Peter Kraus - Bachelorette 13 - Discussion - #9

Aria wrote:

Murakamee wrote:

bleuberry wrote:I personally find Rachel's statements, both on and off the show, so contradictory that I don't even bother dissecting them anymore. Idk if she was coached that way or really was (is) that confused.

Talking about a potential future while maintaining that this process is still too quick seems to support the idea that he did want a commitment/relationship, just not a proposal in 2 months for me. Rachel chose to try and change or fix it. That isn't Peter's fault. JMO.

I agree with part of what you stated, and it's no secret I'm pro-Rachel. Like I stated in my long reply above, I do think she's changing her story. Her insistence that it was Geneva where she realized Peter was not the husband she wanted just does not ring true - because she didn't let him go then. Unless production forced her to keep him. Which is plausible, but that's not what she's saying. She said he manipulated her. How can he manipulate you if you were already on to him and knew he wasn't the one? I really think this is about her being hurt once she looked back on what happened. Once removed from that situation, and having some clarity. Maybe she feels like he made a fool out her. It's a matter of pride. But I don't think that takes away from her and Bryan's relationship. I think she just needs to speak her truth and then move on. She has what she wants, Peter's getting what he wants. All will be happy.

Has she said that she realized in Geneva that Peter wasn't the one? I only heard her say that Geneva was where she started seeing some of Peter's deep-rooted issues and realizing that he wasn't ready for comittment and wasn't husband-material. I actually think that's pretty legit, since I was scratching my head at the "I blame myself for that" story and I wouldn't be surprised if there was more of that that made Rachel suspicious of his ability to commit. She is clearly downplaying things and I think her ABC news interview was the most accurate where she said she knew what she needed to do after Dallas, but there were still moments she thought it could be Peter because she was drawn to that difficult = passionate energy that they had. I just think that Rachel was pretty perceptive and knew that Peter would never marry her, but she had such strong feelings for him and was drawn to the drama he provided that she couldn't let him go. I wish she would just say that, because it comes off as much more honest. IMO.

She said it in some of the interviews post show. But here's a quote from the Reality TV World interview:

Reality TV World: You've done a couple of different interviews where you've said there were other "deep-rooted" issues in your relationship with Peter beyond his unwillingness to propose -- can you elaborate on that and explain what some of those other specific issues were?

Rachel Lindsay: For me, Geneva was a really, really big week. I had three one-on-one dates and a group date, and with my one-on-one dates, the dates were very telling and allowed me to peel back more layers of each guy. And with Bryan, that progressed our relationship.

And with Peter, it's when I started to see some other deep-rooted issues that made me realize he's not the type of man I want as a husband. I've been very open about how I want someone who knows what he wants, knows who he is and where he's going.

Source: http://www.realitytvworld.com/news/rachel-lindsay-talks-the-bachelorette-i-realized-peter-kraus-is-not-type-of-man-i-want-as-husband--22512m.php#7XzVACaRC1VWJcRr.99

That's a pretty definitive statement. So, like I stated before, if she knew he wasn't the type of man she wanted as a husband, and he had just told her on the Alps that he had doubts and considered leaving. Why in the heck did she keep him? That's what I feel she's not being honest about now. And I wish, no matter how much it embarrasses her, she'd just tell us the truth. Whether it was him giving her false hope or production forcing her to keep him on. Whatever, because what she's saying in this and some other interviews doesn't entirely make sense. IMO the truth seems to be this, he was creating confusion. Saying he had doubts, but also telling her that he really care about her and wanted to be with her. Pushing and Pulling her to keep her on a string. He was confusing her and she really had deep feelings for him that she thought at the time was reciprocated. But he lied. Plain and simple.

I'm not going to be hypocrite about this. My major issue with Peter has been about dishonesty and manipulation. I stated that last night in this thread. So, I just want her to be honest, to me that's rising above. Speaking the truth, whether people like it or not. JMO.

@Murakamee

But she said "its when I STARTED to see..."

So very disappointed at Peter's dad, friend and wife. It's one thing to defend your friend, but anothe to attack someone else in order to back him up. I am all for "Peter is the most genuine/sincere/classy blah blah blah" but why fan the flame to trash talk Rachel?
And the dad....some have made fun of Olga, but she's done nothing post HTD.

Can you imagine when Peter becomes the lead, when people start criticizing him, all the clap back from his family, his friends? I am not sure I can deal with it!

Peter started all the nastiness with his "go find someone to have a mediocre life with" like say what.... and Rachel having to relive that on the afr. Plus all his shading of Bryan on IG. Rachel was rather complementary of Peter on the afr until the am leaving my best life comments which I thought was a fair response imo.

I agree tho all the side show pettiness from the friends and family is rather unnecessary.

sdmom wrote:So very disappointed at Peter's dad, friend and wife. It's one thing to defend your friend, but anothe to attack someone else in order to back him up. I am all for "Peter is the most genuine/sincere/classy blah blah blah" but why fan the flame to trash talk Rachel?
And the dad....some have made fun of Olga, but she's done nothing post HTD.

Can you imagine when Peter becomes the lead, when people start criticizing him, all the clap back from his family, his friends? I am not sure I can deal with it!

Especially that line about her dumping Will for not being willing to grope her. It seems like subtle sl*t-shaming to me. I'm just not a fan of these people and am not looking forward to their behavior during Peter's season. I'm sure Rachel is thanking her lucky stars every day she didn't choose to be part of this crazy. IMO.

