Five love languages aren’t enough

In 2005, a guy with an obsession for the number five wrote a book called “The Five Love Languages.”

The premise of the book is pretty straightforward, and in hindsight reasonable; different people express love and affection in different ways. The author, Gary Chapman, went on to start an entire empire around the notion, and has even trademarked the phrase “five love languages™”. Since then, he’s continued on to explore the number five in other aspects of human interpersonal relationships; there’s a new book out or coming out or something called “The Five Languages of Apology.”

Which is all well and good, as far as it goes, but I’m a little skeptical about the number five. Why would there be five different ways to express love and also five different ways to apologize? Why not four or six or seventeen? Is it because five is half of ten, and we human beings have a deep sense of emotional resonance with the number ten? Is it because the number five has some sort of magical connection with the ways we interact with each other? Is it just a load of bollocks, and five happened to be the number of ways that Mr. Chapman could think up off the top of his head?

I suspect the answer is the latter. According to Chapman, the five l”love languages”–the five ways that people express love for one another–are words of affirmation, spending quality time together, giving or receiving gifts, giving or receiving acts of service, and physical touch.

And to be fair, there’s some merit in that list. I know people who express affection in each of those ways, and for someone whose preferred way of expressing affection is, say, through words of affirmation, giving gifts might not be as effective. (I personally don’t care much for gifts, giving or receiving, but physical touch is very important to me.)

Problem is, I think that folks have built a religion around the notion that there are exactly five and only five love languages, and I think the reality is that the list is woefully incomplete. There are at least three more that are important to me, and I bet there are still more important to other people.

The three that are missing for me are:

Creating together. This is not the same as “quality time.” It is, instead, the act of bringing another person into the process of making something new, which for me is an extraordinarily intimate thing. When I have created something with someone, I am quite likely to feel much greater intimacy for that person; the birthing of something new is something that’s powerful to me, and sharing it is an expression of love.

The thing itself, once created, becomes a tangible representation of that love. There’s something incredibly powerful in being able to see and touch and hold a thing that would not have existed save for the act of will I’ve shared with another person in bringing it to life.

Nesting together. I would not have guessed this about myself before I moved to Portland. The making of a shared space with zaiah has been something that I feel very strongly about. It’s not an expression if love in the creation of the space, although there’s something of that in there as well; it’s about having that space, which I share with a partner, that carries with it each of our unique signatures.

I’ve lived with partners before, and even built a house with a partner, but that was different; those spaces did not carry our own personal touches the way the home I’m building now does.

Sex. Anyone who thinks that “sex” is merely a spacial case of “physical touch” doesn’t have sex the way I do. Past a certain point, physical touch alone isn’t enough to carry the day. There is a unique kind of vulnerability in sex that is absent from any other kind of touch, and that unique vulnerability, at least for me, carries a tremendous ability to create intimacy.

Note that “sex” in this context does not necessarily imply sticking tab A into slot B. Sex is highly contextual; in the right context, whipping is sex. It’s not the slippery bits touching; it’s the thing that we become when I’m sharing sexual intimacy with a partner, or partners. When I have sex, especially good sex, I let down barriers that other sorts of touch don’t pass through.

And, like I said, I bet there are others as well that Mr. Chapman, in his near-religious fixation on the number five, has missed. Got any more? I want to hear ’em!

30 thoughts on “Five love languages aren’t enough

  1. That list of five is sorely lacking.

    Maybe it just speaks of my character, or my particular life circumstances, but why are all the ways of expressing love so sweet-and-cuddly? What happened to “kicking ass that needs to be kicked” – like when I put my foot down and convinced Steven seek help for his alcoholism? Or does Chapman lump all that into “acts of service” along with simple favors like doing laundry and running errands?

    And why limit “love” to romantic love? What about the love I feel for my son, which is expressed through creating security, structure, and routine. Or the platonic love I feel for my best friend, which is often expressed through the telling of the unpleasant but necessary truths that my friend refuses to recognize on his own?

    And the oh-so-ignored concept of self-love, which I express daily through my take-no-shit attitude and the act of cutting psychic vampires out of my life?

    • Actually, Chapman goes on to write other books that discuss “love” in other contexts, such as the love for a parent to child, between siblings, and even between co-workers.

      That’s why, in spite of the fact that his system is limited to 5, I continue to recommend the book as *one tool among many* in the communication tool box. One need not limit oneself to only 5 languages, as long as one learns the more important lesson, which is that people express love and feel loved in different ways and learning to identify those ways and communicate them to one’s loved ones is important in building relationships. Of all kinds.

