For the longest time, I assumed “love languages” were a made-up construct in meme-talk and didn’t exist outside of the internet pop-culture parlance. Recently, I acquainted myself with the actual concept. The five “love languages” describe the ways in which people typically express and experience love. They are:
- Words of affirmation
- Acts of service
- Receiving gifts
- Physical touch
- Quality time
It almost felt like a light-bulb going off moment when I read the psychological reasoning behind these categories and how they help us forge intimacy with others. There was, after all, some logic behind why people show affection the way they do.
After my light-bulb moment, though, I felt even more confused. It dawned on me that I didn’t know my love language. I was lost trying to define how I choose to show my affection and what works for me when people express love back. My main struggle was this: I didn’t understand how to confine myself and limit my idea of affection within five categories—especially five categories set by someone who doesn’t know anything about my life, or my identity as a multipotentialite.
This made me wonder: are there multipotentialite love languages? Less rigid categories that could allow us to express all of ourselves in our relationships? If being a multipotentialite means exploring ourselves beyond “just one thing,” should our ways of showing love and affection and accepting the love we think we deserve be limited? Can we have more than one, inter-connected way of expressing our love?
After taking several rounds of the love language test and finding that my result changed each week, I went down a rabbit hole of introspection and came up with five broad categories for multipotentialite love languages. Most of these are derived from the existing love-language list. But, as a multipotentialite, I found value in reshaping this concept for myself. I hope this will help you, too, come closer to realizing how you love and accept love.
Validation instead of “Words of Affirmation”
As far back as my memory can trace, anyone who has validated my interests in life—across fields and years—has gotten my wholehearted love and affection in return. People close to multipotentialites can easily be overwhelmed witnessing our wide range of interests, hobbies, passions and callings. The ones who stick around and help us see the best in our passions are often those who validate these interests and ambitions for us.
The traditional love language, “Words of affirmation,” can be slightly limiting. There are times when we are of two minds about our decisions and life choices. In times of distress and duress, validating our fears and shortcomings can actually be helpful for us. It also helps us knowing you see through us, not just the good bits but all of it. I stick close to those who help me feel comfortable about living with varied passions and interests. Admittedly, I have a huge circle of friends, but my closest friends are those who are able to adjust to each of my many potentials instead of ridiculing me for them.
There are, however, people who can offer words of affirmation but extend no support to fuel our passions and aid our curiosities. These people tend to lack insight into how multipotentialites function. While they can offer words of affirmation, it’s not nearly as effective as validating our way of being in the world. ourselves in a limited way.
Enabling Curiosities instead of “Acts of Service”
All your life, you’ve steered clear of sports. Until one morning. You wake up and decide you want to understand at least “one sport” —to be able to make conversation, if for no other reason! You like the idea of learning about Formula One, but you don’t know how to go about learning more. Now what?
Some of my closest relationships and friendships were forged on the basis of people enabling me to know, understand or learn something new. Passion sharing is infectious. Enabling someone’s passion is one of the greatest forms of love. In doing this, you are not only introduced to their interest but also see their enthusiasm towards their subject. And, you get to know something new together.
That is also how I was introduced to Formula One, when I had steered clear from sports for over two decades. It took one phone call with a friend and there has been no looking back since. Nobody who knows me would believe this story, since I am labelled one of the biggest Formula One fans in my circle of friends, but this is truly how the journey started for me.
Participation instead of “Receiving Gifts”
The idea of gifts as a way of expressing affection is slightly transactional. Gifts tend to point towards material goodies and surprises. While I am a big fan of those, no gift is better than a friend or partner’s participation in one of my many areas of engagement. It could be something as simple as making a TikTok or an Instagram reel on a subject that is close to me, or watching a TV series together.
Participation, as a giver or a receiver, is an important way to show love. Whether it’s helping your friend navigate through a tricky break up by listening to them talk or sending them a pizza to fill the love shaped hole in their heart, being there for someone is a welcome way of showing and knowing love.
Engaging instead of “Quality Time”
Defining “quality time” together is a difficult task these days, given lockdown limitations and our shifting lifestyles. When you consider the concept of quality time, spatiality and physicality stand out as key components. If you can consider a Zoom call as an idea of spending quality time together, what prevents us from including a “like” or a share of our passion projects on our loved one’s Instagram story as a form of spending quality time together? After all, they are engaging with our interests, be it actively and passively.
