark, and she wants the breakup to be Ross's fault, not her fault. She is not burning her bridges with Ross to that extent, and if Ross thinks that she is cheating with Mark, she may have lost him forever.Would you at least consider the possibility that Rachel's actions through the entire Mark episode are motivated by a desire – conscious or unconscious or some of each – to break up with Ross? If you see it that way, what Rachel is doing makes a lot of sense. She is not doing any of the things that a normal person would do to reassure their boyfriend if they wanted to keep their boyfriend.That she does not get back with Ross for seven years suggests to me very strongly that she wanted to break up with him in the first place. She could've gotten back with him at essentially any point, but she doesn't.For the first time, with her job, she has an option to being a housewife. She is not ready to settle down and she wants to explore a career. Fine, this is quite a normal situation. I believe that not feeling ready to settle down comes up with some regularity, but I also believe that usually people are honest about what the situation is and Rachel isn'tShe seems to think that she may well want Ross someday, but she doesn't want faithful, devoted, monogamous Ross now.There is another theory that Rachel lets Mark in because she does not know whether she wants Mark or Ross. There may well be something to that, but Rachel decides that she doesn't want either of them. Or anyone else. She does not have a serious relationship in the entire seven years. I am suggesting that is because she does not want to be in a serious relationship at that time. share
Would you at least consider the possibility that Rachel's actions through the entire Mark episode are motivated by a desire – conscious or unconscious or some of each – to break up with Ross?
No, I wouldn't go that much in depth. I just think she didn't think it was going to be an issue having him come over. She probably just wanted comfort from a friend and someone to vent to. But Mark is the last person that should've been there for her.
She definitly didn't think it would be an issue since she had made very clear Mark was just a friend. And there is no reason for Mark to be the last person that should have been there.Unless Ross gets to choose her friends for her and who gets to comfort her.
shareWhy are you so confrontational? Did I say that Ross gets to chose her friends? No. I didn't. Chillllll...
shareFor me if Rachel gives even just one time in his paranoia,his unfounded distrust, she would validate them, make it seem like he was right to distrust her.Huge mistake.Ross would behave the same way everytime he tries to get what he wants.It's emotional blackmail. It's like an abused woman who does nothing the first time he hit her.He will keep doing it because he got away with it the first time.Rachel shouldn't at all turn Mark's comfort down since she had zero sexual/romantic interest in him.He was no threat.
shareflowerchild-15037 wrote:
I just think she didn't think it was going to be an issue having him come over.I don't just mean letting Mark in. I mean blowing off Ross's concerns even while he's coming apart. I mean not doing any of the things that a normal person would do to reassure their boyfriend.And I mean not getting back with Ross for seven years.Put them altogether, and it certainly looks to me as if Rachel simply does not want to be involved with Ross. She could've ended Ross's jealousy of Mark very simply, but she won't talk about Mark. She is very defensive every time Mark comes up.I cannot imagine anyone thinking that having the man that their boyfriend is particularly jealous of in their apartment right after an argument which ended in a call for "a break from us" would not be an issue. She lives with Ross's sister. Chandler and Joey are right across the hall. She can't possibly think that it wouldn't be an issue for Ross if he finds out. No one would think that.No one would do that if they wanted to keep their relationship with their boyfriend. I believe Rachel doesn't. Nothing else makes sense. share
Why? Because she needed a friend, and had made very clear to Ross over and over again that Mark was a friend.Ross chose to not believe her,for no reason.
shareWhen Kathy (Paget Brewster) slept with her co-star right after having a fight with Chandler, it was quite clear she was in the wrong. At which point Ross weakly said: "Maybe if she thought you were on a break?...".
"I'm not arguing that with you. I know he can get the job, but can he do the job?"
thegrayvenwarlock wrote:
When Kathy (Paget Brewster) slept with her co-star right after having a fight with Chandler, it was quite clear she was in the wrong.I do not agree that she was in the wrong. Chandler was in the wrong.
At which point Ross weakly said: "Maybe if she thought you were on a break?...".It was a joke. What she thought was that they were broken up which, by the way, is what Ross thought. He did not think that they were on a break at the time and that is indisputably clear. share
https://youtu.be/S1yH-6sHV8Q
As Rachel says, what Chandler did didn't justify Kathy immediately sleeping with that guy. Especially since she seemed to really like Chandler.
And Ross definitely doesn't look like he's kidding.
"I'm not arguing that with you. I know he can get the job, but can he do the job?"
thegrayvenwarlock wrote:
As Rachel says, what Chandler did didn't justify Kathy immediately sleeping with that guy.Oh yeah. And Rachel is an authority that you trust on that.In any event, I don't agree.
Especially since she seemed to really like Chandler.She did and then Chandler attacked her out of the blue for no reason. That was a quite good reason for her to change her mind. What was she supposed to do, wait for Chandler to grow up? He said that wasn't going to happen anytime soon.
And Ross definitely doesn't look like he's kidding.He is not kidding. He has been on the other side of that. It was a joke for the audience.Ross had sex with Chloe because he thought Rachel was leaving him for Mark, and they were therefore broken up. That did not cut any ice with Rachel, and this situation doesn't either.You simply cannot treat someone the way the Chandler treated Kathy and expect them to wait around until you grow up. My understanding is that Kathy is now involved with Nick, and given what Chandler did, she had every right to leave him. share
She did and then Chandler attacked her out of the blue for no reason.While he did choose hurtful words, calling it an attack is disingenuous.
