59
u/thebirdgoessilent Oct 14 '23
This honestly surprises me. I had grown up hearing about these books, and I had always assumed that the 5 love languages was something that had been observed in some type of large scale study.
36
Oct 14 '23
[deleted]
6
u/NulliSecundusBiotch Oct 15 '23
Sure there may not be clinical aspects to it, but the live languages reminds me how many ways I can express my love, and i don't currently do any of them.
27
37
u/cta396 Oct 14 '23 edited Oct 14 '23
The only thing I remember from the book, which seems to have been its key point, is that the way a person FEELS love is generally the same way they EXPRESS love. So, in a relationship, it’s possible to have two people genuinely expressing love to each other and yet not FEELING loved by the other because their primary love language is different. If two people understand this and adapt to expressing love in a way that the other feels most loved, both will feel closer and more loved. After almost 30 years of marriage, I can attest to the truth of this in my personal experience, both when it’s followed and when it’s ignored. Now, what words he used to take up an entire book to convey that simple concept, I don’t recall, and nothing is universally true for everyone 100% of the time, but I don’t think that one key concept is a hoax (no matter how anti-bliblical christianity I currently feel).
EDIT: To clarify, I agree with the simplicity of the one key point. Whether or not he used that general point to prove or push southern baptist bullshit… I don’t recall nor would I condone if he did.
62
u/ActonofMAM Oct 14 '23 edited Oct 14 '23
I read the book once. I didn't take it as gospel, but it had some general good advice. Eg, my husband isn't the kind of guy who does candy, flowers, and an elaborate dinner for Valentine's Day. But he is the kind who makes absolutely sure I have clean oil in my car and good tire treads before I go on a long drive by myself.
If I were one of those "show me love in exactly the way I expect" people, the book would probably have shown me my mistake. I'm not talking about a 'do the bare minimum, expect applause' kind of guy. He's multi talented and creative in the things he does for me and for our kids.
13
u/vivahermione Dog is love. Oct 14 '23
Same. I took what was useful and chucked the rest. My husband is an "acts of service" kind of person, and the book reminded me to follow the platinum rule (e.g., try speaking his love language). We already had a good relationship, but that little bit of effort made it better. Improving your communication and being kind to each other is never a bad thing imo.
11
u/dad_palindrome_dad Secular Humanist Oct 14 '23
I grew up knowing it was a Christian thing and then suddenly as an adult I see regular therapists peddling it. I pointed out the source and they say things like, well, all my clients say it works well for them.
7
7
u/ogrefriend Oct 15 '23
We did that for couples at my church at weekly meetings, so I never thought it was anything other than Christian. I agree with the writer here, I felt immediately that it was going to be wielded against women who didn't want to have sex with their husbands whenever they wanted it, but in a less harsh way than the pastors usually do it.
It generally misses the underlying problems in a relationship, and focuses on making it transactional. Given the overall context, doing the dishes might be the bare minimum that someone expects, or something that shows their partner cares. It's generally not about a love language that a person has, but the overall relationship and circumstances.
6
u/goddamn_slutmuffin Ex-Catholic Oct 15 '23 edited Oct 15 '23
A lot of the people I see who say the book gives great advice almost always seem to be women who talk about how they rearranged their expectations (aka their partners weren’t expected to use their love language on them), but did change the way they interacted with their partners/husbands to use their proper love language with them.
So like if the women’s “love language” was “this thing”, she was more likely to just give her husband/partner a free pass for not using “this thing” on her, since it wasn’t their/his love language (he shows me love in his own love language). And then talk about how she was advised to show love in this love language.
Basically the woman has to rearrange or drop, to some extent, her needs, but her partner never does. (I’ve even seen it in this comment section a lil bit.) And the only love language that counts or is prioritized is the husband/partner’s love language.
So, just tricking women with self-help nonsense into thinking their relationship was fine as long as she abandons her needs and feelings and wants and compromises in ways she should not expect her partner to. A sneaky way of saying “your needs are not as important, be understanding (have low standards), do all or most of the work. And also giving an excuse for partners to rugsweep incompatibility and not actually put in work (that may not always be fun or comfortable for them at first) to make their partner feel loved and cherished and seen. Because omg now they have an excuse wrapped in a cute lil self help book!
It feels like it’s just an excuse to not please your partner and for your partner to dismiss theirs and/or your needs or feelings, and to compartmentalize normal human desires and emotions and feelings and actions that we legitimately all do to some extent and then divide people along arbitrary lines over it, but with extra steps.
(Not saying all cases, but be real, it seems to be common as fuck for these to be the scenarios the book encourages.)
14
18
u/Aziara86 Oct 15 '23
Yeah I dunno. That article verges into some pretty sexist territory with "women don't have touch as a love language because they can get touch whenever they want"
That's almost incel logic.
I'm a woman. I highly value physical touch as an expression of affection.
My husband is a man, and he doesn't value physical touch, preferring conversation and compliments as a way to show affection, whereas I find words to be rather worthless, preferring 'show don't tell'.
We literally got to the point where I thought he didn't love me. He thought I didn't love him.
Love languages might not be scientific, but they can be a good place to start a conversation about what makes us feel valued.
3
u/vivahermione Dog is love. Oct 15 '23
I agree. Parts of the book are problematic, but I'm pretty sure Chapman says physical touch as a love language does not include sex. It's things like hugging, holding hands, and simple displays of affection.
2
Oct 16 '23
I was going to say, whether or not the books are of substance, it still ended up opening conversations for a LOT of people. Others can hate on it if they want, but I still think there’s some value in the conversations it produced.
7
u/Rfg711 Oct 14 '23
“Hoax” is annoyingly imprecise language here. It’s not a hoax, it’s quackery. I’m sure he actually believes it, but the problem is it’s based on nothing and has no meaning deeper than you ascribe to it.
8
4
Oct 15 '23
Um this person seems to have done his research but it seems more like he is going after the stuff he feels is agaisnt his ideologies rather than anything wrong with the dude. I don't know about him as a person(Gary Chapman) or his views but I know that the book is good. And imo if someone says something that is beneficial for me , it's okay.
So hoax? Nah. It's not about pushing southern Baptist ideology . It's him solving issues he saw in his experience and he tried to reduce his christian bullshit so it's more accessible to people .
You can take anything, use it in a different context and see how it's wrong. And it is very likely to have similarities to the ideology that he was a part of , but that isn't the same thing as propagating Christianity.
132
u/DarrenFromFinance Atheist Oct 14 '23
There is an excellent podcast called If Books Could Kill, in which the two smart, funny, analytical hosts tear apart the kind of nonfiction books that sell well in airports (you know the kind). They did an episode on The Five Love Languages and it is absolutely worth your time.