The Valentine's Day thread reminded me of it. It's written by a pastor and sold in Christian bookstores, but nothing in the book is overtly religious, IIRC. The premise is that we each have a primary "love language" when it comes to feeling loved by others.
He breaks these languages into five distinct groups: Acts of service, quality time, physical touch, receiving gifts, and words of affirmation. So, to put it in negative terms, the woman whose primary love language is physcial touch will feel rejected and unloved if her partner doesn't want to hold hands in public. The husband whose primary language is words of affirmation will feel unloved if his wife is nagging him all the time. Etc.
The book contains a lot of interesting case studies of partners who loved each other and were expressing love in their own language, but because the partner spoke a different language, neither of them felt loved. For example (made up), the acts of service wife who has a words of affirmation husband thinks he's full of hot air when he says all kinds of sweet things to her, but won't help her clean the house.
Clearly, the more of these languages we're "fluent" in, the happier we can make our partner, and we're all going to need to have some of each of them sometimes. But I was able to recognize myself pretty readily -- I'm a quality time person. If he is willing to sit down with me for a long talk, or go for a walk, or whatever, I'll feel loved, and I can take a lot of the other stuff being missing.
The Valentine's Day thread made me think of it because if your loved one is a "receiving gifts" person, then buying that card/flowers/chocolate or whatever it is will be a most important investment in your own happiness, whether you personally care about the holiday or not.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
I almost mentioned this book in the V-Day thread, actually.
Yeah, I read -- well, skimmed -- the book. It certainly didn't need to spawn sequels, but it made a good point. It explained my problems with my mother -- my language is quality time and hers is gifts. Fortunately, my husband and I both value quality time about everything else.
Posted by Uprooted (Member # 8353) on :
I agree with you on the sequels.
Posted by ReikoDemosthenes (Member # 6218) on :
I heard about this idea a few years ago from the girl I was dating at the time. I found it a very intriguing concept. I didn't realise it was a book (that or I've just since forgotten). It really is helpful to learn the love languages of people around you so that you may show them that you care. The biggest thing I've found about love languages, though, is that we need to show others that we love them both through their languages as well as ours. If I do not show a friend that I love them in their language, they do not feel it near so much as they could, and if I don't show them in my language, I feel like I have done nothing friendly at all.
Posted by Omega M. (Member # 7924) on :
Do men and women tend to have certain love languages, or are they spread out evenly within each sex?
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
We had a study on it in with our small group at church. It was interesting. My love language was acts of service, and I was very poor at giving words of affirmation.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
What does it mean if four of the five sound applicable to me? Does that mean I need a lot of lovin'?
Posted by Uprooted (Member # 8353) on :
quote: Do men and women tend to have certain love languages, or are they spread out evenly within each sex?
I don't know--the author didn't address that question. My guess would be that it's pretty even.
quote: What does it mean if four of the five sound applicable to me? Does that mean I need a lot of lovin'?
Which would make you feel worst if it were missing in a relationship? If you can come up w/ an answer to that, it's probably your primary. Also, what you end up complaining about most in a relationship.
Posted by Brinestone (Member # 5755) on :
Leonide, Chapman says that those who have consistently been loved to overflowing—as well as those who feel completely unloved—may have a hard time identifying their love language. But he suggested using the method Uprooted suggested to figure it out.
Posted by Survivor (Member # 233) on :
I think that the real problem is when two people have languages that belong to the same group but have different meanings. The wife may nag her husband because she cares about his personal welfare and doesn't want him to...say, die by falling out of a high tree. He may resent her for the implication that he's stupid enough to fall out of a high tree, particularly if her forcefully proffered advice saves his life (true story, in fact).
In other words, "You'll get hurt if you do it that way" could be interpreted in one "language" as "I care about your safety" and in another as "I think you're an incompetent fool".
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
In terms of complaining the most, i guess the quality time thing. But in terms of what i'd miss the most, it would definitely be physical touch. So i'm still undecided Posted by Survivor (Member # 233) on :
You probably say "quality time" as a way of expressing your need for physical contact (which is almost certainly a significant part of your definition of "quality time").
