The idea of “love languages” makes a lot of sense. Two people may love each other, yet have a disconnect on communicating that love because they express and perceive love in different ways. However, I’ve always felt that the standard set of love languages (from the original book by Gary Chapman) shouldn’t be taken as the definitive or canonical set.
The original five are the following:
- words of affirmation
- quality time
- gifts
- acts of service
- physical touch
As an initial quibble, I think gifts and acts of service are kind of two versions of the same thing, and it would also kind of make as much sense to split physical touch into sexual and non-sexual (in the context of spouse-type relationships). But the bigger issue is the ones that are missing.
“Not trying to change the other person” is a big one that a friend of mine mentioned to me a few years ago.
Particularly in an LDS cultural context, loving the person you think your partner (or other family member) can be is seen as just as good (or better) than loving the person they are.
It reminds me of a line from the song “Didn’t we love him?” (from Saturday’s Warrior), where the son (Jimmy) sings “Can’t they love me for the person that I am?” — but then he undercuts it in the next line by singing “love me in spite of me”.
I get that the point is the he’s being humble and wants his parents to love him even though he’s not perfect. But, duh, nobody’s perfect. I would rather he sing: “love me because of me.” Love me because the person who I am is a great person with lots of awesome unique qualities. Don’t love me in spite of the fact that, really, you wish I were different.
The flip side of the same love language is a willingness to be influenced by the other person. I thought of this when reading about a study a few decades ago showing that wives are typically willing to influenced by their husbands but it doesn’t tend to go both ways.
If you love someone, and you think highly of that person, then you will naturally see their ideas, insights, interests, and opinions as a source of enrichment — not as some annoyance that you need to patiently listen to them blather about.
I’m not suggesting that it’s good to lose your identity completely in your partner’s identity nor that you need to love/believe everything that your partner loves/believes. But it’s a bad sign if you can’t point to at least one thing that has become a big part of your life that was originally introduced to you by your partner, whether it is an idea/insight/opinion or an activity/hobby or some content such as an artist or style of music, film, books, visual arts, etc.
This latest “love language” is especially important when talking about a parent/child relationship. When children are small, their parents naturally exert a huge influence on their ideas, opinions, likes, and dislikes. But as the kids become adults, wise parents should want to see the influence start flowing in the other direction.
As a parent of kids who are now in their early 20s, I find that being open to their interests enriches my life and helps keep young at heart, rather than turning into the proverbial old codger shaking my cane at those damn kids to get off my lawn.
I think both of these two new love languages I’m proposing represent ways of loving the other person for who they are. But maybe there’s some additional, completely different dimension to expression of love that I’m missing…?
Has anyone else thought about this and come up with anything else?
I don’t think I can count the number of times I’d heard that “love the person you think they could be” theme in church settings. Very damaging. Also, losing the desire to influence (or flat-out control) is key in any truly loving relationship. Both points well put.
I remember as a child hearing a sort of hippie era refrain: ““If you love something set it free. If it comes back it’s yours. If it doesn’t it was never yours to begin with.” If memory serves, it was on a poster featuring a man releasing a butterfly. Corny, yes. But also true. The toxic idea that love equals control is disturbingly common.
Fantastic post!
I love both these two additional types of love language! We’ve all wanted to tell someone (spouse, parent, friend…) “Stop trying to change me into someone else!”
I once told my doctor who was unhappy I’d refused one of his suggestions, “Doc, you need to treat the patient you have, not the patient you wish you had.”
My husband was open to that idea, and we now have a policy of “accepting the husband we have, not the husband we wish we had.”
I also think back on my long-term relationships often, reflecting on what I gained from each partner. From Harvis, I gained Judaism and the courage to go back to school and earn a Biology degree. From Tom, I gained Paris and Seattle, a city I would not have considered moving to otherwise. From Gary, I gained way too many things to list, including socialism.
The “not trying to change someone” is a major love language that absolutely must be on the list. I suppose we all prefer some types of love language over others, but I need all 7 of these.
I spoke to an LDS friend several years ago and asked how her husband was doing. She got a disgusted look on her face and said, “He’s still alive, isn’t he?”
They’ve been together decades despite the many conflicts they’ve had. (A bit TMI, but she told me she’s refused physical intimacy with him for at least the past 20 years.) But despite all that, she won’t divorce because she wants to be with him “for eternity.”
Why? You don’t even like him. But she’s expecting him to miraculously morph into an incredible being upon his death, so she wants to stick it out and get that prize of a different husband in the same (but perfected) body later. A prime example of the LDS idea of love.
Nice post!
Just being interested is a love language too, being into something, or open to something because your loved one is. I’ve found it opens doors to all sorts of lovely surprises and also help explore differences
There *is* something to believing in another’s potential, but hanging out *because* of that potential can be warping, per Johnny’s example
Just to clarify, I think it’s good to believe in someone’s potential if it’s a case of believing along with them in their own dreams. For example, if your partner is an aspiring musician, and you believe that they are talented and deserve to hit the big time, then that’s fantastic!!
By contrast, it’s a problem if your dream version of your loved one is something that they don’t even want for themselves (e.g. to be a faithful believer if they’re not, etc.).
Another person wrote me privately with two more great suggested love languages:
– Listen to me. Don’t just hear me – try to understand me. I’m not expecting concurrence. If you just try to understand me, even if you disagree with me, you are succeeding in this love language.
– Tell me the truth. Don’t try to placate me. Don’t sugar-coat things. Even if there is a risk that honesty will turn me away, don’t try to mislead me.
What do you think?