We were on a break!!

Cafe Society
1

Inspired by Daniel’s comment in this thread, in which he comments on the Friends storyline in which Ross and Rachel suffer a blow to their relationship. Daniel says:

I’m not so sure I agree.

To review: Ross and Rachel were dating. Rachel begins a new job, abandoning her coffee shop waitress career to serve as a fashion buyer, working with the hunkily handsome Mark. She works long hours, and Ross - no bastion of secure complacency in their relationship in the first place - becomes increasingly jealous of the time she’s spending at her job (with Mark). This friction causes several fights; at the end of one, Rachel announces that she just can’t handle having the smae fight over and over again anymore - she needs a break. Ross at first thinks she means “from the argument” but she clarifies that she’s talking about a break “from us”. She doesn’t want to continue in their relationship. Ross is stunned and leaves.

In time-honored guy tradition, Chandler takes Ross out and gets him rip-roaring drunk. Ross ends up hooking up with the cute girl from the copy place for an evening.

That morning, Rachel comes by Ross’ apartment full of apologies. She wants Ross to give her, and them, another chance, saying she really wants to be his girlfriend again. Ross eagerly agrees; he’s ashamed of his drunken dalliance with the copy girl (who, humorously, is hiding behind his door as he and Rachel make up.

Later that day, despite efforts to prevent the gossip from reaching Rachel, she hears about Ross’ hookup and is devastated. She breaks up with him again. Future attempts to heal the relationship inevitably devolve into Rachel’s anger at Ross for his cheating, and Ross’ defense: “We were on a break!”

OK - sorry for all that background.

I’m not so sanguine about the idea that Ross’ defense is so lame. They WERE broken up.

Not to say Rachel has no cause to be hurt. Ross’ actions certainly suggested he didn’t take the (former) relationship seriously, if he was able to hop into bed with some chick within a day of breaking up with Rachel. But he isn’t a cheater: they did break up, at her behest. Much of the fault goes to her for pulling out the nuclear option in a fight – a fight doesn’t mean the end of a relationship, and Rachel was wrong to go there in the first place.

Anyway - kinda silly to get so wrapped up in a point that arises from a fictional lover’s dispute, but surely there’s some real-life analogs to discuss here.

I don’t think Ross’ defense was completely lame.

2

I agree with you that it wasn’t particularly lame.

I am, however, a bit disturbed that a male is able to so easily recount a Friends storyline in that much detail from several years ago. :dubious:

:smiley:

3

And it wasn’t like Ross knew the girl well and had any deep feelings for her. If anything, it should point out to Rachel what an insecure dweeb he has always been – if he can’t be with Rachel, he’s got to be with someone, anyone, right now, just to keep from being alone with himself.

So he didn’t do anything “wrong,” but he’s no prize, either.

4

I always thought Ross and Rachel had one of the unhealthiest relationships ever seen in primetime television. Ross was bordering on being a stalker. And Rachel was even worse; she viewed Ross as a possession. The only time she pursued him was when he seemed interested in another woman. Rachel would then chase Ross but as soon as she had broken up his existing relationship and gotten him back, she’d lose interest and start looking at other men.

5

I agree – I always thought Ross’s defense was perfectly legitimate. Although at the same time, I understand why Rachel had trouble accepting it.

–Cliffy

6

I don’t remember the exact working, but I do think there is a difference between being ‘on a break’ and breaking up. The first indicates that the door is wide open for the relationship resuming.

7

Bricker,

I agree that Ross’s defense was not “completely lame.” In fact, I would argue that it was perfectly legitimate, given the ambiguity of the situation.

As you observed, Rachel appeared to use the nuclear option – a break up – but she didn’t say “break up.” She said “a break.” What was meant by the term “a break?” In the Ross/Rachel context, it’s a loaded word for sure in that it makes up half of the idiom “break up,” which we all know translates, “relationship over.” But taking a break doesn’t really mean that in many contexts. For example, if I was working on puzzle and said, “This is hard. I’m taking a break,” my choice of words leaves the impression that I will return to the puzzle after my break. Whereas, if I had said, “This is hard. I’m quitting,” my return to the puzzle seems unlikely.

I think those that leap to Rachel’s defense and in turn attack Ross, see Rachel not as asking for a “break (up)” but as asking for some time apart – i.e. a break from the relationship – not a conclusion to it. The problem is, that’s not what she said. She wasn’t clear. If that’s what she meant then, Ross operated under a legitimate misunderstanding, and for that reason, he did not cheat on her because, as he understood it, he was not in a relationship with her.

Now, if she did indeed mean “break up,” I think this is even simpler. No relationship, no fidelity, no cheating.

8

The local Fox affiliate in DC would show Friends re-runs between Simpsons and Seinfeld re-runs on weekdays. I’m a fan of the latter two shows and wound up watching a lot of Friends out of sheer inertia.

