April 26, 2004

Don't give me love - just make me laugh, please

Paul Newman was recently asked how he and Joanne Woodward have lasted so long, what was the secret to their long marriage.

His answer: "We have a lot of laughter, and a lot of lust."

Best. Answer. Ever.

I love that the word "love" is not mentioned. Not that I'm against "love" or anything, as an idea. I just dislike the word, and don't agree with it being used in any meaningful way as an emotion. I don't think of love as an emotion. I think of it more as an action, something that you DO. If I hook up with someone and you ask me why, I will probably not say, "Because I love them so much." That's not a reason. It's not real. (At least it's not for me.) Love isn't something that stands on its own. It actually is a stand-in word for other things: shared humor, passion for the same things, being able to talk to someone, feeling safe with someone, whatever.

But "love"? If ever there was an over-used word, it's "love".

Give me a lot of laughter, and a lot of lust - and I'd probably call that "love" too.

Posted by sheila
Comments

I like the "laughter" response. I think too many people underestimate how important that is, in all relationships.

Posted by: Emily at April 26, 2004 12:10 PM

I think you're right - love is really a shorthand reference to a collection of other things, other emotions. When people try to elevate it into an entity entirely unto itself, problems usually ensue. That's how so many folks end up being "in love" with a person who makes them feel bad - the idea of being in love got divorced at some point from the positive constituent elements that should comprise it.

Laughter is important not only because it's an enjoyable activity, but moreso because the ability to maintain one's sense of humor throughout life's ups and downs is a crucial element (probably the most crucial element) in getting along with someone else over a long period of time.

Posted by: MikeR at April 26, 2004 12:45 PM

I vote for "the most important element".

I think couples develop their own internal comedy routines over time - little bits of shared material that they either laugh at, or become something they laugh at over time.

When people lose that ability - or when someone does something that can't be laughed at eventually - it's really just a matter of time.

I remember when my marriage started to crater - feeling that "someday we WON'T laugh at all this". Still loved my ex (in a wierd way), and lust never dies, but I knew that what was going on would never be something we'd chuckle about with the kids and our friends. Game over.

Good post, Ms. O'Malley.

Posted by: mitch at April 26, 2004 12:50 PM

Mitch - interesting. Yes, I know just what you're talking about.

Posted by: red at April 26, 2004 1:10 PM

Oh, and even though the "love" may have fallen apart with the first boyfriend - we still laugh like crazy whenever we see each other - Our comedy routines continue.

Weird.

Posted by: red at April 26, 2004 1:21 PM

I remember Kimber(our acting teacher) asked an actor what the relationship was in the scene..the actor replied..I love her..Kimber said love and 5 cents won't even get you a cup of coffee and that Love is "needs fulfilled". I've always remebered that...when our needs are fulfilled we feel love.

Posted by: Mitchell at April 26, 2004 3:55 PM

Mitchell,

Kimber certainly had his moments and "love is needs fulfilled" has come back into my mind time and time again.

I remember him asking the class what love was. And everyone was giving altruistic responses. "When you care more about that person than you care about yourself..."

And Kimber, puffing on his pipe, said, "No. Love is needs fulfilled. And that's it."

I guess I've come to the conclusion that that's kind of true, as selfish as it may sound. Love is the sensation of having all your needs fulfilled. It may be an illusion - but that's why people fall in love with assholes, on occasion. (Not that I would know anything about THAT - I'm just talking about what I've heard from others.)

Posted by: red at April 26, 2004 4:00 PM

A gay friend of mine claims he slept with Paul Newman, and that Newman is notorious for inviting young men to come see his "pool". Could be another one of these gay Hollywood myths, and gayboys tend to be fabulists as well as fabulous, but he did provide a certain amount of telling detail.

I have another gay friend who claims to have slept with Matthew Broderick - twice. It's kind of a theme of gay life, either sleeping with or pretending to have slept with famous men. Another friend of mine heard an answering machine message from "Matthew", and thinks Tony is telling the truth about him. But I don't know. I do wonder when I see pictures of MB and SJP and their baby.

Posted by: Anne at April 26, 2004 4:05 PM

Anne,

I guess I'm not sure what your point is with that comment.