I think I fall mainly in the the "metatangible communication" camp. Which neatly explains why humans have never really done much to satisfy my need for affection, you generally have almost no capacity for that form of expression.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Oh, shut up.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Leonide: In terms of complaining the most, i guess the quality time thing. But in terms of what i'd miss the most, it would definitely be physical touch. So i'm still undecided
Its been a while since I read this book but I remember Chapman talking about how many people incorrectly assume that because sexual intimacy is very important to them that physical touch must be their language of love. He draws a very clear distinction between sexual intimacy and physical touch as an expression of love. He asks some questions like: Do you want to hold hands with your partner? Do you need to hug or snuggle even when they are not a prelude to sex? Do you usually touch, hug, or kiss close family and friends with whom you are not sexually intimate or does that make you feel uncomfortable?
What I gathered (and I'm not sure if this is a fair rendering of Chapman) is that if you are torn between "physical touch" and something else then something else is probably for first language.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Pretty sure how Tiffany falls into those languages but I am DEFINATELY a "words of affirmation" guy. I like the physical contacts and acts of service but if I am with just Tiffany I can't go more then a few minutes without hearing her tell me she loves me.
Fortunately for both of us if she has headphones on or otherwise cannot really hear me I don't insist on getting affirmation from her. It would be really obnoxious if I asked her to drop what she was doing to once again tell me she only loves me.
Posted by Survivor (Member # 233) on :
Maybe I'm really in the "words of disaffirmation" catagory...nah.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by Leonide: In terms of complaining the most, i guess the quality time thing. But in terms of what i'd miss the most, it would definitely be physical touch. So i'm still undecided
Its been a while since I read this book but I remember Chapman talking about how many people incorrectly assume that because sexual intimacy is very important to them that physical touch must be their language of love. He draws a very clear distinction between sexual intimacy and physical touch as an expression of love. He asks some questions like: Do you want to hold hands with your partner? Do you need to hug or snuggle even when they are not a prelude to sex? Do you usually touch, hug, or kiss close family and friends with whom you are not sexually intimate or does that make you feel uncomfortable?
What I gathered (and I'm not sure if this is a fair rendering of Chapman) is that if you are torn between "physical touch" and something else then something else is probably for first language.
Sorry to double post but I definitely see the difference between physical touch and physical intimacy.
Snuggling, nuzzling, or holding hands does not really preclude sex for me at all. I am quite content with Tiffany snuggling with me while we watch a movie and that being the end of the matter until next time.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Survivor: "metatangible" is not a proper word, you will have to explain to me what it means.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Snuggling, nuzzling, or holding hands does not really preclude sex for me at all.
It would be a very odd relationship if snuggling, nuzzling or holding hands precluded sex.
"I'm sorry dear, we've already held hands this evening so I can't make love to you tonight".
of
You great your wife with a big hug and she responds, I guess this rules out sex.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Survivor: Maybe I'm really in the "words of disaffirmation" catagory...nah.
That would explain your "whom say ye that I am?" thread.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Survivor: "metatangible" is not a proper word, you will have to explain to me what it means.
Based on the epistimology of the word, I would assume metatangible communication refers to talking about touching. Perhaps he has yet to discover phone sex, or in the light of my previous comments perhaps his looking for phone hugs.
Would ((((Survivor)))) count as metatangible communication?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Snuggling, nuzzling, or holding hands does not really preclude sex for me at all.
It would be a very odd relationship if snuggling, nuzzling or holding hands precluded sex.
"I'm sorry dear, we've already held hands this evening so I can't make love to you tonight".
of
You great your wife with a big hug and she responds, I guess this rules out sex.
I meant more that doing those things does not really make me more more in the mood or less in the mood for sex.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I meant more that doing those things does not really make me more more in the mood or less in the mood for sex.
Yeah, I figured you actually meant that snuggling ect. were not necessarily a prelude to sex and not that they don't really preclude sex. I just couldn't resist.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
quote:He draws a very clear distinction between sexual intimacy and physical touch as an expression of love. He asks some questions like: Do you want to hold hands with your partner? Do you need to hug or snuggle even when they are not a prelude to sex? Do you usually touch, hug, or kiss close family and friends with whom you are not sexually intimate or does that make you feel uncomfortable?
