Dating

220 readers

1 users here now

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

gaysbestfriend

The “love languages” are a hoax by a Southern Baptist pastor (archive.ph)

submitted 1 year ago by ooli to c/dating

8 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 8 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] Live_your_lives 9 points 1 year ago (1 children)

From what I understand, being someone who runs in Christian circles, the basic idea of "love languages" wasn't ever really intended to be some sort of final word or taken as hard science as the author of this article seems to think. Instead, it's meant to be a useful way of looking at things to help people understand their partners and their own needs better and how to communicate with them. You could probably still call it pseudoscience with the way some people treat it but I don't see how it's fair to implicate the writer of the five love languages as being a conman cause it probably was never really intended to be science in the first place.

That being said, I haven't actually read the book for myself, only having heard him on radio interviews and elsewhere, and I haven't thoroughly read this article, so it's entirely possible I'm just missing something. I also agree that calling him "Dr." without clarification is misleading.

[–] alvvayson 18 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I read the book back when it was just one book and not a whole franchise.

It was a good book. The basic premise was: early in relationships, love is abundant and you're meeting each others needs on every level. Later on, you will grow into routines and will need to be more thoughtful to keep the spark alive. That starts with understanding what is important for your partner. Maybe you don't care for receiving gifts, but your partner does, so give them gifts. You might appreciate one-on-one time more, so ask your partner for that. And if you both happen to love physical touch, then make sure to invest in that.

Defining the five love languages was obviously a best effort attempt to make it understandable and memorable.

It wasn't dogmatic. The premise was that everyone speaks all five love languages, but people also tend to have one or two that are more important for them.

I am no longer a Christian, but I still agree with these basic premises. Although I now prefer more general terms like "being on the same frequency" or "knowing how the other person ticks".

Too many dumb people now apply the five love languages way to simplistically. Seems they are also milking it for all they can.

[–] lmaydev 5 points 1 year ago

Yeah my therapist recommended it as a good way to get a general read on what's more important to you/your partner.

Definitely not to be taken as strict definitions.

Most people like all of them but some are more important than others.

[–] PlanetOfOrd 2 points 1 year ago

I did listen to the book in my small group.

The writing style was very basic...it was obviously geared for all readers. The insights to me weren't world-shattering or thought-provoking.

And it did seem to be sided toward men. Which is understandable since the author is a man. A better approach probably would have been having a husband/wife duo write the book to get different perspectives.

I don't think the point of the book was as a horoscope: "These are my love languages...what are yours?" But the point was basically to communicate and respect each other.

Yeah, one thing I find annoying is "men say their #1 love language is physical touch because all they want is sex." True that women I'm sure can get physical touch easily. Chapman did make the point in a chapter to separate physical touch from sex. For me, that's the case. I'm going to wait for sex until marriage. Physical touch is my love language, and I often feel it's lacking. I love hugs...from men, women, friends, family, people I'm dating or not dating...everyone. Has nothing to do with sex, but I think a lot of men get this confused.

[–] Nobody 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Love languages have always seemed like excuses for bad behavior in relationships. You treat me well, but I have this extra essential requirement because “That’s my love language.” Honestly good gestures get minimized because you didn’t know the secret code.

My love language is being a decent human being. It’s a universal language.

[–] lmaydev 5 points 1 year ago

Valuing certain things more isn't bad behaviour.

For some people getting/giving gifts is a huge thing, while others don't care so much.

Some people like actions while some just like time together.

It's fine to value things differently. And what you're talking about is exactly what the book covers.

You value things differently and view their not feeling the same as bad behaviour.

[–] Orbituary 2 points 1 year ago

I've always hated this. More than astrology signs. It's arbitrary as fuck.

[–] Kyrgizion 1 points 1 year ago

It basically just boils down to "communicate, motherfucker".

You'd be surprised how often this is the crack that leads to eventual failure.