  2. That list of five is sorely lacking.

    Maybe it just speaks of my character, or my particular life circumstances, but why are all the ways of expressing love so sweet-and-cuddly? What happened to “kicking ass that needs to be kicked” – like when I put my foot down and convinced Steven seek help for his alcoholism? Or does Chapman lump all that into “acts of service” along with simple favors like doing laundry and running errands?

    And why limit “love” to romantic love? What about the love I feel for my son, which is expressed through creating security, structure, and routine. Or the platonic love I feel for my best friend, which is often expressed through the telling of the unpleasant but necessary truths that my friend refuses to recognize on his own?

    And the oh-so-ignored concept of self-love, which I express daily through my take-no-shit attitude and the act of cutting psychic vampires out of my life?

  3. Actually, Chapman goes on to write other books that discuss “love” in other contexts, such as the love for a parent to child, between siblings, and even between co-workers.

    That’s why, in spite of the fact that his system is limited to 5, I continue to recommend the book as *one tool among many* in the communication tool box. One need not limit oneself to only 5 languages, as long as one learns the more important lesson, which is that people express love and feel loved in different ways and learning to identify those ways and communicate them to one’s loved ones is important in building relationships. Of all kinds.

  4. Actually, his list isn’t limited to 5. I’ve read the book and in each chapter he states that each of the “5” is really just a general cover for lots of different styles of communications that are similar. I like this particular book as long as I tune out the overtly fundamentalist christian overtones. He has some good points and some good exercises in them. One must remember that he is writing to the general public and not those of us who are more in tune with our own feelings and needs as well as those we love.

    I also tried listening to his podcasts, tried being the operative word here. Gods but the southern fundamentalism comes through VERY strong.

  5. Actually, his list isn’t limited to 5. I’ve read the book and in each chapter he states that each of the “5” is really just a general cover for lots of different styles of communications that are similar. I like this particular book as long as I tune out the overtly fundamentalist christian overtones. He has some good points and some good exercises in them. One must remember that he is writing to the general public and not those of us who are more in tune with our own feelings and needs as well as those we love.

    I also tried listening to his podcasts, tried being the operative word here. Gods but the southern fundamentalism comes through VERY strong.

  6. I’ll add “Playing Together”.

    I’m not referring to kink, but to the act of engaging in joyful, non-productive, common activity. For me, play can be something like coloring, doing a jigsaw puzzle, building something with LEGOs, climbing a tree, and swinging on swings. It can also be something more conventional, like engaging in a sport together (particularly cooperative sports like rock climbing or boating or hunting), or (more likely among my cohort) playing a video game.

    The key elements for me seem to be cooperative (rather than competitive) play with no “grown up” productivity involved. What I have to show for it when it’s all over is the memory of the time spent, and maybe a high-score, a new feat achieved, or something which could be broken back down into its components for future enjoyment.

    As said, this could be interpreted under the umbrella of “Quality Time”, but it is a very distinct subset, much like “Creating Together”. For me, intimate relationships which don’t include play don’t feel complete. I also tend to reserve play for those with whom I’m intimate, because I tend to feel very vulnerable while I’m at play.

  7. I’ll add “Playing Together”.

    I’m not referring to kink, but to the act of engaging in joyful, non-productive, common activity. For me, play can be something like coloring, doing a jigsaw puzzle, building something with LEGOs, climbing a tree, and swinging on swings. It can also be something more conventional, like engaging in a sport together (particularly cooperative sports like rock climbing or boating or hunting), or (more likely among my cohort) playing a video game.

    The key elements for me seem to be cooperative (rather than competitive) play with no “grown up” productivity involved. What I have to show for it when it’s all over is the memory of the time spent, and maybe a high-score, a new feat achieved, or something which could be broken back down into its components for future enjoyment.

    As said, this could be interpreted under the umbrella of “Quality Time”, but it is a very distinct subset, much like “Creating Together”. For me, intimate relationships which don’t include play don’t feel complete. I also tend to reserve play for those with whom I’m intimate, because I tend to feel very vulnerable while I’m at play.

  8. Why five?

    There are five dimensions of personality which gradually arose through mathematical factor analysis of personality profiles; there even were 16 at one point (Cattell’s PF16) but further analysis reduced those down to the same Big Five: Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits

    I imagine there are five love languages because there are five dimensions personality can vary across; the number does not seem arbitrary to me with a psychology background.

  9. Why five?

    There are five dimensions of personality which gradually arose through mathematical factor analysis of personality profiles; there even were 16 at one point (Cattell’s PF16) but further analysis reduced those down to the same Big Five: Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Five_personality_traits

    I imagine there are five love languages because there are five dimensions personality can vary across; the number does not seem arbitrary to me with a psychology background.