That was a quite good reason for her to change her mind. What was she supposed to do, wait for Chandler to grow up? He said that wasn't going to happen anytime soon.Using your words, "It was a joke." At least it was clear that the writers intent was to make a joke for the audience (from the ambiguity of what exactly won't happen soon, him calling her, or growing up). Kathy was out of the room before he finished the line, and he didn't yell it loudly enough for anyone to say with any certainty that she heard it. You read far too much meaning into this line, and have been doing it for 1 1/2 years on this board (perhaps more). share
As far as Ross&Rachel are concerned, I'm on Ross' side in the whole "on a break" issue. Mostly because I'm sure that he would never want to cheat on Rachel. The very reason he slept with Chloe was because he was so hurt over what he thought was the end of their relationship.
But the Chandler&Kathy storyline really made me see it from Rachel's perspective. How she must have felt. Regardless of rational explanations that Ross had. The fact Ross slept with someone on the very night she asked for a break must've felt like he was just waiting to sleep with someone other than her.
The big difference between C&K and R&R is that when Chandler had his irrational outburst, there wasn't even the slightest implication he and Kathy were "on a break". Couples fight, people can be irrational... but you don't jump ship at the first hurdle, if you're actually interested in the other person. Monica had to deal with Chandler's insecurities plenty.
If you compare Chandler&Kathy with Ross&Rachel, Chandler is actually like Ross. Irrationally jealous of a perceived rival. Now, if Rachel had slept with Mark immediately after a big fight, would it be justifiable? Even if Ross said something really hurtful, would it even be excusable?
Of course, C&K just started dating, but Kathy, obviously, didn't give the relationship a chance. The first bump in the road, and she nuked the relationship without even one conversation with Chandler.
"I'm not arguing that with you. I know he can get the job, but can he do the job?"
thegrayvenwarlock wrote:
How she must have felt.There is no question but that she was hurt. The question is, given the circumstances, why didn't she get over it in a couple of weeks rather than seven years.
The fact Ross slept with someone on the very night she asked for a break must've felt like he was just waiting to sleep with someone other than her.I don't believe that. Rachel knew that Ross thought she was sleeping with Mark and leaving him for Mark. I don't think there's any chance that Rachel thought Ross was just waiting for that so that he could have sex with another woman.Remember that Rachel had sex with Paolo when Ross returned with Julie. She was not looking for an excuse to have sex with Paolo. She could've done it at any time. It was the same sort of reaction as Ross with Chloe.
... but you don't jump ship at the first hurdle, if you're actually interested in the other person.Except, it wasn't the fight. Chandler completely blindsided Kathy with a ridiculous accusation. Having a person that you care about go insane in front of your eyes – and show a side that you never even suspected was there – can cause you to reevaluate the situation. Kathy seems to done that and decided that she wanted Nick more than Chandler. I don't blame her.
Now, if Rachel had slept with Mark immediately after a big fight, would it be justifiable? Even if Ross said something really hurtful, would it even be excusable?I assume that is a theoretical question because that was not the situation here. Ross did not end up in bed with Chloe because he had a fight with Rachel. He ended up in bed with Chloe because he believed that Rachel was leaving him for Mark, and there was no relationship possible for the foreseeable future.Looking at the different situation that you describe, I have no idea what would be justified. I do know that if someone is hurt enough, they may well react by having sex with someone else. That is the way the world works unfortunately. If Ross had attacked Rachel the way that Chandler attacked Kathy, I would not blame Rachel if she ran off and had sex with someone. And I do not blame Kathy.
Of course, C&K just started dating, but Kathy, obviously, didn't give the relationship a chance. The first bump in the road, and she nuked the relationship without even one conversation with Chandler.It was more like a pothole that causes serious damage to your car. If Chandler had called that night, it might've been patched up, but Chandler was waiting for Kathy to call and apologize to him.After Chandler's attack, Kathy seems to have reevaluated the situation and decided that she would prefer Nick. That is her right. My impression is that they are now a couple. share
Agree with Hugh Lawrie
shareThey were absolutely on a break!!! However, it was still not cool Ross slept with someone THE NIGHT Rachel talked about wanting to be on a break. I mean, come on lol. So while it irritated me Rachel continued to fight that point-- she was wrong. But I was always mad at Ross for his actions as well. "Getting drunk" is never a good excuse as to why you cheat on someone or sleep with someone too soon after a serious relationship. God, even a week would have been too soon after how serious him and Rachel were. I was always more mad at Rachel though because yes Ross was being jealous and a bit overbearing but that is super sweet when it comes down to it. He was crazy about her, and just trying to show her how he felt and she "needed space" and said verbatim "I think we need a break." And he sweetly says "You're right, let's take a breather, cool down, go get some ice cream or something" and she says "I mean a break FROM US" and he was so heart broken he walked out the door.
Now, her argument may be... he never actually said "Ok you're right let's take a break" before he immediately went to the bar and slept with someone. But she still said it. And so he took it that way.