Posted by: red at April 26, 2004 4:17 PM

Well, that Paul Newman may have been protesting too much about "lust."

Posted by: Anne at April 26, 2004 4:24 PM

Oh. Well, I have no idea if the rumors are true or not - it's very easy to start rumors, obviously. However, I love the comment, and it's something I hope to have in my life someday. A nice balance of laughter and lust.

Posted by: red at April 26, 2004 4:27 PM

Sorry. Didn't mean to rain on the laughter/lust parade. Does sound good.

Posted by: Anne at April 26, 2004 4:37 PM

Love is "needs fulfilled".

Brilliant comment. As for falling for assholes, my own harsh experience has taught me to make sure the correct needs are being fulfilled. OR to make sure what is beibg fulfilled is even a need at all.

Posted by: Dan at April 26, 2004 5:14 PM

Right, Dan. Like: "Do I really NEED to have someone calling me at 3 am, in a tormented mess, needing me to bail him out?? Is that a NEED that must be fulfilled? or..."

Posted by: red at April 26, 2004 5:17 PM

Last time I checked, Kimber was single. Another one of my "To Don't" list entries. Sorry, Sheila and Mitchell. I know you like him. I just always found him pompous.

Posted by: Beth at April 26, 2004 10:32 PM

Beth..i never liked him and the feeling was mutual..but that comment did always ring true.

Posted by: Mitchell at April 26, 2004 10:48 PM

Nah, not the bail thing, something more seductive. I'm thinking of the kind of person who say, flatters endlessly (Wow! You're so wonderfull!) while simultaneously not accepting who you are and trying to change you.

Oh hell, I'm rambling and making no sense. Suffice it to say some folks stroke the ego while exacting a high price on the sly.

Posted by: Dan at April 27, 2004 12:25 AM

Love is "needs fulfilled" hits me as correct, but partial. Also kind of laundry list-ish. Companionship? Check. Validation? Check. Get to the end of the list with all the boxes checked, it must be love. It is needs fulfilled, plus.

It strikes me the same as the tired old definition of pornography......I can't define it, but I know it when I see it.

A bit of a newspaper column I remember: the writer is accompanying a friend, an older gentleman, on a trip to visit the man's wife at a care facility. She has Alzheimers, and hasn't recognized him for some years. They pull in to the parking lot, the old guy tilts the rear-view mirror, checks himself, and pulls out his comb to comb his hair, and straightens his shirt collar before going in.

The friends that I have had in my life for years, and that I love, are now part of my internal wiring. They are part of the pathways my thoughts go.

Just a lost Cub fan who missed the off ramp at Big Stupid Tommy's.

And a post on love following a post on war. All's fair, I guess.

Posted by: jackstraw at April 27, 2004 1:59 AM

Mitchell- I never knew!! Hmmm....

Posted by: Beth at April 27, 2004 9:44 AM

Love is "needs fulfilled" hits me as correct, but partial.

Picky picky. What, you want a complete definition of love? What are you, nuts?? :)

Posted by: red at April 27, 2004 10:00 AM

And I don't care if Kimber is single. Plenty of single people have wise words to say on love. Perhaps because they aren't actually IN love and so have more objectivity.

"Love is needs fulfilled" always struck me as true, and has gotten me through a lot of weird-ass times.

Posted by: red at April 27, 2004 10:01 AM

Sheila- I have no illusions that single people don't know anything about love. You know how strong my dislike for that man is- I just find it amusing that a man that I consider to be so bitter and sarastic and unpleasant have an opinion on love. Immature of me? Maybe. Probably. It just seemed a little smarmy to me. But know that I didn't mean to offend ALL single people. Just him.

Posted by: Beth at April 27, 2004 3:51 PM

Beth...he is a crotchety old poop..to be sure..but a smart one..i guess

Posted by: Mitchell at April 28, 2004 2:24 AM

I always had a crush on Kimber.

Posted by: jean at April 28, 2004 3:17 PM

jean - HAHA

Was it kind of like a David-Worthen's-cleats crush?

Posted by: red at April 28, 2004 3:23 PM

Jean- why did you have a crush on David Worthen's cleats? Eww...

Posted by: Beth at April 28, 2004 10:42 PM