Okay, we've had a million posts in hundreds of threads about "the break" and there are many differing opinions about it. Rachel obviously believed it was wrong. Ross even admitted it was wrong. I'm pretty much sure all six of the friends are in agreement that it was wrong. BUT . . . I don't think everyone is in agreement as to WHY it was wrong.
Without rehashing all the same old arguments, I'm wondering if we might be able to explain what we each think was wrong about Ross sleeping with Chloe the night of "the break." I'm not really looking for a long argument about he said/she said or any such thing. I'm just curious--at the core of it all--what are the issues?
"David Buehrle" wrote in message news:IA0Q8.1870$[email]...
and
think
Chloe
about
The exact reason for the problem seems to come down to definitions. Nobody can seem to agree on whether or not "being on a break" means " entering a temporary cooling-off period where we are still loyal to each other but we have given each other some distance" or "Rachel has terminated the relationship." It is the differing perspectives regarding that distinction that determine whether or not what Ross did was, technically, "cheating."
More thoughtful analysis might suggest that this isn't really about the definition of "break." It's about how sacred you *appear* to take the romantic bond. A lot of people would expect that a breakup of a relationship as intense as Ross and Rachel's would require a period of reflection and mourning. Furthermore, one might expect that Ross would not give up so utterly quite so soon after being rejected; this course of reasoning would suggest that if she mattered to him, he should have been a little more resilient and tried to patch things up once tempers cooled rather than grabbing the first chippy who threw herself at him. Rachel felt that his actions cheapened the love he professed for her, and after that she felt less secure about his constancy of heart. That's why she said she *had* thought he was somebody who would never, ever hurt her.
Now, the fact that Ross *appeared* to be taking Rachel's rejection lightly does not necessarily mean he was doing so. It appears his drunken night with Chloe was a dysfunctional attempt to blot out the pain and convince himself that he was still attractive to *somebody*. However, what he was *thinking* is not the important issue; what mattered was what his *actions* communicated *to Rachel*. The fact that he lied to her about it made it worse; he became understandably untrustworthy in her eyes, and what had been a mere temper tantrum became deceit. If he lied to her initially, how was she to know that he didn't continue to lie to her as he wept on his knees? *We* knew he was telling the truth, and what his real emotional state was, but she did not.
But also were they ON the break, however you define break. For this post i'll just say that a break means they are not together.. Rachel said "maybe we should just take a break." Ross took this to mean that they were.
I contend that, in the moment, Rachel also believed she had, in fact, terminated the relationship. When she got to Ross's apartment she asked him is she could be his girlfriend "again." This would suggest that for some period of time that she was not his girlfriend. I'd argue Ross did not technically 'cheat.' His behavior certainly could be reasonably interpreted to demonstrate his lack of regard for the relationship, however.
Okay, I've given this a little time. Now I'll throw my two cents into the ring. (How's THAT for a mixed metaphor?)
I just watched The One The Morning After, and there is some dialogue which seems to indicate to me that Rachel also believed that it was a "break up."
Monica: How was the big anniversary dinner? Rachel: Well, we never actually got to dinner. Monica: Ohhh, nice. Rachel: No, we kinda broke up instead. Monica: What?! [fruit incident] Monica: . . . You broke up?! Rachel: Yeah . . .
Then, when she was arguing with Ross after finding out about Chloe:
Ross: Look, I didn't think there was a relationship to jeopardize. 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?
So, Rachel recognizes that, technically, Ross didn't do anything wrong.
BUT, there seems to be something MORE significant than this technical issue. I believe this point is at the heart of what Claire was pointing out--and I agree. However, I think of it with a different, albeit similar, angle. I think Ross's insecurity kept him from being able to trust Rachel before the break. Her surprise, disgust, whatever, over his apparent lack of commitment to his own convictions (by sleeping with Chloe when he is in love with Rachel) forces Rachel to lose trust for Ross.
Andr� mentioned that the two didn't communicate well before, nor after "the break." Indeed, they had (and still have) communication problems. I would say this might very well be the root of their problems. If they could learn to communicate more effectively, they would be able to rebuild trust. Without communication and trust, even if they get together, their relationship will be relegated to the back row--a dark and unrewarding place.