I agree they were on a break, as that's what Racel initially said in their conversation. To me this connotes a fairly short period of time to cool off and think things over, before mutually deciding to either make the effort to work things out (something both of them demonstrated, along with regret over what had happened), or to end it (break up). It became a break-up only after Ross called and heard Mark in the background, and leapt to erroneous conclusions. As he'd done all along, at least as as they applied to Rachel.
Ross had commented, in an earlier episode, how hot he thought "the girl at the copy shop with the belly ring" was. Which isn't to say I think he'd have slept with her that night had his defenses not been down by a combination of too much alcohol and feeling crushed by his erroneous and knee-jerk conclusion that because he heard Mark in the background at Rachel s apartment, it automatically meant she was sleeping with him, or was about to. He was completely off base about that; even three weeks after they actually had broken up, Racel was still reluctant to go on a date with Mark, because to her it still felt like it was being unfaithful to Ross. That says a lot about how she felt about him, because she knew at that point that Ross had slept with another woman only a few hours after they'd broken up. Regardless of how hurt she feels, and would have had every right to sleep with Mark if she wanted to, because they were without any doubt broken up at that point, she still feels faithful to Ross and rejects Mark.
Personally, I didn't think Ross' behavior was sweet (at Rachel's office). He wasn't just trying to show her how much he cared. Had he been, I would have thought the same thing. But it came from a desire to mark his territory out of insecurity, not out of love. I do think he really did love her, as she loved him, but that particular behavior, about her career and Mark, was not out of love. We were even shown this when Ross feigns outrage and hurt when Rachel busts him on it, it was a funny moment because we were supposed to see through Ross's pretense, and know that yes his motive was out of marking his territory (Rachel) at her office, but he didn't want to admit it to her, and quite possibly not to himself either. But we, the audience, were shown that very clearly.
Precisely, a break is not a break up, that's why it was cheating.
If it became a break up after the phone call, then it was Ross who did the dumping and didn't even bother telling her so.Yet he kept playing victim claiming that he thought that she dumped him.
In order for it to be a break up, he should have said:"ok, I get it we're done".He didn't and she sure didn't dump him.So no break up.
Did she think after he hung up on her that maybe he dumped her? Yes,that's why she says"kinda broke up" and why she decides to fight for him, only to find out that not only there was nobreak up, but he cheated on her.
Rachel didn't reject Mark to be faithful to Ross.She did it because she wasn't interested in Mark.
Rachel felt guilty for thinking about dating someone else 3 weeks after the break up.But she got over that guilt and had a date with Mark realizing that it was out of revenge,had no interest in him.
I have to agree with Rachel that technically it wasn't cheating, because he slept with her after the phone call, but yes, ultimately it was Ross who broke up with her in that call, although he didn't say those specific words.
Rachel did reject Mark out of faithfulness to Ross. The first night he insisted on coming over, there was nothing to reject, because he made no pass at her. It was only three weeks later when she didn't feel right accepting a date with him because it felt to her like it was being unfaithful to him. Even though she did accept the date, those feelings weren't going to just vanish. And yes, also she wasn't interested in him.
catbookss wrote:
but yes, ultimately it was Ross who broke up with her in that call, although he didn't say those specific words.From Ross's point of view, they were already broken up because was Rachel was with Mark. Rachel knew that they were broken up because she knew that Ross thought that.
Rachel did reject Mark out of faithfulness to Ross.How sweet. So why doesn't she get back with Ross for another seven years. As SilverWolf said, Rachel really overreacted to Chloe given the circumstances.If she had wanted to be with Ross, she would've gotten over it fairly quickly. She doesn't. Well actually she does. She panics when she thinks that Ross is going to marry Bonnie, but she still doesn't get back with Ross after he has dumped Bonnie. share
Rachel never said that it wasn't cheating on the contrary.
When he claimed that he thought that they were broken up, she immediatly corrects him stating that they were on a brrak,making very clear the difference.And when Chandler asked her years later if it bothered her that Ross flirted with other women while they were dating, she says no, it bothered her when he slept with other women.
The only "break" Rachel denies is Ross's version of a break which is a break up and she's very consistant about it.
It is cheating precisely because of the phone call.No break up happened.Rachel tried to hide and explain Mark's presence so sure didn't dump Ross. And Ross refused to listen and hung but didn't say"we'te over","we're done","I,m done with you".He didn't break up with her so no break up.HE CHEATED
Rachel said that *technically* he hadn't cheated on her, and technically he hadn't, because technically the break-up only occurred after Ross called her, heard Mark in the background and leapt to the wrong conclusion that this meant Rachel had left Ross for Mark.
Regardless, it was a mistake on Ross' part, although understandable to a degree. Ross was very sad, and drunk. He made it clear he really wasn't interested in Chloe, but had said he'd thought she was "hot," But he was clearly upset by the break, and in his mind break-up, as was Rachel. Neither of them wanted it.
Chloe meant as little to Ross as Mark meant to Rachel, in the end, even though she never slept with him. But we, the audience, saw that. Neither Rachel nor Ross saw it.
I understand Rachel feeling very hurt that Ross slept with another woman.within a few hours of their being on EITHER a break OR a breakup. Rachel still felt she was being unfaithful to Ross, even three weeks afterwards, whEn Mark asked her out, even though she knew Ross. Had slept with another woman only a few hours after their break/breakup.