9

My two cents:

Cent #1:

I totally agree that Ross’ actions and explanation were valid. I always did, and got slightly peeved every time he was mocked for it on the show. (He did get one glorious moment of vindication, however, during the episode with the head-shaved girl at the beachouse. In that show Rachel writes him an endless, double-sided, handwritten note that, at the end, lumps all the blame on him. Not having read the thing through – he fell asleep trying – he almost concedes to its conclusion to mend the relationship. But once he realizes the danger, he explodes in self-defense – and then slams her for her bad grammar! Loved that scene!)

Cent #2:

That copy shop girl was hot! I think I would have strayed with her even if I were not on a break.

10

Riiiiiiiiiiight. :slight_smile:

11

From what I recall from watching the commentary on this episode on the DVD’s, the writers specifically chose setting the situation up this way because it was so ambiguous. They didn’t want a situation where one of the characters would lose the audiences support, they expected that the audience could sympathize with both sides of the argument and not “hate” either character.

And for me at least, they succeeded. I can sympathize with Rachel, and understand why she would be upset. And given the way Ross understood it, and that he’d been afraid and jealous ever since she took the new job, it’s understandable what he did (but, not necessarily likeable, cause couldn’t he have waited just a few days considering he’d been after her for years?).

The way people express themselves when in a frustrating situation like that isn’t always clear (plus Ross walked out as soon as she said whe wanted to take “a break” so she didn’t have a chance to clarify it). It’s kind of a statement on how things can be misinterpreted and can spiral in a direction not intended…

12

Ugh, me too. I hated it that they ended up together in the end, and that their relationship was the real focus of the show.

13

The next morning (next episode) Rachel talks to Monica. She says, in response to Monica’s question about how the big anniversary dinner went (the previous night was their anniversary): “Well, we never actually got to dinner…we kinda broke up instead.” And when she vists Ross at his apartment, she says, “Can I be your girlfriend again?”

Both of those indicate a complete understanding and non-ambiguity for the “break” the previous night.

That tweren’t nuthin! I can tell you that Ross called Rachel from the club, saying that they shouldn’t let this break them up, and hears Mark in the background (he’s brought over Chinese food for Rachel). I can tell you that the copy girl’s name was Chloe, and that the path for the “trail” that will lead to Rachel finding out is: Chloe’s co-worker Issac, to Issac’s sister Jasmine, who works at the massage place with Phoebe. But even though they skilfully block that trail at Jasmine, she’s already told her roommate Gunther, who of course (driven by his unrequited love for Rachel) tells her.

In short: I know my Friends trivia.

14

Your recall is vastly superior to mine. I don’t believe I have seen the episode since its original airdate circa 96-97. Still, “kinda broke up” is hardly unambiguous, and her question to Ross could easily fall into the cutesy-rhetorical-Friends-non-question-bin – could this discussion be any sillier?! So I don’t think it’s clear (without reference to more quotations I can’t recall) that either party had a complete understanding of the others intent or that the situation was non-ambigous.

Without any ambiguity, this seems to be a non-issue.

15

Having had a situation exactly like this, I agree Ross’ position is completely fair.

And the fact that I was the one that argued the “break” has nothing to do with it.

:slight_smile:

16

A break is a break. I never thought his defense was lame. I thought his timing was poor, but as I said, a break is a break.

17

Right on. I’ve been in Ross’s position and judging by Rachel’s “Can I be your girlfriend again?” query, we thought the same thing. “Taking a break” essentially means we’re breaking up. Just not at this moment.
They were not together.

18

I can not believe I’m going to post this.

Rachel says she wants to take a break. Ross calls her from the club saying they shouldn’t let this break them up.

So Ross is telling Rachel he wants to end the break.

Before Rachel can even reply, Ross hears Mark, gets angry and hangs up.

To Rachel, Ross is being silly because in her mind there never was anything between her and Mark. Still, Ross did say he didn’t want to break up.

Then, before Rachel can even get over to his apartment to accept his offer of un-breaking, Ross has slept with Chloe.

In the world of Rachel, this constitutes cheating, because Ross told her he wanted to get back together.

In the world of Ross, it’s not cheating. They were still on a break, because Rachel hadn’t accepted his offer yet.

Gee, a sitcom plot that revolves around a misunderstanding!

19

Moving thread from IMHO to Cafe Society.

20

Wow, I’m surprised.

Here’s why I consider it a lame defense: the heart is not a courtroom.

What he should have been was devastated at the confusion. He hsould have explained his anger and, when he realized that he’d misunderstood the situation, apologized. He then should have–well, apologized some more, because the whole confusion was due to his stalkerish behavior.

Rachel, in turn, should have accepted that his fault was boorishness and stalkerosity; that, given his boorishness and stalkerosity (and denseness), he hadn’t cheated on her, because he’d believed them to be broken up.

Daniel