For multipotentialites, spending quality time extends beyond hanging out together IRL. It’s in the engagement—regardless of the form—where I see love being shared between two people, whether they are friends or romantic partners. Two people can passively engage with a film over a distance or in person. Engaging together is a wider, more multipotentialite-friendly definition of spending quality time.
Collaborating instead of “Physical Touch”
It’s going to sound cheesy when I say this, but physical intimacy is a form of collaboration. Instead of limiting this expression of love to physical touch, as the traditional love languages do, my thoughts turn to all the ways in which we can make our partners or friends experience joy or pleasure through doing things together: collaboration.
You could be cooking together and brushing fingers or walking someone back home or you could be helping your partner with taking on their share of responsibilities when they are going through a tough time at work. While these may or may not directly translate to the idea of “physical touch,” collaboration is a way to distinguish “acts of service” from “physical touch”. In essence, collaboration means honoring your loved one with your presence.
Multipotentialites are fluid and fluent in love languages
Of course, the multipotentialite love languages listed above are fluid and inter-connected, and they may or may not look the same for you. The purpose of understanding your love language is to help you come one step closer to awareness about yourself and how you respond to your loved ones and vice versa. To me, it seems there is a multipotentialite urge to be equal parts fluid and fluent in our understanding of love language. What is your social and emotional response to the idea of love languages? Is the concept inflected with flexibility and self-reflection for you?
Your turn
Do you also score differently each time you take the love language test? Do you struggle to understand how to define your love language? Share with the community in the comments!
While I appreciate the sentiment behind this piece, it evokes some feelings of discomfort and skepticism in me.
Foremost, the Love Languages were the creation of a counselor who had worked with a great many couples. Though not genuinely scientific, at least he had lots of data to generalize from. This piece represents a single person’s ideas, all invented, none induced. To the extent that some or all of it may not ring true for me or other multipotentialites, it unjustifiably can cause feelings of alienation from the multipotentialite community that has now endorsed this new scheme by virtue of publishing it here.
Beyond that, the things that are posed here:
1) are things that everyone needs to one extent or other, not just multipods
2) in no way exclude multipods needing what’s defined by the original five Love Languages
3) at times get pretty messy in their conceptions, most notably how participation, engagement and collaboration cover ground that fuzzily overlaps with each other as well as with the original Love Languages
Perhaps most alarming is the very real suggestion that no multipods need Physical Touch. Some may think I’m saying that unfairly, but that is very definitely what the piece says. Flat out. Directly. Something instead of Physical Touch. I’m one of surely many multipods who can assure the author, the multipod community and the world that Physical Touch is not off the table of Love Languages for many of us even if it’s not high on the list for some people — and I don’t think it too bold to suggest that even someone for whom Physical Touch isn’t high on a list does not have only needs for whatever else *instead* of Physical Touch.
It’s hard for me to take this piece as much more than one person’s reflections on what is true for that one person — not something necessarily generalizable to others, certainly not necessarily universal to multipods, absolutely not exclusive of the original five Love Languages, and essentially all just reflecting preferences that are all deeply connected to the original five as opposed to being genuine alternatives. I sincerely wish this piece had been framed in light of all this instead of being posed as some schema that all of us multipods should find ourselves fitting into. Because it isn’t.
I’m a licensed mental health counselor, and I wanted to clear up something very important about the the pop-culture “psychology” that is the 5 Love Languages, created by Gary Chapman. Mr. Chapman is not, nor has he ever been, a counselor. In addition, while he has many degrees (all from Christian colleges), they are in anthropology, education, and religious education – nothing in the field of psychology, social work, psychiatry, research, counseling, etc. He does not have a license to counsel, and any couples counseling he may or may not have done in his “research” for the 5 Love Languages would have been unethical at best, and illegal at worst. His theory of love languages (and that is all it is – a theory, with no peer-reviewed studies to support his theory) has been highly criticized for being misogynistic, homophobic, and hetero-centric, and Christianity-informed. In fact, the book was published through a Christian publisher (Moody Publishers / Northfield Publishing). Since his work is not scientific or evidence-based, but rather entirely anecdotal and based in personal beliefs and experiences, it seems like fair game for other people to use the theory as a foundational base to formulate their own terms for love languages that better fits for folks who do not fit Mr. Chapman’s more limited world view.