In so many ways it reminds me of I Love Lucy episodes. Misunderstandings-nd exaggeration are the bread and meat of sitcoms, which are intended to be funny and entertaining. I can hardly believe I'm engaging in this debate about a SITCOM.
catbookss wrote:
Rachel said that *technically* he hadn't cheated on her,For most people, that would be a factor in her getting over it if she wanted to.
Regardless, it was a mistake on Ross' part,He acknowledges that.
although understandable to a degree.I would say completely understandable. It is what would happen most of the time under those circumstances if the man stayed in the bar and a hot girl came on to him.
but had said he'd thought she was "hot,"What is your point? Ross tried to ward the hot girl off. The hot girl was the one who came on to him. A very average girl who was as aggressive would have also succeeded.
Chloe meant as little to Ross as Mark meant to Rachel, in the end, even though she never slept with him.Of course, Ross said that Chloe meant nothing to him. Rachel never said to Ross that Mark meant nothing to her before the breakup. The first time that she said it was in her telephone answering machine message. It was also the first time that she sounded sincere, and Ross believed her.
Rachel still felt she was being unfaithful to Ross, even three weeks afterwards, whEn Mark asked her out, even though she knew Ross.You are just making that up. There is no evidence in the text for that.
Rachel: Well, oh, Mark, I’m doing this for the wrong reasons, y'know? I’m just doing it to get back at Ross. I’m sorry, it’s not very fair to you.It is certainly possible that, planning ahead, Rachel wants to be able to say that she never had sex with Mark.If Rachel is being faithful to Ross, why the hell doesn't she get back with him? share
Unless you consider the actual dialogue in the script "no evidence," where Rachel tells ... I think it was Phoebe she felt like accepting a date from Mark made her feel she was being unfaithful. Look it up yourself.
sharecatbookss wrote:
I think it was Phoebe she felt like accepting a date from Mark made her feel she was being unfaithful.That does sound plausible, and since you are the one who is making the claim, why don't you find it in a transcript and post it.Of course, she does accept a date with Mark, and Mark thinks she is going to have sex with him to get back at Ross. Rachel said it would not be fair to Mark.Mark doesn't care. He is happy to accommodate her in revenge.I think Rachel has decided that she doesn't really want either of them, or anyone at all. Also, I think she wants to be able to throw in Ross's face later that she never had sex with Mark.As I've asked repeatedly, can you explain why, if Rachel is being faithful to Ross, she doesn't get back with him for seven years. share
I have already told you at least twice now that I'm unable to copy and paste anything, or use smilies. If you want to know the truth, you'll look it up.
sharecatbookss wrote:
If you want to know the truth, you'll look it up.Well, you can certainly tell me what episode it is in.Even assuming that Rachel did say that, that does not mean that it is the whole story. She did go on the date with Mark and she came close to going to bed with him. Close enough that he thought it was about to happen. share
catbookss wrote:
I have already told you at least twice now that I'm unable to copy and paste anything, or use smilies.So tell me, is your inability to copy and paste or use smilies why you have not yet explained why, if Rachel knew right from the beginning that she had no interest in Mark, she never said that to Ross until after the break?I can not imagine what the connection would be, but I thought I would ask lest I judge you unfairly.You also haven't explained why, if Rachel does not sleep with Mark because she's being faithful to Ross, she did not get back with Ross for seven years.Have you not explained because you can't copy and and paste and use smilies?Ross thought he had gotten back together with her, and dumped Bonnie, and then Rachel set conditions that she knew he would never accept. Ross was just suckered into getting rid of Bonnie, while Rachel made sure they would not get back together. share
This post is a good example of your rude, snarky, and disrespectful behavior towards me; one of many such replies on your part.
Normal, rational human beings, do not become so irrational and completely emotionally driven on any topic as you are about this, which is, yet again, about a SITCOM, where everything is deliberately heightened for the sake of comedy.
Ross is portrayed as a very insecure, and whiney character, apart from before Rachel, during, and apart from their relationship. That is who he was, period. To attempt to say otherwise is absurd. Everyone knows that's who his character was, and was supposed to be, just as Phoebe was supposed to be kooky.
Yes, we haven't run into one another on any boards, and that's fine with me. Unlike you , I'm able to disagree with someone, and still respect them, and/or be able to agree to disagree, and be agreeable and amicable about it.
Ross was equally insecure about Emily and Susan,,when Ssusan was to meet Emily in London as he was about Rachel with Mark. Not because he had any reason in either case, because he didn't. In one case Rachel never demonstrated any interest in Mark,, but instead demonstrated her interest in Ross, and in the other. Likewise, Emily never demonstrated any interest in Susan, nor did Susan in Emily ; that was all in Ross's head, not in reality.
It's quite apparent that you think Rachel is sone kind of demon "bitch" when in fact she isn't. Nothing will convince you otherwise. And yet, you admit that you socially "play with' any number of younger women socially. You admitted to me, of course only in PMs, that you often think what you say on the IMDb boards is ridiculous. Are you now going to deny this? It wouldn't surprise me if you did.
Rachel never said that he technically he didn't cheat on her.That's a huge lie.
Ross: Look, I didn’t think there was a relationship to jeopardise. I thought we were broken up.
