Você está na página 1de 7


Five Love Languages Paper

Savannah Rockwin

University of Maryland- Professor Resnick

20 April 2017

The good news is that Dead Seas can learn to talk and Babbling Brooks can learn to listen.
We are influenced by our personality but not controlled by it. Pg. 68

Homogamy, from the filtering theory, is practical and realistic; people gravitate towards

what is familiar. We are affected by certain variables that we dont always like to admit: social

class, propinquity, religion, and even physical attraction. I found that exogamy was neither

realistic nor applicable in my own life. I was shocked to learn the notion that people with such

fundamental differences end up married. Thats when I realized that exogamy could surpass just

historic and cultural factors, and that I have subscribed to it myself.

A rigid dichotomy exists between Dead Seas and Babbling Brooks. Dead Seas, or the

listeners, sustain a large reservoir for a Babbling Brook. They are perfectly content receiving

information; however, Dead Seas tend not to reciprocate with their own information.

Nevertheless, the two personality types prevail attractive to each other as the Dead Sea is happy

to listen and the Babbling Brook is happy to babble. Though, somewhere down the road their

differences illuminate this improper flow of communication. Luckily, the author affirms a simple

remedy towards this problem. A transactional model of communication would suffice to help the

Dead Sea talk and the Babbling Brook listen. Our personalities do not dictate our success in

relationships, but rather the effort that we put into managing those core differences.

I have only dated the Dead Sea personality, and each time it has posed a pattern of

unexplainable difficulties. After recognizing how this phenomenon situates itself in my own life,

I was able to understand why I could never work past it. Chapman iterates that by reversing the

roles, you can maintain a successful and healthy relationship through a mutually beneficial

environment. Rather than just listening, I understand now that I could take a step further and ask

questions about the Dead Sea. If a person is comforted by the words of others, it may be helpful

to assist them in the transition into becoming their own form of a Babbling Brook.

It {forgiveness} is a choice to show mercy, not to hold the offense up against the offender.

Forgiveness is an expression of love.- Pg. 45

If I were to ever get a tattoo (which I probably wouldnt because my parents would kill

me) it would say perdono, an Italian word for forgiveness. This perception from Words of

Affirmation made me pause and reread the authors argument several times. I was hopeful that

going over his reasoning I would come to agree, though I found myself increasingly angered at

this idea. By definition of forgiveness, Chapman is close. That is to say its about showing

mercy, but rather shall you ask yourself, whom am I showing mercy to? When it comes to love

this theory is deeply flawed and could not be written another way because the principles behind

it are wrong.

It is not an expression of love for another, as Chapman states, but an expression of mercy

and peace for your own soul. Forgiveness is not about the person in the wrong, but rather about

the person doing the forgiving. We dont grant others our forgiveness because they asked for it,

or because they deserve it, or because the pain they caused you isnt worth it. Rather, because a

person cannot truly move on without forgiving. It speaks to ones level of maturity, and his/her

ability to understand that life isnt always fair.

The day of my sixteenth birthday I found out my ex-boyfriend had cheated on me. I

forgave him for this, because I too thought forgiveness was an expression of love. I believed my

love could remedy his absence of love for me. A few months later, he cheated on me again. It

was not until I was wronged for a second time that I realized that someones behavior speaks to

their character, not yours. But more importantly, your forgiveness speaks of you, and not them. It

is a disservice to Chapmans readers to make them feel as if they do not have love to give if they

cant bring themselves to find peace with being mistreated.


You will probably have to rely heavily on your faith in God to do this,- Pg. 149

In the chapter, Loving the Unlovely, Chapman discuses the reality of being in a failing

marriage. His solution to his patient, Ann, encompasses one main premise. Chapman pulls from

Anns religious background by using quotes from Jesus sermon. Chapman raises the

observation that even sinners love those who love them as a guiding principle for all

relationships. It uses religious values as a pawn to gain leverage in his theory.

From the start, Chapman is alluding to the notion that Ann should try and love her

husband Glenn, who is noted to mistreat her, more than she has been. He goes even further to

confirm that one cannot make a person kind by being kind, one can only hope. The major

suggestion our author poses to Ann is that she should learn to speak her husbands primary love

language, which is physical touch. I strongly disagree with Chapman here because while it

supposedly made a difference in their marriage, he is essentially saying human nature operates

on a give to get rationality. And even then, there is not guarantee. Is it morally correct to tell a

woman to have sex with her husband, who is outwardly unwilling to make the relationship work,

to save their marriage? Even more so, why is Glenns inability to love deserving of Anns

efforts? There comes a certain point where there is no benefit to taking on the burden of trying

to salvage the wreckage of an explosion.