(Disclaimer: I do not have any issue with someone being Christian, by any means, but I do take issue with non-professional Christians writing self-help books and trying to pass them off as legitimate, unbiased, researched psychology to the general public.)
Hi Mark, appreciate you reading the piece and taking the time out to respond with your feedback. I value your feedback. As the author, I do want to address a few concerns you listed:
I agree that the love languages alternatives here may not be necessarily be defining the multipotentialites in entirety, but in saying that, we also agree that the standard five listed by Gary Chapman are also an assumption based on the average individual or a group of individuals, and in no way reflective of how multipods work at large. In saying that it’s the benchmark, I agree with you, however, in holding that as absolute truth, I do not. Theories in Psychology tend to age and shift as per the societal changes and while Mr Chapman and I aren’t in the same league, this is basis my experience as a multipotentialite. It may translate entirely different to you and others, much like the original concept of love languages.
In putting together participation, collaboration and engagement, I have addressed in calling these terms and boundaries fluid, just as how these love languages may be limited for some and fluid for others.
I would say it’s incorrect to list that I have disregarded the physical touch aspect, since I have only extended the definition to the idea of collaboration. In no way am I disregarding the importance of physical touch or its idea; instead I have pointed to a likely scenario where the “touch” is a little more fluid than physicality and doesn’t restrict itself to spatiality. A lot of people, including myself, find physical touch necessary but also overwhelming and take our time getting acquainted with it, especially in the light of our lives post-pandemic, where being in touch meant being connected virtually.
I understand the skepticism behind using this as a standard measure for gauging one’s love language. I don’t hope to contest the existing theory, but add to it.
I appreciated this fascinating exploration and expansion of the diverse ways we offer love and care to others, and get nourished by others’ love and care.
Hi Ivona, appreciate you reading this and thank you for your feedback. 🙂
Oh I got into motorsports because of that! I like Formula 1 but mostly MotoGP, which is motorbikes and more exciting!
Hi Catherine! Appreciate your response. I saw my first MotoGP race last year, which was incidentally last for Rossi and it was a spectacle of physics and pure speed on display! I’ve since then been curious about it and been following Fabio religiously.
The one multipotentialite love language that struck me the most has to be Engaging as opposed to quality time.
This really resonated with me because I was always someone who equated love to how much time someone spent with me. The covid pandemic helped me see that there are so many other ways in which some one can be present and supportive of me.
Collaboration as opposed to physical touch also enlightened me on how it could translate differently. To learn that moving together with someone in the moment or space time is just as powerful as physical touch, that’s astounding ?. I want to learn how to understand my love languages in the multipotentialite context better.
There’s so much depth to all of them.
Hi Mapalo, thank you for reading the piece and sharing your feedback. I agree with you when you enlist the pandemic as the reason for broadening the perspective. I don’t think I would have fully arrived at the multipods love language understanding better without the shift in the societal norms due to living in a pandemic stricken world at large.
For me, the concept of physical touch expanded especially when I found myself in a long distance relationship in the past year. Even though the element of physicality was missing, there was a force of collaboration and support that anchored our relationship, which levelled with what physical touch offers. It’s not the same, but it’s a solid alternative to explore.
I read this with much interest. I really appreciate the idea of expanding the conceptions and introducing food for thought. I’ve always struggled to answer what my love language is, because for me it’s also situationally dependent as to what I need. Anyone who understands that and is fluid in their response has my wholehearted return support, affection and love for all time.
As to Steve’s response: It perhaps bears reminding that in PuttyVerse we are accepting of other’s alternative modes. It doesn’t have to resonate with you and you can politely disagree by putting forward your own thoughts on the topic. In short: going into denigration mode is, I think, not appropriate in this forum.
Hi Joanne,
Thank you so much for taking the time to read this piece. I’m glad I have company in you in seeking fluidity in understanding what love language means to us. For the most part, as we grow, we find this change; at least for me, this transforms and evolves into how I define new relationships as I go along encountering people in my personal life. I would love to hear about your experience with how fluidity works for you in the context of love language.