Rachel: We were on a break!
Ross: That, for all I knew would, could last forever. That to me is a break-up.
Rachel: You think you’re gonna get out of this on a technicality?
Racel said it was a technicality, which means technically he wasn't cheating.
I agree Rachel didn't break up with him, and Ross refused to listen, but I'd certainly think the way he ended the call meant he was ending things, whether he said the actual words or not.
We don't have to agree. You have your opinion, and I have mine.
catbookss wrote:
but I'd certainly think the way he ended the call meant he was ending things,For the second time, Ross did not think that he was ending it; he thought it was already ended because Rachel was with Mark.Rachel knew that they were broken up because she knew what Ross thought.
You have your opinion, and I have mine.It is obvious that Ross thought they were broken up. It didn't even occur to him to break up with Rachel because she had already left him for another man.It's about as clear as you can get in the dialogue. share
I already explained to you what was the technicality.At no point Rachel even just as much as hinted that he "technically" didn't cheat because fact is there was no break up.Rachel thought that maybe he dumped her when he hung up on her, but not only he didn't,he claims that he thought that she dumped him to excuse his cheating. She didn't dump him,he didn't dump her, so he cheated.The technicality wasn't about the definition of a break for Rachel.Ross trying to use not knowing how long the break would last to justify his cheating was a technicality.Rachel suggested a break,not a break up
shareI don't agree with your assessment of the situation between Rachel and Ross. You can believe whatever you want to believe, as I already said. That is your right, as it is for anyone else to disagree with you.
IMO, you and Ppllkk are.exactly the same inn your opinions, but on opposite poles. Neither of you are reasonable or able to be reasoned with. I don't expect either you or he to agree with me. In fact, I expect you both will disagree with me, and I don't have a problem with that, although I fully expect both of you to have a problem with my position. That if your problem, not mine.
catbookss wrote:
I agree they were on a break,They were "on a break" from when Ross left the apartment to when Ross called the apartment maybe half an hour later. That is the only time in which they were on a break. They both recognize that they were broken up after that.
as that's what Racel initially said in their conversation.And Ross said that they were broken up and Rachel describe that as "a technicality." Rachel never repeats the claim that they were on a break because she knows it isn't true.
To me this connotes a fairly short period of time to cool off and think things over, before mutually deciding to either make the effort to work things out (something both of them demonstrated, along with regret over what had happened), or to end it (break up).It really doesn't make a damn bit of difference what you think a break means. There is no agreement about that. Other people think that it is a polite way to break up. What being on a break means to them became moot when Ross heard Mark in Rachel's apartment.
It became a break-up only after Ross called and heard Mark in the background, and leapt to erroneous conclusions.Ross came to the only reasonable conclusion and a conclusion that essentially everyone would come to.
As he'd done all along, at least as as they applied to Rachel.Nonsense. It is possible that Rachel had no interest in Mark. It is also possible that she changed her mind in the course of this. But Ross was surely right that Rachel was slipping away, and that Rachel did not care about her relationship with him. That is made clear when she does not get back together with him for seven years.I don't see how you can argue about that. She doesn't get back with him for seven years. She does keep her hooks into him apparently because she thinks she may want him at some point. share
catbookss wrote:
Regardless of how hurt she feels, and would have had every right to sleep with Mark if she wanted to, because they were without any doubt broken up at that point, she still feels faithful to Ross and rejects Mark.Of course she has that right, but I don't know where you get the "she still feels faithful to Ross" business.I think Rachel has decided that she doesn't want to be involved with anyone, and just possibly, she has some intuition about how scummy Mark has been and his part in the breakup.Please note that Mark does not court Rachel after the breakup. He just makes an incredibly crude pass. share
catbookss wrote:
But it came from a desire to mark his territory out of insecurity, not out of love.You are being ridiculous. You cannot separate the two things.If you are in love with someone, of course you don't want to lose them. Of course you want to mark your territory as well as impress on your girlfriend how much you care about them.You have some weird view of human psychology if you think you can separate things into something that is done purely for love and something that is done to try to prevent losing your love. share
If you don't cease with these disrespectful ad hominem attacks and have a normal adult discussion, I'm going to stop responding to you.
sharecatbookss wrote:
If you don't cease with these disrespectful ad hominem attacks and have a normal adult Discussion,Would you care to copy and paste exactly what you regard as "disrespectful ad hominem attacks."
I'm going to stop responding to you.I assure you that I don't care if you respond to me or not. You have not said anything that hasn't been said by other people dozens of times before and in almost exactly the same words. Didn't make any sense then and doesn't make any sense now.I do no longer have any respect for you I am sorry to say.Actually quite sorry. share
I've now pointed out one in another thread, but there are several instances in this thread alone, where you've been rude OT snarky. I've also pointed out to you that I've told you several times now that I'm unable to copy/paste, so there's no reason why you don't already know this. Nor is there any reason why you don't already know the multiple times you've been rude, snarky, or condescending tome, merely because we disagree -- at times only partially-- which you refuse to acknowledge, and you respond as though there is NO common ground, because you're completely obsessed about this topic, and are incapable of being rational and reasonable about it for reasons unknown to me, but I suggest you investigate through therapy as you are clearly over the top about it and unable to see things rationally.
