Peter Kraus - Bachelorette 13 - Discussion - #10

Quietbreezes wrote:@Nibbles22 When they were playing handball, Peter's hands were all over Rachel. He admitted getting 'handsy' with her.

Right, @Quietbreezes. Then, Josiah made a comment about Peter picking Rachel up and having a handful of azz. I have a lot of questions about Peter but, none of them involve Rachel. He convinced me early on of his strong feelings - I'm in the camp that believes he did not trust her to choose him if he were vulnerable enough to propose and he was correct in that assessment. JMO

I don't think MePeter was ever that interested in Rachel. 

I think MePeter's whole crying thing at F2 was just for show and just like his whole spiel of how heartbroken he was to dump someone and watch them leave in the rearview mirror I think was all for show. 

Imo the only person Peter has shown to be in love with is himself.

@Chgohighlife I agree. I hate to put doubt on any relationship, but I believe both of them saw the difference early on. Peter (to me) started to show a little jealousy and got petty as she gravitated toward other men and Rachel new early he was not the one. Peter will be a loyal boyfriend until the end if the girlfriend is not pressed for marriage *IMO*. If she is cool with them just dating and not moving out of that stage until retirement age, he will have that lasting relationship he wants. *IMO* I wish him the best in the future. In my opinion, I don't feel the women in bachelor nation are for him. He needs a woman more grounded in her roots and not so public or high-maintenance.

Quietbreezes wrote:@Chgohighlife I agree. I hate to put doubt on any relationship, but I believe both of them saw the difference early on. Peter (to me) started to show a little jealousy and got petty as she gravitated toward other men and Rachel new early he was not the one. Peter will be a loyal boyfriend until the end if the girlfriend is not pressed for marriage. *IMO*If she is cool with them just dating and not moving out of that stage until retirement age, he will have that lasting relationship he wants *IMO*. I wish him the best in the future. In my opinion, I don't feel the women in bachelor nation are for him. He needs a woman more grounded in her roots and not so public or high-maintenance.

We don't know this to be true just because he was not ready to propose to Rachel in 8 weeks.  *Most* men don't want to be with someone that is pressed for marriage on the first date, IMO.  I think it's more so that the setting of the show is not for Peter, who over thinks everything, and needs time to process,  as shown with the Bachelor stuff. I think alluding to him being a commitment phobe is an unfair because we have nothing beyond this show to base that on.  JMO.

I can surely see people not believing he was into Rachel, but I still don't get the homosexual or bi vibe. He admitted he was uncomfortable in front of the cameras, prefers conversation as his love language versus physical touch and maybe he really wasn't feeling Rachel, though I thought he was.

I just don't see how that constitutes into meaning his sexual preference is different than what he portrays. I just see a progressive man with many layers not afraid of his own sexuality. Commitmentphobe womanizer? Possibly. Indecisiveness? Maybe. Hiding his true orientation so he goes on reality TV to date a woman and then "campaigns" to be the lead of a reality show where he dates multiple women? I find that far fetched

If he is so sensitive and image conscious and trying to hide his true sexual preference for men, I don't see him getting on a national public stage where he opens himself up to ridicule and scrutiny and the chance he could be "exposed." Just my 2 cents.

I half like all your assessments. But I don't think that Peter is gay. He was attracted to Rachel but not in love with her. He was never moved to the point where I was convinced that he was developing strong feelings for her, cameras or not, IMO. All his actions felt controlled and measured to me. With getting the first 1:1, IMO, he thought he was the cat's meow. With no further 1:1 for a while, he became petty and jealous because he was not the center of her attention. I then started to see a certain calculation and manipulation to his actions: getting handsy with her while playing handball so the others could see, telling her he would leave if he didn't feel he could propose, telling her he loved her just before they went into her family's home, and many more. Rachel's family background/affluence and her accomplishments, screamed to me that she needed a man who is confident and self aware/assured in his own skin/place in the world and her life who needs no hand holding. I think Peter overplayed his hand and she saw through it all. What his mother said during the HTD, did not help him either. I tend to agree with you @Quietbreezes up to a point, Peter will be a loyal boyfriend if the girlfriend is not pressing for marriage. If she is cool with them just dating and not moving out of that stage but IMO, he will uproot for the next monogamous relationship like he did with his last girlfriend, without an explanation until he figures out the reason for his gametophobia. Why didn't he leave? If she wanted marriage and he would not propose, why didn't he leave the show like he said he would? Did we ever get a satisfying answer to this that I missed?

Quietbreezes wrote:@Chgohighlife I agree. I hate to put doubt on any relationship, but I believe both of them saw the difference early on. Peter (to me) started to show a little jealousy and got petty as she gravitated toward other men and Rachel new early he was not the one. Peter will be a loyal boyfriend until the end if the girlfriend is not pressed for marriage. If she is cool with them just dating and not moving out of that stage until retirement age, he will have that lasting relationship he wants. I wish him the best in the future. In my opinion, I don't feel the women in bachelor nation are for him. He needs a woman more grounded in her roots and not so public or high-maintenance.