Furthermore, constructive, open, and frank discussions are highly prized in the real world. However, they aren't really very funny. So . . . I think it would take some really fine writing to be funny, frank, and avoid the often used (abused?) "idiot plot" (as Roger Ebert calls it) and still get these two together in the end.
Having seen so many lengthy discussions on the issue, and having participated at length myself, I have to wonder, why do so many of us find ourselves so intrigued with the issue? There are, of course, those who really don't care much, but there are also many who feel very passionately about the issue, one way or the other. So, it makes me wonder why. Any opinions?
On Mon, 24 Jun 2002, an infinite number of monkeys, masquerading as [email] typed this -
Chance would be a fine thing. :)
You're working on the erroneous conclusion that she is being deliberately vindictive though. IMO her conscious mind refuses to make the connection between her behaviour and its consequences, therefore her unconscious controls her apparently vindictive actions.
However, her baby will *force* her into taking more responsibility for her actions, so I'm hoping that will break the cycle.
I'd say the core issue was their inability to talk about their problems, which led to "let's take a break", which then led to Ross getting wasted and sleeping with Chloe
Sorry if this is predictable, but since others have hashed this out pretty well from the R&R relationship point of view, I thought I would share my gut reaction to your question.
Certainly R&R stuff enters in to Ross' one-night stand with Chloe, but since you asked about the core issues, strictly from that context I would say that the R&R stuff is irrelevant.
My issue with it is epitomized in dialog at the bar (or whatever it was), when Chloe asked, "are you married? 'cause that's not a problem for me if you are" (not an exact quote, but good enough to get the gist).
I'm sure that Chloe is simply a sincere, free-spirited person. I don't think her gregarious personality is anything but authentic. And that sincere, free-spirited, gregarious attitude became the instrument of a terrible temptation that Ross fell into, aided by the alcohol (though that's NOT an excuse). Her personality is a potential threat to the traditional notion of marriage (her quote says so quite boldly), and I for one see great value in that traditional notion - that being monogamy, to put it simply. It is an example of how a totally unbridled lifestyle can actually be harmful.
Now, of course, Ross isn't married, but in some circles the word "married" would loosely be used about Ross since he is still hung up on Rachel at the time.
Apart from that, I would argue that he *is* married, biologically. Now that was true of Carol also, and society made the allowance for ending that marriage - in this case for good reason. So I'm not arguing that he is cheating on Rachel so much as I am arguing that he is engaging in a kind of biological polygamy (but then, who isn't these days?) which is wrong and all the moreso for the casual nature of it. Yes it is wrong in part because God said so, but I believe it is also wrong because it can only lead to harm to the person engaging in it. Chloe doesn't seem to be harmed by it, but she's going to get a rude awakening some day. For Ross, it is obvious that it harmed him, and not only because he is still hung up on Rachel, but because he more than Chloe (and more than Joey) knows what Chandler discovered back in season 1: it is too hard to juggle all the implications.
Rachel had a good reason to be upset with what Ross did. Whether that good reason was a personal reason or not has often been worthy of debate here. I think she had a good reason to be upset with what Ross did that has nothing to do with her own hurt feelings. --- James Squire - http://members.aol.com/jamess1889 IDF Soldiers' Combatant Letter 2002 - http://seruv.nethost.co.il/defaulteng.asp Personal Testimony of an Israeli Refusenik - http://www.shalomctr.org/html/peace84.html
On 22 Jun 2002 02:10:58 GMT, [email] (JamesS1889) wrote:
Well, if we look at it that way, we could say that Rachel had her rude awakening when Ross slept with Chloe. She had slept with Barry when she knew that he was seeing her friend Mindy. Like Chloe, she too didn't have a problem bedding a man who wasn't a free agent.
Rachel was hurt because she had been cheated on in the past by Barry and she didn't think that Ross would ever do that to her. That's why she said, "I used to think of you as somebody that would never, ever hurt me, ever."
