One of my favorite podcasts is If Books Could Kill with journalist Michael Hobbes and lawyer Peter Shamshiri. They analyze and critique popular non-fiction and “airport” books that contain misleading or flawed ideas. This includes a lot of self-help books, most of which I’ve read over the years. Weirdly enough, I encountered people talking about Gary Chapman’s relationship book The Five Love Languages in multiple places within the course of a week, even though it was first published in 1992.

This is a book that has been quite popular among Mormons (maybe not quite on par with Fascinating Womanhood in the 1970s, LOL, and fortunately it’s not the train wreck that horror is). It’s written by a pastor who does not have any actual training in psychology; the book is based on his decades of counseling couples. He is also pretty committed to gender roles and stereotypes. He says that when couples experience friction, feeling unappreciated or that their needs are not being met, it’s because they have different “love languages,” and that everyone finds it easier to recognize their partner’s loving acts if they are in the language that they speak. The five “languages” he lists are:

  • Acts of Service
  • Words of Affirmation
  • Physical Touch
  • Receiving Gifts
  • Quality Time

According to Chapman, if a husband gives his wife a necklace, but she really wants more date nights, her needs are not being met. Referring to these preferences as languages helps couples open the conversation about their preferences and needs they have that are not being met. While it’s not based in anything scientific, it’s a conversation starter which is sufficient for many couples’ needs.

I remember when this book was making the rounds. My mother-in-law gave us a copy, and I had a hard time figuring out what my supposed love language was. Definitely not receiving gifts which often make me feel awkward. I probably liked words of affirmation the best, but I could see all of them being good in context.

So what’s bad about this theory? Well, quite a bit actually.

It’s BS. There’s no scientific backing to the theory, and while it’s maybe a conversation starter, the framework is not really psychologically sound.

People don’t really have a “primary” love language. We don’t really have just one way to experience love, and everything is contextual. For example, you might say that you love quality time, but when you need help you don’t want your partner talking about a special trip or date night–you want someone to unload the dishwasher for crying out loud! And, like me, you may not be big on gifts, but that doesn’t mean that a surprising, thoughtful gift wouldn’t blow you away if it was the right thing at the right time.

Preferences are not needs. Just because you appreciate someone’s help or spending time together, that doesn’t mean that if those things don’t happen you will immediately feel unloved and put the relationship in jeopardy. Additionally, once you disclose your “love language” to your partner, it can turn into a relationship test for future behavior. Consider a husband saying “I’ve told you my love language is physical touch, but you don’t want sex as much as I do!” Which brings us to…

This steers into gender stereotypes. A whole lot of men report that their primary love language is physical touch, and a whole lot of women say acts of service. That’s funny because the gender norms would say that 1) men typically want sex more than women (physical touch), and 2) men don’t do nearly as much housework as women do (acts of service). So, are we just trading sex for chores now, Pastor Chapman? Methinks you’ve just written the same book patriarchy always writes. As comedian Danitra Vance used to say “Whores do it for money. Wives do it for refrigerators.”

Entitlement and one-way accommodation. Partners can wield their “need” (which is really a preference) as a cudgel against a partner who doesn’t deliver it once that preference is disclosed. Any time the person isn’t getting their preference, it’s now (mis)identified with the partner not valuing the relationship enough to give them what they want. Instead of opening a discussion, negotiating, and considering context, each person can stake out the thing they most want (sex, help, praise, whatever) as their god-given right whenever they are not getting enough of it. Rather than smoothing over conflict through communication, it hands each partner a trump card they can play to get their way.

It romanticizes normal human behavior. Doing the dishes is not inherently romantic (didn’t both people use the dishes?), nor is fixing your tire. Some behavior is just treating others well and not being selfish; it’s not inherently romantic. Things like giving gifts, leaving romantic notes, cuddling or planning dates are things we consider romantic, and a partner may be great at those things while being completely manipulative, dismissive, unreliable, irresponsible, or even abusive. They shouldn’t get a pass for being a horrible partner because they are good at romantic gestures.

The emotional labor gap. If you claim your language is “acts of service,” what exactly do you mean? Taking care of things or anticipating my needs, managing the household, remembering everyone’s appointments and birthdays, planning vacations, etc.? Someone can wedge a whole lot of stuff into those three little words, which can be used to defend unequal division of work that grinds people down over time. That’s not romantic or sustainable.

Physical touch me! Likewise, physical touch is a minefield. Pressuring your partner into sex on demand 24×7 isn’t going to lead to a great, sustainable relationship for both partners. Refusing sex doesn’t always mean they are failing to show that they love their partner. There are many reasons someone may not want to be touched at a given time.

Communication problems. If you reduce your discussion of problems to the five love language framework, you are still going to experience the same problems you had before because they are so vague. Sometimes the real problem isn’t “acts of service” or “physical touch” but feeling unappreciated, lonely, or taken for granted. Instead of identifying and dealing with your real needs, you may be seduced into a superficial discussion that’s largely irrelevant. What if the real issue is that you lack emotional intimacy, that one or both of you feel resentment, that there is an unequal power dynamic, that there are chronic issue of irresponsibility, that there are unresolved conflicts or incompatible values? These are the types of things people go to actual marriage counselors for, and they are very common problems.

Scorekeeping. This one seems obvious but merits pointing out. Once you tell your partner the “love language” you speak, there is an expectation that every time they do that thing, they get credit for it. “I gave you a gift and you didn’t appreciate it!” becomes a whole new argument, when maybe the gift wasn’t thoughtful or was unwanted, or the person didn’t even see it as a gift. The framework can turn intimacy into a kind of relationship accounting system. Real love doesn’t work that way. We all go through different times in which we have more to give or need more from our partner.

I mentioned the If Books Could Kill episode that deals with this book, and I always find these guys entertaining, so here it is if you are interested.

Just a few questions for readers:

  • Did this book make the rounds in your ward or family when it came out? Do you think Mormons are drawn to these types of books?
  • If you’ve read it, did you find it helpful? Problematic?
  • Are there other relationship or self-help books that were popular in Mormon circles that you can think of? How did they stack up? (I’m planning another post on The Secret, so put a pin in that one). Any special requests?

Discuss.