Did Ross cheat on Rachel?

[Imran Siddiqui]

[Ben Kenobi]

In fact, that seems a pretty obvious requirement of a perspective partner to me.

Ross should just have said, "Let's recap. I want to be in a relationship with you. You want me to wait around for you until you decide whether or not you want to be in a relationship with me. Why are we on a break? We're on a break because you don't want a relationship with me."

Ross would have been way happier had he just walked out on Rachel.

How would Rachel have taken it if Ross said, "I want a break, but I want to pick you up whenever it's convenient for me". It's a ****ty thing to do to someone and it blew up in Rachel's face.

There were a couple of things Rachel could have done.

"Lets take a break for a couple of months and then come back and decide what we are going to do". She could have been honest about her intentions and her expectations, "I'm not going to be seeing anyone and I expect that you will do the same."

Had she done so, Ross would have had a very different response. But, she didn't because she's Rachel. She figured, "I've got more opportunities than Ross, so I can just dangle Ross for a bit and see if anything better comes along."

[notyoueither]

Yes you can. You can say "we are not in a relationship right now, but if you want to be in a relationship in the future you won't have sex with someone else".

In fact, that seems a pretty obvious requirement of a perspective partner to me.

JM

That's ****ed up. Very Victorian, but ****ed up.

[Aeson]

There's not anything wrong with it. If that's what's important to you in a mate then you're perfectly within your rights to ask that of perspective partners. They are of course perfectly within their rights to either try to meet your qualifications or not. If neither party is willing/able to meet the other's qualifications then there is no relationship.

If my SO asked for a break to figure things out, I'd consider it an end to the acceptability of resuming the relationship if either of us were to have a relationship with someone else in the meantime. That takes it from "time to figure things out" to "time to see other people". I would accept the first, at least for a reasonable amount of time until they can give an answer. I would not accept the second.

[Ben Kenobi]

If that's what's important to you in a mate then you're perfectly within your rights to ask that of perspective partners. They are of course perfectly within their rights to either try to meet your qualifications or not. If neither party is willing/able to meet the other's qualifications then there is no relationship.

Where did Rachel ever communicate that expectation to Ross? She had an expectation that Ross would wait for her to decide while she could tarry however long she wanted to see whether she could find someone better. Did she establish it was temporary? Set a time limit on it?

Why would she? It would limit her bargaining power. It's real simple, Rachel believed she could do better and felt that there were zero consequences to breaking things off with Ross. Reality ensued.

[Aeson]

She didn't. It's beside the point. Certainly they both acted against their interests due to a lack of understanding about the situation, that's not in question. They both still have every right to set their own criteria for whether or not to resume the relationship.

[Ben Kenobi]

Certainly they both acted against their interests due to a lack of understanding about the situation, that's not in question.

I think Ross and Rachel's actions were perfectly in line with their self-interest. That is why Rachel did what she did and why Ross did what he did. Rachel expected Ross to put his self-interest aside for hers, and is shocked when that doesn't happen.

[N35t0r]

75% agrees with me. The other 37.5% does not.

We're up to 116.67% votes already.

[Nikolai]

Is this some episode of Friends?

[Imran Siddiqui]

If my SO asked for a break to figure things out, I'd consider it an end to the acceptability of resuming the relationship if either of us were to have a relationship with someone else in the meantime. That takes it from "time to figure things out" to "time to see other people". I would accept the first, at least for a reasonable amount of time until they can give an answer. I would not accept the second.

That's called "I want some space", not "I want a break". Wanting a break basically is code for the asking party to see what they are worth on the open market and if there are no takers, then they have someone as a backup. It's ridiculously controlling behavior.

[-Jrabbit]

Is this some episode of Friends?

Yes.

"The One Where Ross And Rachel Take A Break" is the fifteenth episode of the third season of Friends, which aired on February 13, 1997.

[Guynemer]

THEY WERE ON A BREAK.

[Lorizael]

I think the more important question is: should Ross and Rachel ever have been together in the first place? I mean really, one is a hopeless nerd still pining after his high school crush years later, while the other is a spoiled airhead barely competent at her waitressing job. Are these two really meant for each other?

[MRT144]

I think the more important question is: should Ross and Rachel ever have been together in the first place? I mean really, one is a hopeless nerd still pining after his high school crush years later, while the other is a spoiled airhead barely competent at her waitressing job. Are these two really meant for each other?

Thanks you!

[N35t0r]

It'slike the show is presenting a dysfunctional relationship and playing it for the laughs/drama!