My ex-wife Darlene — back when we were still married — firmly believed in ‘love languages’.
She asserted that her ‘love language’ was giving and receiving gifts.
This caused problems in our marriage, because Darlene had no concerns about putting expensive gifts on our credit cards. Gifts for friends, family… and occasionally even for complete strangers whom she ordained worthy of love.
I, meanwhile, had concerns. And also, I was a tightwad. Which had implications related to Darlene ‘receiving’ gifts from me. Much to her dismay.
This difference of opinions about gift-giving had become obvious in our relationship well before the arrival, in the window of the local bookstore, of a 1992 nonfiction book by Baptist minister, Dr. Gary Chapman: The Five Love Languages: How to Express Heartfelt Commitment to Your Mate.
The book assumed a prominent place on Darlene’s bookshelf. (She had purchased it as a gift to herself.) In it, Dr. Chapman outlined five general ways that romantic partners express and experience love, which he called “love languages”. As of 2013, the book had spent 297 weeks on the New York Times Best Seller list, and had sold over 20 million copies and been reprinted in 50 languages.
Dr. Chapman had obviously hit on a profitable idea, and since 1992, he has written or co-authored several related books, including The Five Love Languages of Children; The Five Love Languages for Singles; The Five Languages of Appreciation in the Workplace, and The Five Love Languages, Military Edition.
I’m especially curious about the Military Edition, because I’ve not generally considered warfare to be a “love language”. But then again, Jesus did teach us to love our enemies.
And while we’re on the topic of loving our enemies, I want to get back to my ex-wife Darlene.
Last month, a paper published in the journal Current Directions in Psychological Science reviewed the scientific literature, and concluded that core assumptions about ‘love languages’ stand upon shaky ground… unsupported by empirical evidence. Which I had been telling Darlene all along. “Where’s your empirical evidence?” I asked. She didn’t have any.
From the article ‘Does your ‘love language’ really matter? Scientists are skeptical’ by Richard Sima, in The Washington Post:
“I feel like academics haven’t really taken this seriously,” said Emily Impett, a psychologist and director of the Relationships and Well-Being Laboratory at the University of Toronto who was a co-author of the paper…
…Discovering and learning to speak your partner’s primary love language is a key tenet of Chapman’s book. But when researchers ask study participants to rate the love languages on a continuous 5-point scale, they consistently find that people tend to rate all five love languages very highly indicating that most people connect with most or all five love languages.
“In real life, we know that people often don’t need to make these kinds of trade-offs between, do you want a partner who is going to touch you versus express love in some other way,” Impett said.
I will be the first to admit that I don’t believe anything the scientists tell me, especially if it’s backed up by statistics, or worse, by a continuous 5-point scale. I’m more prone to accept the speculative ideas of a Baptist minister who operates a counseling business, and who has a bunch of anecdotal stories and an interest in military love languages.
But unfortunately, in this particular case, the scientists’ data is supporting my point of view, and the Baptist minister’s anecdotes are supporting Darlene’s point of view.
You have to know which side of your bread is buttered.
One anecdote in Dr. Chapman’s original book as particularly concerning. It’s a story about one of his counseling patients, Ann, who was unhappy in her marriage. She asked Dr. Chapman, “Is it possible to love someone whom you hate?” (I could have answered her question.)
Although Ann’s husband had never attended counseling, Dr. Chapman surmised that her husband’s primary love language was physical touch, and his secondary language was words of affirmation. Dr. Chapman advised Ann to focus her attention on those two areas for six months: give verbal affirmations but “stop all verbal complaints.” He also told her to take “more initiative in physical touch.”
Knowing full well, I assume, where physical touch is likely to lead.
In earlier print editions and the current e-book, Dr. Chapman encouraged Ann to initiate sex with her husband more often and “surprise him by being aggressive” with a goal of having sex at least once a week at first, and twice a week eventually.
In the original version of the story, Ann saw a “tremendous change” in her husband’s treatment of her… and her husband “swears to his friends that I am a miracle worker.”
The example has been revised in the 2015 print edition, however, and Dr. Chapman’s advice to Ann is to surprise her husband “by reaching out with physical gestures” like “ruffling his hair.” His advice on sex now is to “ease into this slowly.”
It’s not clear why, in the new print edition, Dr. Chapman has changed the advice he offered to Ann in 1992 — which had apparently caused a miracle — to completely different advice in 2015. But times change, and tastes change.
Sex isn’t what it used to be, for most of us.
Underrated writer Louis Cannon grew up in the vast American West, although his ex-wife, given the slightest opportunity, will deny that he ever grew up at all.