Yes to holding hands, hugging, snuggling with a partner, but i'm not that affectionate with my family and friends...i'll hug and kiss, but don't seek it out, generally it makes me a little uncomfortable. So i guess it's the quality time Weird how i could be so into being physically affectionate with a partner, but balk at sharing that with my other loved ones...
Posted by Survivor (Member # 233) on :
"Metatangible" isn't a proper word in most human languages because most humans simply lack the base concept, because they do not have sufficient expression of the sensory pathway associated with this form of communication.
In other words, it doesn't mean anything that you could understand even if I explained it to you, unless you can understand it without having it explained in words.
There are discussions of it in various technical vocabularies used by human communities seeking to increasing this sensory pathway in their members, but there is no point in my using those vocabularies unless you have increased your ability to sense metatangible communication to the point where you knew what I was talking about already.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
And if you don't already know why I'm angry at you, I'm certainly not going to TELL you! Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Does breakfast/dinner count as a gift or an act of service?
-pH
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
Depends on whether you paid for it, or cooked it. Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
My boyfriend is definately physical touch. I'm not sure what I am, probably quality time. I like being near him, even if we're just sitting in the same room doing our homework (or, more frequently, I'm doing my homework and he's playing Guild Wars). Is that quality time?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Mine is either quality time and/or physical touch. I love it when I can call him at any time and when he spends time with me just talking about the world, and I love holding hands. If I'm around him, I need to be touching him somewhere. I do like the rest - I like getting presents, I like hearing mushy things, and I like it when he does things for me, but those are less important than the time and touch part.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by JennaDean: Depends on whether you paid for it, or cooked it.
But isn't the act of picking it up a service?
I don't know which one I am.
-pH
Posted by Brinestone (Member # 5755) on :
I thought of an expression of love the other day that didn't neatly fit into any category.
Guy sees absolutely stunning sunset on his way home. Girl got home earlier and doesn't know about the stunning sunset. Guy comes in, says, "Honey, you have to see the most beautiful sunset. Come outside right now!" Girl does and loves the sunset and loves that the guy thought to share it with her.
Or, similarly, Girl is reading a really funning article that she knows Guy would love. So she says, "Honey, come read this hilarious article!" He does, and they laugh about it together, and Guy is glad the girl thought to share it with him.
Is this Receiving Gifts?
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
My boyfriend doesn't find the article funny and is upset that I interrupted whatever he was doing to make him read it. Posted by Uprooted (Member # 8353) on :
Brinestone, to me those are both examples of quality time--making the time to share "moments" together.
But I know what you mean, we can't necessarily shoehorn every example of showing love into one of the five languages.
blacwolve, it's all about knowing what will make your partner feel loved and doing that. In your case, you know that reading the article to him is asking him to fill a need for love for you, and if he complies without getting grumpy then he's doing it because he loves you, not because it's filling a need for him. For you, the expression of love might come in finding another way to connect with him and not interrupting when you know he won't appreciate it.
I figure it's probably karma that if I do marry, it will be an "acts of service" or "receiving gifts" man, because those are weak areas for me. I mean, if some guy feels that if the house is messy it's because I don't love him, then I'm probably doomed from the start.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
I have been loved in abundance in my life, so it's hard to say, I think. I'm not a huge toucher, though I agree it is not a sex thing. The hubby is a toucher. i have to remind myself to touch him when I'm not actively seeking some form of sexual contact. He seems to want to touch me a lot, which I used to find annoying.
My oldest needs lots of hugs and snuggles or he feels unloved. I love him dearly, but I have had to make a conscious effort to express it in the way he needs. Wee boy needs words, like me, which I think may be the big reason we are so effortlessly close to each other. But I also like to leave notes or make special foods and things as a way of loving my family. I think I learned that from my mother. I enjoy the gifts and service stuff from either side, but the words are what I need most.
It's a cool book.
Posted by Survivor (Member # 233) on :
<I guess we'll have to settle this with body language!>
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)