Pierced Musie Posted January 15, 2007 Report Posted January 15, 2007 Rachel is selfish. So very selfish.
Ross Posted January 15, 2007 Report Posted January 15, 2007 I have to admit that in today's episode, I felt it was Kim who was being selfish. At the end of the day, he made the decision to start a relationship with someone 10 years older than himself, and in doing that, he should have realised that he couldn't have the best of both worlds - go travelling, enjoying his 20s. I mean, why does he think there was so much opposition? And he can't blame Rachel for any of it because he was the one who pursued her! The thing is, he's not realising that if she waits, she could find herself unable to have children. He can go travelling any time - that is something that's always going to be there for him at one point or another. And even if I am being slightly against Kim here, I'm surely not alone in thinking that he was totally unreasonable telling her that he wanted to wait 10 years at first?! He was saying about how she wasn't interested in what he wanted but he was basically saying 'I want to go travelling and enjoy life, when I've done that, we'll do what you want and have children', whereas all Rachel was doing was stating the facts 'I might be unable to have children'/ 'Marriage is about being tied down'. Anyway, got a bit carried away there, but I have to admit that whole thing really annoyed me for some reason! At least they've sorted it out now!
Reo Posted January 15, 2007 Report Posted January 15, 2007 I dont like Kim,So im never on his side.. But he was being really selfish in todays episode,Rachel didnt want to wait to have kids for medical reasons,not her own reasons but something out of her control which could lead her to never having kids. I thought Kim was really selfish,Yeah he had 2 different moments where he thought he was a father that got taken away from him and he is young,But he also has to wake up to the fact that Rachel isnt deciding this just to want them now,but because if she waits it maybe out of her hands.
claire_louise Posted January 15, 2007 Report Posted January 15, 2007 Couldn't they just have compromised? Have kids a few years earlier than Kim would like, and a few years later than Rachel would like? It seems so simple...
Ross Posted January 15, 2007 Report Posted January 15, 2007 Well, that is what happened in the end, but I just felt the need to express my feelings about how Kim had acted
Guevara01 Posted January 15, 2007 Report Posted January 15, 2007 I have to admit i was on Kim's side during that argument. It's not that i can't understand Rachel's point of view, but the entire reason for their meeting was that he was going to her, as a psychiatrist, about his troubles, that all stemmed from the loss of Baby Noah, and to some extent, Charlie. Surely she should remember that this isn't just a case of Kim being awkward, it's a deep seated insecurity with him, which he never really addressed properly. Although to some extent - the biological fact stuff - i can sympathise with Rachel, the way she put it across was not on. Kim deserved better than to be made out to look like the villain. He wasn't. To be quite frank, i agree with Muse in saying that Rachel was selfish. She basically gave Kim an ultimatum. Plus, she must be a crap-assed psychiatrist not to know that the stuff he was spinning her about it purely being because of travel/career wasn't in some way trying to hide his feelings of insecurity. I really felt for Kim in that situation xxx
carmelle Posted January 15, 2007 Report Posted January 15, 2007 sounds like i missed an interesting episode
katya Posted January 16, 2007 Report Posted January 16, 2007 I was totally on Rachel's side during the argument. What was she supposed to do other than give him an ultimatum? If you and your partner want completely different things then there's no point in staying together if one of you is going to be miserable and feel cheated. Also, I didn't really see anything to suggest that Kim suffers from deep-seated insecurities about children...obviously after what's happened it's a factor, but I think his reasons for wanting to wait really were so that he could enjoy his youth. Personally, I wouldn't like to be 38 and having my first child, especially if a family is something I've always wanted, and a big family at that. Rachel really put it into perspective when she said she would be nearly 60 when her child is 21. I think they were both being selfish, and I actually really respect Kim for being the one to come up with the compromise...but surely they could have worked that out without the big hoo-ha.
Pierced Musie Posted January 16, 2007 Report Posted January 16, 2007 The more I see of Rachel, the more I mourn the loss of a good character. I feel that they have changed her and now she is just like all of the rest.
TabbyCool Posted January 16, 2007 Report Posted January 16, 2007 I've noticed that people are talking about what's happened on Five life rather than just what's happened on Five, it doesn't bother me, but I think we need to remember that not everyone has Five Life. I feel sorry for Rachel, and Kim to an extent too. Rachel really wants to have a family, but she can't wait as long as Kim would like to before having kids, she isn't getting any younger and it is much harder to have kids when you are older. On the other hand, Kim is still young and wants to have fun before having kids, which is also understandable. The thing is though, Kim is acting like someone who would rather be single than be tied down and married, so why did he want to have a serious relationship with a woman 10 years older than him? Surely it was pretty obvious that Rachel would want kids pretty soon, or is Kim too dumb to realise that women aren't fertile forever?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.