I know that. I said she had an additional reason available to her. I didn't say she recognized it. --- James Squire - http://members.aol.com/jamess1889 IDF Soldiers' Combatant Letter 2002 - http://seruv.nethost.co.il/defaulteng.asp Personal Testimony of an Israeli Refusenik - http://www.shalomctr.org/html/peace84.html
OK, who was responsible for Ross *wanting* to get drunk?
Answer: Ross! Being drunk is no excuse. I think we *can* hold Ross responsible for his actions while drunk, considering that no one else forced the liquor down his throat. --- James Squire - http://members.aol.com/jamess1889 IDF Soldiers' Combatant Letter 2002 - http://seruv.nethost.co.il/defaulteng.asp Personal Testimony of an Israeli Refusenik - http://www.shalomctr.org/html/peace84.html
We saw a similar pattern though when Ross was in the bar in the flashback episode -- he lined up a bunch of shotglasses. Crawling into a bottle's NOT the best solution for anything.
Blink. Now, I'm usually very hard on Rachel. I agree with you that some of the things she's done have been malicious and destructive. But even *I* don't believe this. I do think it's unfortunate that Rachel was more willing to toss Ross out of her office than to keep Mark out of her apartment, but I don't think she deliberately planned to hurt Ross by allowing him to come up.
I've always been kind of suspicious of how Mark was behaving that night. Actually, given that the ordering error which caused the work crisis was HIS fault, (as we heard in the phone call from Rachel at the office) this whole thing has always smelled a bit. I'm inclined to think that Ross had a very bad, overpossessive reaction to a very real threat; I think Mark was in fact trying to woo Rachel away.
Ross is still responsible for how he handled the situation.
abrahammy wrote in message news:tJZR8.4111$[email]...
a
of
HIS
whole
very
fact
I agree that Mark definitely set out to break Ross and Rachel up. He knew they were having problems. I'm sure that he also knew that Ross was jealous of her relationship with him (Mark). He knew that they had just had a big fight, and what did he do when Ross called? He deliberately asked Rachel a stupid question as loudly as possible. I have no doubts that he meant for Ross to hear him and hoped that Rachel would turn to him when Ross got upset.
Now, having said all of that, here's my take on the situation: I think they were definitely broken up. I think Rachel should have given him that much. However, I also understand how she felt, and had the same thing happened to me, I wouldn't have forgiven him either. Even if you don't believe that Ross cheated by definition, it FELT like he cheated to Rachel. And that's all that matters. He hurt her, plain and simple. I know I couldn't have jumped back into a relationship with someone who had just slept with another woman. I wouldn't be able to look at him without seeing her.
So, yes, they had broken up. Yes, Rachel has little or no respect for Ross' job. And Ross has little or no respect for Rachel's job. (What always pissed me off the most was that he showed up at her office when she had specifically asked him not to.) Their communication skills were beyond bad. But, the whole issue really boils down to the fact that Ross' actions hurt Rachel too badly for her to just forgive and forget.
[I can't believe I'm going to be defending Rachel--in a way, anyway--, but I really don't think your assessment is fair]
But the woman he'd 'loved since he was 15' _wasn't_ doing it with the guy in question. Ross had the choice to trust her not (which is not to say that Rachel's subsequent behavior towards him is excused--there's been plenty of stupidity from both parties).
I agree with abrahammy here. I also think that Mark asking a trivial question loudly just when Ross was on the phone wasn't an accident, but, again, like one of the other Friends told Ross, just because he may want to sleep with Rachel, it doesn't mean he gets to.
You say that as if it were unreasonable or bad [to not 'want to be possessed'].
When Ross had his work beep him before their date on 215, Rachel just went along and waited. Ross, when confronted with a similar situation, invaded her workplace and was really disrespectful of her and her job--a job that she was fairly new at and that meant very much to her [again, not to excuse Rachel's usual attitude towards his job, but just talking about the issue at hand]. My job and career are of the utmost importance to me and I find his attitude here incredibly offensive.