It is understandable that Ann is experiencing hurt and resentment towards Glenn.

Though, in Chapmans misguided economy of love, does filling someones love tank

fundamentally solve long term problems? This false conception of how to best love others is

ignorant and lacks transformative properties. The construct plays into selfish behavior and

imbeds the perception that human desires are necessities rather than lust. This notion can be

detrimental to the healing process of a failing marriage.


Love says, I love you too much to let you treat me this way. It is not good for you or me.

In a perfect world, and every fairytale book, love is a sanctuary that grants partners

immunity to the harsh realities and obstacles their differences create. Cinderella and her prince

overcame their differences in social hierarchies the same way Beauty was able to fall in love

with the Beast. The only validity fairytales hold about relationships is that love is oriented

around choices and circumstances.

I agree that loving someone too much to allow them to treat you poorly is an act of

choice. It acknowledges that despite how you feel for them, you care too deeply to allow

circumstances to hurt either of you. This idea lends itself to protecting the sanctity of love in that

it considers the real world. Often, it is difficult to find harmony or resolution among people

whose differences bare a burden too heavy to sustain. As I agree with this quote and explain

what it means to me, I find that its application might be more difficult than articulating


In high school, I was in an emotionally abusive relationship that escalated to one instance

of physical violence. It was my first real relationship, and he struggled with serious issues like

anger management. For a long time I stayed with him because he told me that if I loved him then

I would not leave him. However, when things became physical I realized I was not helping him

or myself by staying in a toxic relationship. We broke up not because I didnt love him, but

because I loved both of us too much to allow that to continue. I dont think I realized this was the

theory I was following until I read this quote. Similarly, the same goes for people in relationships

where the partner suffers from a mental disability. Leaving them doesnt negate your love, but

rather may symbolize the love you have for others, such as protecting children from any


A theoretical framework of how to maintain healthy relationships is depicted in Gary

Chapmans work The 5 Love Languages. Prior to this class, I had heard about this book and

almost even picked it up to read once after I entered into a new relationship. As I finally got the

chance to read this book, I was a bit disappointed with a few of Chapmans arguments and found

the real life application of his theory to be unrealistic. Interestingly enough, each example

Chapman offers as an example is a failing marriage. His main thesis contends that each person

has a love tank, and if you fill your partners love tank you will have a happy relationship.

Through one of the five love languages, one can express the kind of love their partner needs.

While I agreed in theory with more than I disagreed with, there are a number of flaws that this

book encounters.

I believe that this theory can provide temporary relief to a distressed marriage.

Nevertheless, it is a bandage to a wound in need of stiches. In my last long distance relationship,

me and my then boyfriend would argue over the fact he was not a good texter and did not say

any affectionate things. He didnt understand and mistook what I was saying and thought my

love language was quality time, as he said that he didnt have to do those things because we just

had a visit with each other. Eventually, his attempt at words of affirmation was only temporary

because he just didnt know how to maintain it.

The problem with Chapmans advice is that some people are just not made to be what

others need. Are our love languages desires rather than needs? And if so, could I have gotten past

my exs inability to communicate or express his feelings for me? The book is all fluff and

fairytale endings, and I never read anything about a time where his theory didnt work. This book

has a number of strengths plagued by an appalling amount of holes.


Works Cited

Chapman, G. (2015). Quality time. In E. C. Newenhuyse (Ed.), The 5 love languages (pp. 55-

72). Chicago, IL: Northfield Publishing.

Chapman, G. (2015). Words of Affirmation. In E. C. Newenhuyse (Ed.), The 5 love languages

(pp. 38-51). Chicago, IL: Northfield Publishing.

Chapman, G. (2015). Loving the Unlovely. In E. C. Newenhuyse (Ed.), The 5 love languages

(pp. 150-162). Chicago, IL: Northfield Publishing.

Chapman, G. (2015). Acts of Service. In E. C. Newenhuyse (Ed.), The 5 love languages (pp. 92-

104). Chicago, IL: Northfield Publishing.