You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘rachel’ tag.


Jen S forwarded me this article after our conversation on Sunday.  I was telling my dear Jen that I told another friend that she should marry for money, not love.  Is it because I regret marrying for love instead of money? NOOOO of course not.  But I see now how much easier relationships can be if you had money.  I”m sure not all relationships are like that, but I can’t help but to ponder about these things, when I look at some women who married “up”.  Did they marry for love or did they marry for money?  And why do their lives seem so much easier than mine?  Is it wrong for me to question these things?  Probably….

In this article by the lady named Lori Gottlieb called “Marry Him”, gives you a profound and dauntingly honest view on marriage and relationships for the single ladies.   She tells you to settle because that’s better than being alone and being miserable.  She actually gives pretty decent support for her theory and rationale behind why she feels this way.  I have to say after reading this lengthy article, I think I totally agree with her on this one.   Would Rachel have been more satisfied in life with Barry instead of her on-again/off-again Ross?  Would Carrie have been more stable with Aiden than Mr. Big, the man who abandoned her countless times?  These are really awesome questions!

I guess that may be contradictory to my religious belief.  But I don’t think God wants us to sit around and wait for Mr. Perfect and put your life on a complete “hold” status or be in and out of dysfunctional relationships either…..


  1. Have no-neck and have to wear clothes that reveal your neck at all times? (you can’t get surgery or do anything to try to fix the physical problem)
  2. Have kankles that make you look like you have logs as legs and have to wear clothes that reveal your legs at all times? (you can’t get surgery or do anything to try to fix the physical problem)

GH: ok so this is kind of tough. both choices suck a lot. but for sure for sure, i would go with the short neck. why you ask? if there’s anything i hate (so much that it makes me sort of shiver thinking about it) on a human body is kankles. motherfucking kankles. for those who don’t know, kankles are pretty much tree stumps. for legs. there is no ankle, calf, knee, etc. it’s just kankle. <insert kankle picture, i can do that> how gross is this? i haven’t seen it on girls a lot but i’ve seen a lot of guys with kankles. i’m not sure why it disgusts me so much. but i really want to go up to them and tell them they shouldn’t be allowed to wear shorts anymore. it’s a big turn off for me. ugh.

now i know, short necks are fairly gross too. it would like i was shrugging all the time. but my disdain for kankles leaves me no choice. my hands are tied. arm is twisted. so yeah, i’d be the hunchback of notre dame with some non-tree stump FINE legs.

..i know. ridiculous.

**i apologize if i’ve offended anyone with my harsh tone and words about kankles.

JK:  I will totally have kankles over no neck any day.  My reasoning is fairly simple.  I feel that people are more likely to notice the no-neck thingy before they notice the kankles.  This reasoning is solely based on the fact neck area is more likely in the field of vision for most people than the kankles.  Of course kankles are bad and most people would not want them, it was on the infamous “list” that Ross made about Rachel on Friends….

September 2021