Gary Chapman was onto something when he makes known to us to “love languages,” or the manner each individual best comprehends and desires to be loved by others. But he was wrong when he suggested that each of the five — acts of service, gifts, physical touch, words of affirmation, and quality time — were absolutely equal; because they simply are not. They have completely different meanings.
I.e., the correct (and greatest) love language.
It’s the “right” one because time is the most treasured thing in life — it is the only item we can never restore. Likewise, it’s also the most prized thing an individual can bequeath to you.
Who prefers quality time?
Individuals with their standards well set. They are those who appreciate the true irreplaceability and value of time and attention. They also have a well-balanced association because quality time is the only “common” love language: You have to offer it to receive it.
At their poorest:
“Quality time” lovers at times can become clingy. But even as someone who is so independent at times can become clingy, I’ll joyfully endure a tag-along as long as he does not complain or make more requests.
The coolest and most exciting part of love. I admire individuals who express physical touch because it is by far the simplest one to “reciprocate.” There’s no schedule, does not cost a thing, and no time or effort to waste. I mean it does not entail any thought — you can do it instinctively while queuing, waving goodbye, bump into each other in the kitchen. There are no tricks involved, the rules are fixed and no struggle to come up with something new idea . A kiss is forever a kiss. A hug is permanently a hug. A touch is a touch. It’s all so stimulating and easy.
Anyone who grumbles about physical contact with their lover is a shortsighted monster who has no idea what they are missing out on.
Who fancies physical touch?
Simple, straightforward, and consistent people.
At their worst:
Figure-hugging? Perhaps sex addicts? I have never faced either. These folks are really firm.
Acts of Service
I’m partial because this is my second language. This is how I perceive it.
Who favors acts of service?
Deep in the annexes of their hearts, utilitarian’s.
These persons appreciate efficiency, competence, and worth over shallowness, form, and romance. They are perhaps autonomous, busy individuals who hardly request for or anticipate help even when really need it. (Reflect on this: If we were used to everyone continually helping us out, we would not appreciate it, as we should. It’s a moment of weakness to allow another person help us and actually seeing it as love.) In the same vein, we enjoying feeling like our companion is on our side.
At their worst:
They distance themselves from closeness through deeds. They may not allow displays of love fixated on them, thereby keeping themselves — and paramours — “safely” separated from them. “Acts of service” is the love language to keep at arm’s length, with the act being done not even “to” the lover in question, but often in another time and galaxy totally. It’s the methodology of the avoidant lover.
Who favors gifts?
First, we love you. So let’s be candid: we all are avaricious. I recognize we are not expected to say much, and the fact that you hide under the umbrella that it does not have to be expensive or not just any gift is okay. But still, it is a material item. And it’s okay! Because on the upside: You people are so wonderfully easy! Both my mom and sister love “gifts,” and they make Christmas shopping — and Christmas morning — the stuff of true holiday dreams. I’ll take it.
These people have a tendency, to be frank, and straight in their relationships. They perhaps contest the fact that experiences make us better off than belongings, but we’re content to accept that because they’re just so easy!
At their worst:
They are the most luxurious to “love on,” so they might turn into money pits. Also, possible item-hiders. Not, like, full-on hoarding and not always, but individuals who love items and stashing stuff around. My sister and mother adore enclose themselves with things they call “sentimental,” which I cold-bloodedly see as shit.
Words of Confirmation
Who fancies words of affirmation?
Givers, but very weak ones.
On the exterior, these folks seem easy to satisfy: a humble thank-you will suffice. Praise propels them for weeks.
However, there is more to their stories.
At the end, persons who require confirmation are external — rather than inherently — driven. They depend on exterior rather than inner sources of consent, seek indicators of guarantee, and perhaps feel driven by awards and/or prestige.
There is a situation of self-love here. If they require others’ confirmation, they perhaps don’t believe enough in themselves.
Also, if love = affirmation, then in their thoughts they have to first do something to “earn” love. And there are all kinds of methods there.
They’re benefactors — of course. But at all times with the anticipation to get. “I just want to say thank you. Is that so difficult?” No, on the exterior, it is not. What’s tough is that beneath the surface, the whole thing they do “for us” is actually about them because they’re sitting there waiting for us to applaud them. It is not true and candid like the previous four but develops a tit-for-tat deal — a gamification of satisfaction, a multifaceted act of “love” concealing a requisite for keeping score. And that can follow the line of exploitation.
At their worst:
They develop into a slippery slope of self-doubt and codependence; a never-ending pit of self-doubt which no words of affirmation” can fill. And this is really difficult for others to love and cope with because while they think that “a simple thank-you will do, it can from time to time feel as though every word of encouragement has quickly vanished.