@Aria me and you are definitely seeing eye to eye. I would also like to add that both of them are a lot alike which is why there's so much mud slinging. There both stubborn and need tons of validation all of this is about saving face but imo it's making both of them look worse.

That female friend of Peter's posted that Rachel "literally" attacked Peter. Please. I know the word "literally" is misused but to state that Rachel "literally" attacked Peter? Absolutely BS and fanning flames imo. But whatevs, imo no doubt to her Peter is just such a victim and is just so genuine even after all the hateful comments Peter liked on IG and loooong before ATFR!

Aria wrote:

sdmom wrote:So very disappointed at Peter's dad, friend and wife. It's one thing to defend your friend, but anothe to attack someone else in order to back him up. I am all for "Peter is the most genuine/sincere/classy blah blah blah" but why fan the flame to trash talk Rachel?
And the dad....some have made fun of Olga, but she's done nothing post HTD.

Can you imagine when Peter becomes the lead, when people start criticizing him, all the clap back from his family, his friends? I am not sure I can deal with it!

Especially that line about her dumping Will for not being willing to  grope her.  It seems like subtle sl*t-shaming to me. I'm just not a fan of these people and am not looking forward to their behavior during Peter's season. I'm sure Rachel is thanking her lucky stars every day she didn't choose to be part of this crazy. IMO.

IA. That comment was gross and not so subtle, if you read the full sentence.

A few points -
Rachel said "thank you" to Peter when they are embracing on the balcony after their Geneva dog sled ride and dinner.  Could she be thanking him for going along as a willing participant on the show ?  Peter had previously told her that he could read her like a book - and he couldn't understand why the other guys didn't see this.  That meant to me that Peter knew where her feelings were.  She said something to the effect of she knew that about herself - and don't tell anyone !

The "mediocre" comment was said in the heat of the moment ...  Well, maybe.  But what if Peter and Rachel  are all in on this (the show has to proceed to the end - one F1 and one heartbroken F2 = drama).  And Rachel being harsh on the ATFR show - and Peter being emotionally distraught has resulted in lots of comments  with anger/disgust/sadness/sympathy etc from the viewers.  Judging from what I saw - I think Peter and Rachel undoubtedly became very fond of each other and somewhere along the line R became aware that P was not the one for her - maybe not as affectionate or decisive or whatever -- and P maybe all along had good times - but realized that R was not the one for him. Saying goodbye - (behind the break-up scene were probably scenes of being fond of each other - and the pepper drops in their eyes probably did sting a bit !)   But there is a show to carry on.  Bryan was jump right in - and Peter was ponder and delay.  Peter had already told her - he could see where her emotions were - they had several group dates together - Peter and Bryan.  Rachel gave the watch date to Bryan - how much more did Peter need to see?

My point is I am reading so many angry disgusted comments - but maybe the ATFR and activity/comments after is all generated for drama - keep us talking - keep us reminded that there are more ABC shows around the corner - Bach in Paradise and The Bachelor... ?    Rachel can afford to be a little "salty" (or nasty) but Peter if he is considering a future role of The Bach - has to be on his best behavior.  He must look distraught.  I kind of think we have to accept it all for what it is -

Aria wrote:

sdmom wrote:So very disappointed at Peter's dad, friend and wife. It's one thing to defend your friend, but anothe to attack someone else in order to back him up. I am all for "Peter is the most genuine/sincere/classy blah blah blah" but why fan the flame to trash talk Rachel?
And the dad....some have made fun of Olga, but she's done nothing post HTD.

Can you imagine when Peter becomes the lead, when people start criticizing him, all the clap back from his family, his friends? I am not sure I can deal with it!

Especially that line about her dumping Will for not being willing to  grope her.  It seems like subtle sl*t-shaming to me. I'm just not a fan of these people and am not looking forward to their behavior during Peter's season. I'm sure Rachel is thanking her lucky stars every day she didn't choose to be part of this crazy. IMO.

ITA with both the posts!   I am already feeling bad for the women who get cast on his season. This is seriously cray cray IMO. If someone says a word to precious Peter and he gets upset, all these people would be on SM tearing her down IMO.

Who would have thought post-season Bryan and Olga will come out looking like the reasonable ones?

All JMO

I just read that comment about groping. Absolutely disgusting imo. There's so many levels to this along with Peter saying he felt "attacked" by the first black bachelorette on ATFR that I can't even deal 

Aria wrote:@Murakamee

But she said "its when I STARTED to see..."

Semantics. She has been very direct, that she knew way back to Geneva that he wasn't the one. This is what she's saying. I'm not coming down on her about it. I get it. But I'm just saying that the more she tries to act as though she wasn't torn between him and Bryan, the more it takes away from her additional claim that he was manipulating her to get further. It turns the accusation back around on her. If she says, okay, I knew at that point this guy was off, but I kept him because the producers wanted me to - That's legitimate. If she says, okay, I knew at that point something was off, but he kept coming back convincing me otherwise, and assuring and telling me he wanted me - That's legitimate.

But that's not what she is saying. She's saying I realized he was off, and yet kept him around until final two, knowing I was going to break up with him. That just doesn't make sense. To believe that would mean, she knowingly sent Matt, Adam, Dean, and Eric home knowing Peter was not the one, and had serious issues.

I really don't think that's what happened. I really think she was torn until the end, but she was torn only because Peter was leading her to believe they had a chance. When they never did. Therefore, Bryan was the better man because he was honest with her. It's really simple. If she explained it that way, there would be no confusion. Despite what the haters say - they're going to hate regardless.