Gary Chapman’s love theory turns out to be very controversial
By: Krishika Jethani
Content Warning: Homophobia
By now many have heard about the supposed five love languages and without knowing anything about its origin, we’ve begun categorizing ourselves, our partners and the ways we show love using the now-omnipresent classifications.
The five languages are known as acts of service, receiving gifts, quality time, words of affirmation and physical touch. But at the heart of these frameworks of love? A homophobic Baptist pastor in the early 90s.
Gary Chapman published his book, The 5 Love Languages, in 1992 and it was directly dedicated to Christian couples in his church. Prior to his authorship, Chapman was a pastor at Calvary Baptist Church in North Carolina where he taught couples the importance of love languages. This was before he published his book that platformed his theory to the whole world and not just to the couples he was counseling.
Through his experience working with different couples as a marriage counselor, he denominated these love languages as the only possible ways in which a couple could function. But his theory was grounded in misogyny, notions of the nuclear family, heterosexism and a score of gender norms.
When Chapman’s book was released, not many knew about his homophobic beliefs. In a 2021 article, writer Kristen Mae enumerated the various oppressive statements and beliefs disseminated by Chapman that somehow she had never seen.
A 2013 comment found on Chapman’s website saw a mother seeking out advice from him after finding out her son was gay to which he said the following: “Disappointment is a common emotion when a parent hears one of their children indicate that he/she is gay. Men and women are made for each other–it is God’s design. Anything other than that is outside the primary design of God.”
Although Mae has found the concept of love languages useful, she is enraged by the thoughts he shared online. Chapman’s beliefs seemed to be undercover for many years but she now describes it as the most “insidious form of homophobia.”
When working in the church, Chapman was clear on his beliefs and the couples he counseled looked up to him. A couple was considered compatible, for example, only if their partner knew how to communicate in certain love languages. The only difference was that this theory only accounted for heterosexual couples, according to Chapman.
Although he was never considered a reliable counselor or source, romantic relationships are now being dictated by these five ubiquitous love languages.
It’s very common to see people base their whole relationship on their love language compatibility. The question is why are we letting a sexist and homophobic pastor’s pseudo-scientific ideologies systematically define the ways in which we should classify and affix validity to our personal relationships. Not only this, but why are we allowing this to measure the compatibility between our partners, romantic or otherwise?
Every relationship is different and it shouldn’t be judged by how you give or take love. Linda Carroll, a marriage and family therapist, wrote, “While Chapman’s theory helps explain how to best make a relationship thrive, they are just one part of what makes a successful relationship overall.”
When Chapman released his book, relationships began to depend on the idea as a determinant of romantic success (or probability of failure).
Carroll describes how a couple, who are now separated, were confused as to why their relationship wasn’t working even though they follow all of their partner’s love languages. They believed the five love languages were going to fix their relationship’s foundational problems because that’s what Chapman so much as guaranteed in his book.
Carroll agrees that love languages can be an important factor in a relationship but she describes how they can always “change.”
“Our love language can change over time and in specific life situations. If we don’t know how to not just speak to each other but also how to really listen to each other, we may be engaging in behaviors that no longer say “I love you” but now irritate instead,” she wrote. If there is already a lack of communication within the relationship, following these love languages will not make these issues disappear.
Psychologists, such as Dr. Julie Gottman, question Chapman’s theory of love. Dr. Gottman describes the categories as “superficial and rigid” and wonders why there are such narrow boxes when people can easily be more open to different concepts of love. Dr. Gottman uses physical touch as an example. Physical touch does not have to be a love language you immediately want but can rather be something you grow into. At the beginning of a relationship, you might not feel comfortable being touched by your partner but may grow to crave it more in the future.
Additionally, the touch needs of queer, ace or neurodivergent folks, whose relationships with physical touch are fluid, might change depending on the day, the person or how over/under stimulated they are.
This doesn’t mean you do not fall under the “physical touch” category but rather that a relationship is an inherently ever changing dynamic, so its facets must also be treated as such. These love languages force you to settle into rigid patterns that disallow growth from both you and your partners.
Love languages don’t just hurt those in love, but those seeking it, namely in the ways the framework has invaded dating app spaces. On services such as Tinder and Bumble, you can share what your love languages are on your profile. In enabling this theory to be taken as gospel, we’ve also assumed a uniformity of experiences among lovers and strangers alike. The person you meet on a dating app is more nuanced than a denomination as one-dimensional as a “gift-giver,” but love languages rob people of their layers before we’ve even had the chance to make their acquaintance.
Dating app users are apt to use this as a way to analyze whether the person reflected on their screen is compatible enough to swipe on. Using these types of apps hinders your ability to deeply know someone. If you immediately associate them with being a person of “quality time” or of “words of affirmation”, you may not learn a dynamic and modulating way of communicating love.
Chapman’s theory also influences people to believe they should adjust to their partner’s feelings and react in a certain way to fulfill their needs. All partners should have a say in how they feel and how they want to be treated. It’s about learning what makes the other feel good in a genuine way rather than superficially.
Romantic relationships are not meant to be centered around arbitrary criteria. The beauty of love is seen through various different stages and growth is a very important part of it. If you want to recognize the type of love you crave, you may start with the five love languages as long as you don’t get sucked into a vacuum of pseudoscience and let it define you.
Don’t force yourself to stay within five categories because there is so much more to expand from; and there’s also so much more to you and your community. Just because you are not falling under two or three categories, doesn’t mean your relationship will fatalistically come to an end.
Instead of “becoming myopically focused on speaking your partner’s love language,” says Brigitt Earley, “think of the love languages as a starting point for tending to your relationship with a sense of generosity and goodwill.”