You even disagree and are unpleasant to those who AGREE with you, because you're so overly emotional about it you see attacks where there is actual agreement.
At least one person agreed with you but you went on the attack on him anyway, because you're so defensive and irrational, at least on this topic. Another partionally agreed with you (as did I) yet again you went on the attack, rather than being reasonable and rational, and being in any way trying to find any common ground, and ignoring it when it's offered to you. This is Fr from what I consider a reasonable, rational persons behavior to be.
Do you remember telling me in a PM that you frequently considered your behavior on the boards to be ridiculous? I do. That was a year or more ago. Yet you never admitted this publicly, and until recently, I never saw any evidence of that, but now I do. Are you going to deny this? I won't be surprised if you do, but I HOPE you'll be honest.
catbookss wrote:
Do you remember telling me in a PM that you frequently considered your behavior on the boards to be ridiculous? I do.Why yes. But you are leaving out the context which is quite important. I agree that I am frequently ridiculously persistent in trying to get through to someone when it has been obvious for quite a while I'm never going to get through to them.That I am still responding to you is a prime example of that.I will try to resist that temptation because it is really useless.I have never said or implied that what I'm saying is ridiculous. It isn't.It is, by the way, a characteristic that you share with me. Your posts to the Cosby board have slowed down, but you are still hacking away at it with admirable persistence and equal futility. share
What's your end game though? Do,you genuinely believe that by banging on and repeating the same points over and over that suddenly one day everyone is going to bow down and agree with you 100%.
There surely can't be any fun involved.
PaulWard27 wrote:
What's your end game though?To explain things to people who will listen – frequently not the person that I am responding to – and to combat ignorance and stupidity.
There surely can't be any fun involved.I enjoy it. share
pennilayne wrote:
They were absolutely on a break!!!No, they were not on a break. They were broken up. Being on a break and broken up are not the same thing. They both acknowledged that they were broken up
However, it was still not cool Ross slept with someone THE NIGHT Rachel talked about wanting to be on a break. I mean, come on lol.Do you understand that Ross did not end up in bed with Chloe because he and Rachel were on a break? Ross ended up in bed with Chloe because he concluded, as almost everyone would, that Rachel was sleeping with Mark and leaving him for Mark.
before he immediately went to the bar and slept with someone.You are leaving the most critical point out. Ross thought that Rachel was breaking up with him when he arrived at the bar, but he wasn't sure and so he called. It was only when Ross heard Mark's voice in Rachel's apartment – maybe half an hour after she called for a break – that Ross concluded that they were broken up because Rachel was leaving him for Mark.Can you honestly say that if you had been jealous of a woman for weeks, and your boyfriend calls for a break, and you hear that woman in your boyfriends apartment half an hour after you leave, that you wouldn't come to the same conclusion?You really cannot leave that out of the situation. Ross did not immediately go to the bar and sleep with someone else. He only slept with Chloe because Rachel had left him for Mark.Getting drunk is a quite normal reaction to losing the love of your life. And Chloe was very aggressive. Ross was not looking for sex, but he did not have enough energy to ward Chloe off.And sleeping with Chloe probably made him feel like less of a victim and still desirable. share
Give Ross a break. The guy never had any luck with women growing up. He wanted to take Rachel to the prom only to see her leave at the last second with someone else. Then his wife divorces him for another woman.
Then Rachel says "let's take a break" and then Ross goes out and sleeps with someone. Dude deserved it. His life was hell when it came to women. Yet, Rachel expected someone like that to ignore all other women until Rachel was ready to say, "Let's get back together?" How often does Ross have a chance in his life to hook up with someone randomly?
Ross must have *beep* over a dozen girls during the show.
shareAlright, lets cut the nonsense with the prom. That is not some poor tragedy. It's not sad. He was OUT of high school. Rachel HAD a date. Was Ross incredibly nice for being about to take her? Definitely. Is it sad and tragic that she ended up going with the boy who she actually planned to go with? Nope. It's not like she said yes to Ross and then ditched him for someone else. Ross gets way too much pity for that. It was a very nice gesture, nothing more. Certainly nothing to feel bad for him over.
Julie. Rachel. Bonnie. Elizabeth. Emily. Janice. Mona. Baby shop lady. Woman who lived in his building Joey kept trying to find. Kristen, the girl he and Joey both dated. That's 10 women. If you count Chloe it's 11. If you count Carol its 12. Count the cleaning lady he slept with thats 13. But sure, his life was hell when it came to women.
Oh and Monica says he had girlfriends, meaning plural, in high school. He had multiple girlfriends but had no luck? Okay.
Cursedchild13 wrote:
But sure, his life was hell when it came to women.It only takes one woman to make your life hell in regard to women. Rachel truly was the girlfriend from hell. She won't get back with Ross, but she won't let him completely go and build a life with some other woman. She only wants Ross when he is involved with another woman, and when he dumps that other woman and is available, she no longer wants him. That he had sex with other women does not undo what Rachel did to him. As Ross said in the pilot, he wants to be married. He does not want to have an active bachelor life. He wants a wife and a family. As Alexa wrote a while ago, it shouldn't have been as hard to get that as it was.