@Quietbreezes, I just want to clearly state my position, IMO - the timeframe can be debated but, there is nothing wrong with women who do and IMO should require marriage and not waste time with men who indicate they are not likely to get there.  I do not consider a woman who would settle for less than marriage to be "grounded in her roots" or, anything nearly so positive and conversely, IMO A woman who insists on legal marriage at whatever point she requires it for her emotional comfort, is one I consider strong and confident and self-respecting, not "high-maintenance".

IMO, The key to a woman's behavior should always be what she needs and what she believes is best for her (and her future children) in her mind and heart NOT what Peter or any other man decides he does or does not want to commit to. IMO, There is no "middle ground" for marriage or having children - and each is a major life change that is too critically important to compromise on. If someone doesn't need marriage for whatever reason, fine. But, if a woman or, a man really wants to be married and the potential partner doesn't, they need a different partner - it is possible to love someone who shares your values JMO.

@adf23 He was in the last relationship for two years and they parted ways. 8 weeks or 2 years ,he isn't ready for either. His timeframe is a lot longer than most men. IMO.

Quietbreezes wrote:@adf23 He was in the last relationship for two years and they parted ways. 8 weeks or 2 years ,he isn't ready for either. His timeframe is a lot longer than most men. IMO.

IMO that doesn't prove anything. He was clearly smitten with his "looking at rings after 3 months" girlfriend, which was the gf before the last one. A quick search on facebook shows how in love with her he was. Just because someone isn't ready to make every relationship "the one" doesn't make them a commitment phobe. With that line of thinking, every man over the age of 30 is a commitment phobe, if they have never been married. JMO.

@adf23 IMO only Peter will know when he is ready to settle down. Everyone speculating is doing just that...speculating. I still wish him well even if I wasn't rooting for him.

Kolormiblnd wrote:I half like all your assessments. But I don't think that Peter is gay. He was attracted to Rachel but not in love with her. He was never moved to the point where I was convinced that he was developing strong feelings for her, cameras or not, IMO. All his actions felt controlled and measured to me. With getting the first 1:1, IMO, he thought he was the cat's meow. With no further 1:1 for a while, he became petty and jealous because he was not the center of her attention. I then started to see a certain calculation and manipulation to his actions: getting handsy with her while playing handball so the others could see, telling her he would leave if he didn't feel he could propose, telling her he loved her just before they went into her family's home, and many more. Rachel's family background/affluence and her accomplishments, screamed to me that she needed a man who is confident and self aware/assured in his own skin/place in the world and her life who needs no hand holding. I think Peter overplayed his hand and she saw through it all. What his mother said during the HTD, did not help him either. I tend to agree with you @Quietbreezes up to a point, Peter will be a loyal boyfriend if the girlfriend is not pressing for marriage. If she is cool with them just dating and not moving out of that stage but IMO, he will uproot for the next monogamous relationship like he did with his last girlfriend, without an explanation until he figures out the reason for his gametophobia. Why didn't he leave? If she wanted marriage and he would not propose, why didn't he leave the show like he said he would? Did we ever get a satisfying answer to this that I missed?

Double applause! Yes, this to a T. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. This fits firmly with what I believe as well.

Chgohighlife wrote:

Quietbreezes wrote:@Chgohighlife I agree. I hate to put doubt on any relationship, but I believe both of them saw the difference early on. Peter (to me) started to show a little jealousy and got petty as she gravitated toward other men and Rachel new early he was not the one. Peter will be a loyal boyfriend until the end if the girlfriend is not pressed for marriage. If she is cool with them just dating and not moving out of that stage until retirement age, he will have that lasting relationship he wants. I wish him the best in the future. In my opinion, I don't feel the women in bachelor nation are for him. He needs a woman more grounded in her roots and not so public or high-maintenance.

@Quietbreezes, I just want to clearly state my position, IMO - the timeframe can be debated but, there is nothing wrong with women who do and IMO should require marriage and not waste time with men who indicate they are not likely to get there.  I do not consider a woman who would settle for less than marriage to be "grounded in her roots" or, anything nearly so positive and conversely, IMO A woman who insists on legal marriage at whatever point she requires it for her emotional comfort, is one I consider strong and confident and self-respecting, not "high-maintenance".

IMO, The key to a woman's behavior should always be what she needs and what she believes is best for her (and her future children) in her mind and heart NOT what Peter or any other man decides he does or does not want to commit to. IMO, There is no "middle ground" for marriage or having children - and each is a major life change that is too critically important to compromise on. If someone doesn't need marriage for whatever reason, fine. But, if a woman or, a man really wants to be married and the potential partner doesn't, they need a different partner - it is possible to love someone who shares your values JMO.

I agree with this as well. So many people (men and women) settle for less than what they're worth and then when a situation blows up in their face, they're left wondering why. The answer was there the whole time. Asking for or considering compromise is fine, if you're being honest with yourself first. That means being brave enough to admit to yourself what you want and need in a relationship, and then communicating those things with the people you get involved with. Nothing wrong with having hard limits and sticking to them. Nothing wrong with having soft limits and being willing to bend on them. As long as those limits are communicated in a timely manner without the ambiguity and a hefty dose of honesty. JMO.