  10. The categories of love languages are certainly fuzzy and have overlaps. I like to think of them more as traits that particular expressions of love can have (eg sex can be quality time, touch, and words of affirmation all at the
    same time) You should make it into a big Venn Diagram type chart. 🙂

    If I were to call out categories that are not explicitly addressed by the five love languages, I’d point out:
    – Teaching (It contains elements of quality time and acts of service)
    – Tough love (eg interventions, getting someone into rehab)
    – Therapy (playing the role of therapist for someone as they’re going through a difficult time… this isn’t quite words of affirmation though it often contains them. Sometimes it’s problem-solving or just listening)

  11. The categories of love languages are certainly fuzzy and have overlaps. I like to think of them more as traits that particular expressions of love can have (eg sex can be quality time, touch, and words of affirmation all at the
    same time) You should make it into a big Venn Diagram type chart. 🙂

    If I were to call out categories that are not explicitly addressed by the five love languages, I’d point out:
    – Teaching (It contains elements of quality time and acts of service)
    – Tough love (eg interventions, getting someone into rehab)
    – Therapy (playing the role of therapist for someone as they’re going through a difficult time… this isn’t quite words of affirmation though it often contains them. Sometimes it’s problem-solving or just listening)

  12. I’ve never cottoned to the whole “five love languages” thing, because all of those things (including the ones you mentioned) are important to me as well, though of course some more than others. I think it’s just psychobabble designed to sell books, honestly.

  13. I’ve never cottoned to the whole “five love languages” thing, because all of those things (including the ones you mentioned) are important to me as well, though of course some more than others. I think it’s just psychobabble designed to sell books, honestly.

  14. He’s just lumping a lot of things together. He probably doesn’t mean that there are 5 ways, it’s just his way to structure the huge variety of love expressions. Other structures can be just as valid.

    For me, for example, special kinds of conversation are tremendously important, but in his classification it would fall under “quality time”, just as sex would fall under physical touch. In order to see if he really got it wrong, we have to know what he did next with the categories, or how he defined the things within.

  15. He’s just lumping a lot of things together. He probably doesn’t mean that there are 5 ways, it’s just his way to structure the huge variety of love expressions. Other structures can be just as valid.

    For me, for example, special kinds of conversation are tremendously important, but in his classification it would fall under “quality time”, just as sex would fall under physical touch. In order to see if he really got it wrong, we have to know what he did next with the categories, or how he defined the things within.

  16. I think that’s a very good point. It’s valuable to realize not everyone expresses love the way you do (I don’t nest together, and I’ve just realized recently that’s a deal-breaker for a “real” relationship), but there are definitely more than five. Thanks always for starting me thinking again on things I’d once thought about but haven’t in a while…

    • “real” relationship

      (I don’t nest together, and I’ve just realized recently that’s a deal-breaker for a “real” relationship):

      I am sorry that is a deal breaker for someone. My primary and I love each other most for *accepting* we work best by not living together. Since everything changes and grows, that may not always be the case, but that is where we are right now…which has allowed other relationships I never saw coming blossom into beautiful equivalencies where *everyone* is nurturing one another and learning unconditional love and acceptance.

      I (and the rest of our group) am so grateful for these journal entries and for the book. Like Chapman’s “5” books, not everything is dead on for each of us, but the book at least has given us a common language. I am grateful for the book, this site, and all the intelligent and well-thought out responses…so nice to be insulated from knee-jerk reactions.

  17. I think that’s a very good point. It’s valuable to realize not everyone expresses love the way you do (I don’t nest together, and I’ve just realized recently that’s a deal-breaker for a “real” relationship), but there are definitely more than five. Thanks always for starting me thinking again on things I’d once thought about but haven’t in a while…

  18. “real” relationship

    (I don’t nest together, and I’ve just realized recently that’s a deal-breaker for a “real” relationship):

    I am sorry that is a deal breaker for someone. My primary and I love each other most for *accepting* we work best by not living together. Since everything changes and grows, that may not always be the case, but that is where we are right now…which has allowed other relationships I never saw coming blossom into beautiful equivalencies where *everyone* is nurturing one another and learning unconditional love and acceptance.

    I (and the rest of our group) am so grateful for these journal entries and for the book. Like Chapman’s “5” books, not everything is dead on for each of us, but the book at least has given us a common language. I am grateful for the book, this site, and all the intelligent and well-thought out responses…so nice to be insulated from knee-jerk reactions.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.