Oh and Monica says he had girlfriends, meaning plural, in high school. He had multiple girlfriends but had no luck? Okay.Monica also said that all of his girlfriends cheated on him in high school and he never noticed. Ross was rather naïve before Carol left him. Her leaving him did not make him paranoid; it did make him recognize that he can lose a woman without doing anything wrong. And it did make him recognize that a woman can simply change her mind. share
In regards to the specifics of Rachel and Ross's relationship and Rachel's behavior after it, we're in agreement. But the poster I responded to made it seem like he never had a girlfriend or sex with anyone besides Rachel, which is simply not true. He has an impressive number of dates and girlfriends. Obviously that's not what he wants as you said, but he wasn't some poor loner who never dated women like the other poster seems to think.
shareI can't remember, did Ross hook up with anyone between Carol and Julie? Cause Carol was the first woman he slept with.
"I'm not arguing that with you. I know he can get the job, but can he do the job?"
No.
shareHe didn't. Julie was his #2. However this was contradicted in season 7. Where Chandler says he hooked up with the cleaning lady in college when he was drunk. Which means either he cheated on Carol, or the cleaning lady was #1 and Carol was his number 2.
Same with Rachel. In the first 2 seasons, Rachel was more innocent sexually. Like stating the wildest place she had sex was the foot of the bed. Or how just having a random fling with Palo wasn't something she normally did. Ross asks her what her number of sex partners was, and the way she said it, her number was only 5.
Ross "What's your magic number? You know every women i've been with. All 2 of them."
Rachel "There's you."
Ross "Better not be doin' these in order.'
Rachel "Barry, Billy Dreshcan, Pete Carney..and uh, Palo."
SilverWolf442 wrote:
the cleaning lady was #1 and Carol was his number 2.I think that Carol was the first time that it meant something to Ross, and whether or not it is literally true, in his mind Carol was the first woman.I believe that kind of reality can be as valid as literal reality. share
Cursedchild13 –You are right. I just realized that and logged in to tell you so. I did not understand what you were saying.There were several women, I think particularly of Julie and Emily, who would've made much better wives for Ross than Rachel.It was not that Ross didn't have other and better opportunities. It was that he was so hung up on Rachel that he let them slip away. And Rachel prolonged Ross being hung up on her by her actions.
shareBut we're supposed to ignore all that and believe that his so called feelins for Rachel were real and deep and always there.
Never mind that it was a hs crush he never did anything about it,got over it,fell for Carol and married her.
Never mind that he had no feelings left for Rachel when he saw her again years later and tried to get his wife back.
Never mind that despite of both being single he did nothing to get Rachel till he saw her with Paolo.She became a challenge and an obsession.
Never mind that he and his friends lied to her claiming that he loved her for the past 10 years.
Never mind that he claimed that she was the love of his life but was in bed with someone else 3hrs after a fight/break/break up with her proving that he lied about his feelings, that she actually meant absolutly nothing to hi, he replaced her within hrs.
......but POOR ROSS.....NOT
It's not like it was easy for Ross to ask Rachel out. He had a massive crush on her, at a time when he was a dork and she was a high-school princess.
And Ross did finally get up the courage to ask Rachel out, and then she walked in with Paolo.
"I'm not arguing that with you. I know he can get the job, but can he do the job?"
Actually no, he didn't ask her out.He asked her if it would be ok if he asked her out one day.She said yes and he still didn't ask her out.
shareRead the post properly and then have another go.
shareI read it and I stick to what I said. Ross didn't ask her out at any time.She got with Paolo,then he tried to ask her out the very same night she broke up with Paolo,then he got with Julie, Rachel had a ons with Paolo and Ross found out that Rachel was"over him" in a phone message, then he went to the coffee they argued,he left ,came back and kissed her then had to choose between her and Julie,made that list,only then,he asked Rachel out telling her that it was always her(huge lie),then she found out about the list
shareThey're talking about when he was going to ask her out when the city lost power. Calm down.
shareIt is tru he was going to ask Racel out when the city lost power, and before he could, the power was out, Rachel and Monic (or was it Phoebe?) were searching for the kitty's owner and Rachel found Paolo. But it's also tru that before this Ross asked Rachel if he could ask her out sometime, she said yes, but he was too afraid to do it.
shareYawn.
shareAlright, lets cut the nonsense with the prom. That is not some poor tragedy. It's not sad. He was OUT of high school. Rachel HAD a date. Was Ross incredibly nice for being about to take her? Definitely. Is it sad and tragic that she ended up going with the boy who she actually planned to go with? Nope. It's not like she said yes to Ross and then ditched him for someone else. Ross gets way too much pity for that. It was a very nice gesture, nothing more. Certainly nothing to feel bad for him over.