- Getting him drunk: are you saying Ross had no choice in this? Ross is an intelligent, able adult. We all do stupid things from time to time but I don't believe it's fair to blame it on someone else. - Getting pregnant by him: the show played as this being an accident. And again I must ask, did Ross have no choice in this? Did Rachel force him into having sex? - The third poing I agree with (Rachel claiming it was Ross who'd come on to her) - Rachel hasn't married anyone [else] yet. Besides, we don't know how the writers are going to handle this situation. I believe this has been (and will be) discussed enough in other threads.
I don't think she is socially tone-deaf--the show has given us a Rachel who is quite socially adept (no trouble getting dates, the popular girl from high school, etc.), but who can also be quite self-centered and clueless (Gunther, Ross's feelings for her, etc.).
I think Rachel is often not a good person. I think she needs more people like the guy on the airplane on her way to England.
Good point. Doesn't make the behavior any better, though, no matter who it's coming from.
I did not say my career comes above everything else. My family is also of the utmost importance to me. If, for example, my husband fell ill and needed someone to take him to the hospital, I would drop everything else and I would not take kindly to work trying to get me to troubleshoot one of the machines over the phone, the same way that I expect my husband to not come barging in at work if I have a crisis there.
It is, perhaps, an understandable reaction, but again, I say he is the one who got himself drunk, who chose to sleep with Chloe, and so on. It doesn't mean Rachel is a nice person, but they are both adults and do as they choose. If we were to go by this logic, we could say that Ross made Rachel bald his girlfriend or decide to fly to England to ruin his wedding.
An important part of the episode where Rachel tells Ross that she's pregnant was making the point that they used condoms and it was an accident.
Understandable? Yes. Justified? No. Forced to do it? No.
Rachel *forced* Ross to have sex with her??? Not from where I'm standing. He was completely consenting in the whole thing.
Up until this part, you were doing pretty well, but you completely lost me here. --- James Squire - http://members.aol.com/jamess1889 IDF Soldiers' Combatant Letter 2002 - http://seruv.nethost.co.il/defaulteng.asp Personal Testimony of an Israeli Refusenik - http://www.shalomctr.org/html/peace84.html
It is no solution, it only makes things works, as Ross found out. Initially he was hurt and unappreciated, but in a position to expect Rachel to have a change of heart. After Chloe, he was twice as depressed. To call it "A solution" is to make a mockery of the word "solution".
Why not? But even if not, why not something else *besides* crawling into a bottle?
On 25 Jun 2002 03:28:18 GMT, [email] (JamesS1889) wrote:
Grin.
and Rachel and Mark.
Sure, he got drunk all on his own but why did he get drunk? He was upset that his girlfriend was spending her time with Mark on their anniversary. Ross's insecurity and jealousy stem from Rachel's continous disrespect for him and his profession. I doubt that he would have acted so insanely jealous if he were more confident about her opinion of him. It's as much her fault for as it is his. Also, it turned out that he was right about Mark. Yet, we never saw her admit to Ross that he was right about Mark or that she was wrong about him. What's the deal with asking him to take squarely take all the blame? That man on the plane, gave her an earful of what she should have heard from all her friends.
I think there's plenty of blame to spread around liberally on this issue. Ross should not have slept with Chloe. Rachel should have been more committed to him. Ross should have been less possessive. Rachel should have given less of her time to Mark. Her Beach behavior was unforgiveable. He can be a whiny weeny. And nearly everybody here is right on some points. The problem has always been about folks on either side taking an all-or-nothing stance on it. They both have much to apologize for. Of course, he has. It is her turn to meet him halfway, because he's already there.
No. They were responsible for Ross feeling depressed, but millions of people deal with that without crawling into the bottle. He did that *all by himself*.
I know that already, and it is irrelevant to my point. Ross alone is responsible for Ross getting drunk. Like the bottle is the *only* way he can get over being upset????????
Rachel is indeed responsible for taking Ross for granted, over and over again. In a twisted kind of way, Ross is Rachel's fallen hero. She got used to him being perfect, and then when he fell from perfection, she drop-kicked him completely.
