Love Languages Are a Useful Lie (And Why We Still Use Them)
Saturday, July 5, 2025.
An affectionate dissection of America’s favorite romantic cheat sheet
Once upon a time, a kind Southern Baptist marriage counselor gave us a miracle. It had 5 parts, it came with a quiz, and it fit on a fridge magnet.
We called it The Five Love Languages.
You know the types.
Words of affirmation.
Acts of service.
Receiving gifts.
Quality time.
Physical touch.
Chapman’s premise was simple: if we can just speak each other’s “language,” we’ll finally feel loved.
And like many simple ideas, it went absolutely feral in the wild.
The Love Language Industrial Complex
It started in church basements and marriage retreats. But soon, the model had a Netflix deal in the dating world.
People added their love language to their Hinge profiles. Teenagers on TikTok debated whether “Venmo is a sixth love language.” Married couples argued about whether taking out the trash counted as “acts of service” if you did it sighing.
Somewhere along the way, the model became more than a tool.
It became a personality test, a love contract, and a justification for countless unmet needs.
A Great Idea… With Some Leaks
Chapman’s genius was in naming something real: we don’t all show love the same way.
But here’s where it starts to wobble:
There’s no good data proving that matching love languages makes for happier relationships.
People don’t have just one love language—most of us shift depending on the day, the fight, or our blood sugar.
And a lot of what we call “love” is shaped by trauma, class, culture, and childhood—not just preferences.
In fact, one large study found that speaking your partner’s so-called primary love language didn’t significantly improve satisfaction at all (Flicker & Sancier-Barbosa, 2025).
Other researchers note that people often score highly in multiple categories—which makes sense, since most of us like being hugged and told we’re not screwing everything up (Bunt & Hazelwood, 2017).
Why America Fell So Hard
The United States is an odd place to talk about love.
We want intimacy, but also personal freedom.
We crave vulnerability, but only in emoji form.
We believe in soulmates, but also in efficiency.
So Chapman’s idea thrived here.
It made romantic maintenance feel like something you could manage with a checklist and maybe a whiteboard.
Say the right words.
Show up at the right time.
Hand over a coffee and kiss their forehead.
Done.
In a culture built on self-help and upward mobility, the Love Language framework was the perfect low-tech upgrade to our emotional operating systems.
So… Why Do We Still Use Them?
Because it sorta works.
Because the language gives us something to say when the deeper conversation feels too raw.
Because “I think my inner child is reacting to abandonment anxiety I inherited from my mother’s silence” is harder to say than:
“I really need words of affirmation right now.”
Even if we know it's a rough translation.
The New Twist: Context Is Everything
Here’s what younger couples and modern therapists are figuring out: love languages aren’t fixed. They can be situational.
When I’m grieving, I don’t want a gift—I want time.
When I’m overworked, I don’t want touch—I want the dishes done.
When I feel unsafe, I want soft words, not shoulder squeezes.
Our needs shift.
Not because we’re flaky.
Because we’re human.
So instead of “What’s your love language?”, try asking instead:
“What helps you feel seen when you’re overwhelmed?”
“How do you like to be cared for when you’re sick, sad, or mad at the world?”
“What’s changed for you lately?”
And then… listen.
Amor Só Com Fusão: Why Love Needs More Than Words
Before there were quizzes and acronyms and midnight texts asking “What’s your love language?”, there was just this: a glance held a second too long.
A hand reaching for another across a table. A small act done without being asked.
Amor só com fusão, the Portuguese say—love only works with fusion.
Not fusion in the chemical sense, but the human kind: the slow, willing blending of two lives, two nervous systems, two hopes unsure of their welcome.
And yet, even the deepest love stumbles when we don’t know how to translate it.
Some of us speak in gestures. Others speak in words.
Some offer devotion in the form of folded laundry or early morning coffee. Others ask only for presence—real, undistracted, unscrolled.
This is where the idea of Love Languages tries to help—not to box us in, but to give us a starting point.
A way to say: This is how I feel close. This is how I recognize devotion when I see it.
But love languages, like love itself, only work when we remember the fusion part. They’re not static types.
They’re invitations to notice, to adapt, and to meet the other where they are—on days when touch feels safe, or when silence feels sacred, or when being left alone is the most generous form of presence.
Because in the end, love isn’t just spoken.
It’s translated, noticed, adjusted, and matched.
Final Thought: Use the Map, But Know the Terrain
Like most couples therapists, I reliably encounter clients describing their love languages in couples therapy.
But like a seasoned driver looking at an old road map, nowadays I squint a little harder.
Because I know there are dirt roads, floods, detours, and new construction the map simply doesn’t show.
Chapman gave us 5 boxes. Real life gives us about 500, give or take.
But 5 has proven to be a good enough place to start—especially if you hold the categories loosely, and each other a little bit tighter.
Be Well, Stay Kind, and Godspeed.
REFERENCES:
Bunt, S., & Hazelwood, Z. J. (2017). An exploratory investigation into the applicability of Chapman’s Five Love Languages to the Australian heterosexual couple population. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy, 38(1), 27–40. https://doi.org/10.1002/anzf.1192
Chapman, G. (1992). The five love languages: How to express heartfelt commitment to your mate. Moody Publishers.
Egbert, N., & Polk, D. (2006). Speaking the language of relational maintenance: A validity test of Chapman’s Five Love Languages. Communication Research Reports, 23(1), 19–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824090609360682
Flicker, S. M., & Sancier-Barbosa, F. (2025). Testing the predictions of Chapman’s five love languages theory: Does speaking a partner’s primary love language predict relationship quality? Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 51(1), e12747. https://doi.org/10.1111/jmft.12747
Impett, E. A., Park, H. G., & Muise, A. (2023). Evaluating love languages from a relationship science perspective. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 32(4), 272–279. https://doi.org/10.1177/09637214231217663