Omg, thank you! I don't understand why we're supposed to feel sooooo bad for him in that scene. It's only embarrassing because his parents decided to film it. It certainly was a nice gesture but it's not like he was her original date, anyways.
flowerchild-15037 and Cursedchild13 —I don't understand this discussion and I wonder what I am missing or misremembering.My memory is that Ross was still very much in love with Rachel from high school, and he got his hopes up that he would be her date. His hopes were then dashed.I find that sad.
shareI don't really find it that sad because it's not like it was even his idea to do it. His dad coaxed him into it. I could imagine his disappointment afterwards but like cursedchild said, it's not like she ditched him. Then I would find it sad.
shareflowerchild-15037 wrote:
but like cursedchild said, it's not like she ditched him.No, it was not a brutal rejection. Still, he wanted to take Rachel to the dance; he just did not want to admit it.Ross has been in love with her for a couple of years without any response from Rachel. Here, he almost gets to take her to the dance, and then it falls through.I think it's sad. share
Blizzard_Beasts wrote:
Give Ross a break.I don't know why you are telling me to give Ross a break. Ross reacted the way that most men would react when they discovered the man that they are jealous of in their girlfriend's apartment right after an argument, and her calling for a break..
Dude deserved it.Do you mean he "deserved" to get laid? That is completely foreign to anything that was going through Ross's mind.
How often does Ross have a chance in his life to hook up with someone randomly?The irony is that it was probably the only time, and it was at the very worst time. But Ross was not taking an opportunity to hook up with someone randomly. He was in despair over Rachel and drunk and Chloe was very aggressive.He was not looking for sex. share
I hope that's a joke
shareSo what ? Rachel is cheater and toxic person anyway.Nobody talks about how she had sex with Barry when he is engaged.She is cheater and she doesnt deserve anything but people still talk about this and they discuss what ross did is cheating or not? Rachel is the biggest cheater.
shareNobody talks about how she had sex with Barry when he is engaged.
All im saying is she is a cheater.She is worse than Ross but people who hates Ross for doing that also loves Rachel.That doesnt make sense.
shareRachel was single when she screwed Barry. Of course there is the moral issue that she knew Barry was cheating on Mindy by boning her, but in absolute terms, she was not cheating in that scenario.
shareShe's not a cheater. She was single when she slept with Barry. You are only a cheater if you're in a relationship and sleep with someone else.
Now she's still disgusting and awful for doing that, but she isn't a cheater.
Cursedchild13 wrote:
You are only a cheater if you're in a relationship and sleep with someone else.It seems that Rachel agrees with your definition because she never accused Ross of "cheating" on her, using that term, with Chloe. She quotes her mother in using the word "cheater," but she never says it for herself.So, we do need another term for screwing your best friend's fiancé. share
She's not a cheater. She was single when she slept with Barry. You are only a cheater if you're in a relationship and sleep with someone else.
Now she's still disgusting and awful for doing that, but she isn't a cheater.
Sorry but Rachel isn't a cheater.She never cheated on any of the guys she was with. Taken men who cheated on their partners with a single Rachel are the cheaters.
shareAahahaah feminist alert ! Sex is a 2 person thing.Being single doesnt mean she isnt cheater.She could have said to Barry " No i dont wanna do it.You are engaged to my best friend.Thats horrible".But she didnt that means she is horrible person.Period.
shareI don't think you know what a feminist is when you act like it's a horrible thing, but you were already busy making a lot of stupid points, so I'm not entirely surprised you aren't so big on caring about what words mean.
-
Consider the daffodil. And while you're doing that I'll be over here looking through your stuff.
Well,im not saying it is a horrible thing.I actually looked at her profile.She is so one sided and obsessive.What im saying to her is Rachel has the equal blame with Barry for doing that but she is only accusing the men for having sex with someone else.I am also accusing someone else (Rachel) okay ?
shareshe's no cheater and she's not the one who is disrespecting her committement. She's not responsible for his committement.He is.Rachel could as well walk naked in front of Barry,it's up to him alone to give in or not.If he's actually committed,there is nothing, Rachel or any third person could do to make him cheat.
And for me only someone married is out of reach.Everyone else is fair game.Even engaged people.If they're committed, no temptation can change that. If they give into temptation, it means they're not committed. AND IT WORKS FOR BOTH MEN AND WOMEN
I never blamed Chloe for making a move on Ross.I blame Ross for cheating. I wouldn't have blamed Mark for making a move on Rachel while she was with Ross.I would blame Rachel for giving into it.
I don't blame temptation for existing.I blame those who claim to be committed but don't resist temptation, those who cheat. You can't resist temptation? Don't commit.And it works for both men and women
I think you should blame Rachel for having sex with Barry.I get your point by the way.But i dont agree with you.Making a move maybe but having sex with engaged person definitely is a disgusting thing to do.
shareI have a different opinion about this but let's agree to disagree.
shareYou don't think sleeping with someone you know is in a relationship with someone else is disgusting? What messed up morals you have.
shareAgain,if that someone is committed,he/she wouldn't cheat.The only thing I find disgusting is sleeping with a married person.Like I said for me everyone is fair game except married people. And my morals being different than yours don't make yours better.For me a person isn't someone's property just because they are in a relationship. People should know they have options before committing(getting married) and are entitled to change their mind till they say yes at the altar.Of course they shouldn't let things get to that point unless at that moment they discover something that changes everything drastically.
[deleted]
So sleeping with ANYONE who is in a relationship is cool as long as they aren't married? If you sleep with a person who has a girlfriend and you have an affair for 6 months that's okay? That isn't bad?
You're retarded. Oh especially since Rachel wasn't "seeing about options" dumb ass. She was sleeping with a guy she knew was engaged. But that's okay with you. Because it's Rachel.
Sex is a 2 person thing
she is horrible person.