But while it is her fault - partly - that he felt hurt and unappreciated, it is not her fault that he decided to get drunk. --- James Squire - http://members.aol.com/jamess1889 IDF Soldiers' Combatant Letter 2002 - http://seruv.nethost.co.il/defaulteng.asp Personal Testimony of an Israeli Refusenik - http://www.shalomctr.org/html/peace84.html
On 26 Jun 2002 04:44:27 GMT, [email] (JamesS1889) wrote:
He was depressed because of them, which led him to drink. So, they did indirectly contribute. :P Okay, okay, I'll stop. You win. :)
He got drunk because he was at a bar. I don't know if he came there with the idea of getting wasted or to meet up with Chandler and Joey to talk to them about it.
I don't think he was ever her *hero*. He was this guy who put her on a pedestal and worshipped her for a decade and she was the unattainable princess to him. When they got together, the imagery faded and the relationship never took an adult form and quickly died.
Well, I think her *part* of the blame is rather large. But since you are only arguing about the getting drunk part, I'll say this. It wasn't Rachel's fault that he got drunk and slept with Chloe. It wasn't Rachel fault that he tried to cover it up later.
Well, in the beginning she described him as her best friend in the whole world, someone who she thought would never hurt her in any way. Maybe "hero" is not the best word for that, but I think it is in the neighborhood.
is
OK ;-) And you are right, that is the only thing I'm trying to say. You are certainly right about blaming Rachel for her part in all this. --- James Squire - http://members.aol.com/jamess1889 IDF Soldiers' Combatant Letter 2002 - http://seruv.nethost.co.il/defaulteng.asp Personal Testimony of an Israeli Refusenik - http://www.shalomctr.org/html/peace84.html
Errrrhhhhh!!! Wrong again. There was nothing forcing him to take such idiotic advice to heart. That's like blaming the List on Chandler and Joey. Why does Ross keep asking these two idiots for advice? --- James Squire - http://members.aol.com/jamess1889 IDF Soldiers' Combatant Letter 2002 - http://seruv.nethost.co.il/defaulteng.asp Personal Testimony of an Israeli Refusenik - http://www.shalomctr.org/html/peace84.html
For the same reason that Chandler takes stupid advice from Ross and Joey regarding Monica. :)
James, all this time, I never thought Ross was at fault in the whole "break" issue. I always figured he was too drunk to know what he was doing with Chloe. Tennant has just convinced me that he with logic I can't argue with. Quoting Tennant, "If Ross could get it up, he knew what he was doing." I just can't believe that it never occurred to me before...
Good point ;-) though to me it doesn't matter. Even if he was too drunk, he is responsible for getting too drunk, and therefore indirectly responsible for whatever he does while he's too drunk. --- James Squire - http://members.aol.com/jamess1889 IDF Soldiers' Combatant Letter 2002 - http://seruv.nethost.co.il/defaulteng.asp Personal Testimony of an Israeli Refusenik - http://www.shalomctr.org/html/peace84.html
I think that Rachel having Mark over is what set Ross over the edge. Had he not been over there when Ross called, I think that he would have been able to talk things over with Rachel then and they would have solved everything that night. His biggest insecurity was her relationship with Mark, and hearing his voice at her house while they were on a break is what made him stay there and get wasted.
Ah, I think I see where you are coming from now, but wouldn't it be more important to point out how the logic of the show is twisted and not real in this regard? From another of your posts, unless it was someone else, I got that you care very much about how this show is affecting the people who watch it. So do I, in fact. That is precisely what is motivating my responses to you. I am arguing that Ross *does* have free will, and I don't care what the logic of the show says. If, within the logic of the show, Ross does not have free will, then Ross is not real in *any* sense of that word, and we should be pointing that out in a public show of disdain for the series.
Isn't it precisely this "the devil made me do it" attitude that is so tempting out here in the real world? And isn't it important to speak against that attitude? Furthermore, the logic of the show also includes pinning everything on Ross anyway, so I think your attempt to pinpoint the logic of the show is a bit faulty. It is the logic of the show, remember, that says that by and large Rachel gets off the hook for everything she has ever done. --- James Squire - http://members.aol.com/jamess1889 IDF Soldiers' Combatant Letter 2002 - http://seruv.nethost.co.il/defaulteng.asp Personal Testimony of an Israeli Refusenik - http://www.shalomctr.org/html/peace84.html