|
Post by baza on Jul 13, 2018 1:34:05 GMT -5
There's all sorts of ways to recognise ones compatibility or incompatibility with some-one else. Running "The 5 Love Languages" metric over the relationship would be but one way. Thing is, if this group is anything, it is a hot bed of people with incompatible spouses. I would bet good money that if you are an ILIASM member, you could run any metric you like over your deal - let's say Maslovs Heirarchy of Needs - and you'll come up again, with a fail. If your deal has degenerated to the point where you start googling 'sexless marriage' then I would suggest that that is about the best indicator that your deal is terminally incompatible there is. Like Brother DryCreek says, these "5 Languages" type metrics may have some use in weeding potential partners out of the running during the courting stages - but they are of limited (if any) value in an ILIASM context. If you are here, you already know your deal is terminally incompatible.
|
|
|
Post by beachguy on Jul 13, 2018 4:49:43 GMT -5
"Gifts? Fuck gifts. You can't "buy" love, and I get suspicious about anyone who ranks high on that one. Just my opinion, of course." shamwow - I consider gifts a toxic love language. When it's at the top (a primary love language). It means the person is very shallow and materialistic. Before the political correctness of describing that as a love language, those people were described as Gold Diggers. Hope I didn't offend anyone here, but I doubt it. I've never seen Gifts float to the top of anyone participating in a DB venue (as a refused).
|
|
|
Post by elkclan2 on Jul 13, 2018 5:29:06 GMT -5
My partner and I did this and we come out highly on touch, words and quality time in terms of receiving. Obviously touch is important and the kind of touch you receive from a romantic partner is different than in other relationships, but touch is also very important in some of my other relationships, too - and varies. The kind of touch I share with the girls I played rugby with is much more intimate than with other kinds of friends (partly because I was front row and you basically are grabbing people around the inner thigh, sticking your hands down their shorts, etc.). Touch is also important to me with my son and with my stepkids. I don't allow other children to lie down in the bed with me or lean on me in the way that they do.
Touch also is important in my romantic relationship outside bed. We hold hands. We touch as we pass, etc. But I do touch other people in this way, it just has a different feeling about it.
Same with words of affirmation and quality time - yes, those are things I do with other people, too and they do matter, but they feel different coming from my romantic partner.
I think it's also important to value the contributions that people make when even if they aren't your top love languages. I DO appreciate the acts of service and there are many, many in my relationship - but because words are important to him (and me) and so is time, we thank each other and work together in doing the things that need to be done to run a household. I do appreciate gifts - as does my partner even though gifts are the bottom of the list for both of us.
|
|
|
Post by beachguy on Jul 13, 2018 5:43:19 GMT -5
Speaking for myself, knowing W is touching me “because I need it” is a far cry from “because she wants to”; it’s hollow, at best, with little emotional value. And the opposite is also true - if I’m giving in a way that’s not natural for me, it will be forced and easily neglected.I disagree with what I emphasized. Now, that may be true for you. But in general, lots of guys engage in "choreplay" (to provide Acts of Service), for years and years, taking on ever more responsibility in the household and to otherwise satisfy their partner. And they do it willingly. But they never get any reciprocity from their efforts. This is so common that there's an entire book written on this subject, trying to help guys that are hopelessly enmeshed in useless choreplay. No More Mr Nice Guy. It's a free PDF download. While the Love Languages book, which presents a Fairy Tale view of relationships, presents Acts of Service as a legitimate love language, my own view is that In the real world, these are Pillow Princesses, untouchable in bed but directing their staff of servants (their partner) like any good Princess. The book actually promotes that idea, to a certain extent. Not that I'm jaded or anything, LOL.
|
|
|
Post by beachguy on Jul 13, 2018 5:51:42 GMT -5
elkclan2 - I think there is often some confusion over the "Touch" love language. Highly sexual people that bond with their partners, and need that bonding to complete the relationship think sex is synonymous with the touch love language. But that is not necessarily true. Someone could view the Touch love language as totally non-sexual. They may perceive it as holding hands, cuddling, and the like- but never sex. I believe the book itself is quite vague on this? I've seen it often criticized for not addressing this issue. I suspect that most people here highly value sex as a bonding agent, which is why most people don't consider affairs a suitable replacement for sex in the marital bed. (they may have an affair but do it knowing it is a compromise for what they want) So most people here would treat sex as synonymous with touch. But not necessarily always true.
|
|
|
Post by northstarmom on Jul 13, 2018 5:55:52 GMT -5
“But that is not necessarily true. Someone could view the Touch love language as totally non-sexual. They may perceive it as holding hands, cuddling, and the like- but never sex.”
True. This is what the Love Languages author says in the book.
|
|
|
Post by northstarmom on Jul 13, 2018 6:01:48 GMT -5
“Speaking for myself, knowing W is touching me “because I need it” is a far cry from “because she wants to”; it’s hollow, at best, with little emotional value. And the opposite is also true - if I’m giving in a way that’s not natural for me, it will be forced and easily neglected.”
That wouldn’t be the case for people who get pleasure out of making their partner happy. It would be the case, however, for people who are repelled by the love language or by doing that love language with their partner.
|
|
|
Post by JMX on Jul 13, 2018 6:22:08 GMT -5
elkclan2 - I suspect that most people here highly value sex as a bonding agent, which is why most people don't consider affairs a suitable replacement for sex in the marital bed. (they may have an affair but do it knowing it is a compromise for what they want) So most people here would treat sex as synonymous with touch. But not necessarily always true. Interesting. It is definitely a bonding experience for me, I would describe sex for me as the closest thing I get to religion. It’s very hard to just transfer that to an affair.
|
|
|
Post by workingonit on Jul 13, 2018 7:32:11 GMT -5
One of the crazy things about this for me is that if you ask any of my friends or even my kids and their friends or my famiky they would all say touch would be my love language. I am really affectionate!! I always have been. Not even talking about sex, just cuddliness and affection. My bestie is not as touchy as me but she knows I need it and we are very cuddly together. She always says it is good oractuce bc her h needs more affection than is natural for her to give.
The real question I am asking myself is why I married someone who is not now nor has he ever been affectionate or even needed or felt comfortable with it. I know the answer is tied up with religion and the moment I was in, some of the religious teachings I was connecting to at the time. I did lie to myself and believe it wouod change after marriage but this is what the religious structure demanded so it was not out of left field. But now I know he was drawn to that religious structure naturally and never intended it to change.
I am trying to understand my own behavior with compassion balanced with critique.
For all of us mismatched did your SO's love languages change? Can you look back now and see that you were always mismatched on them?
|
|
|
Post by greatcoastal on Jul 13, 2018 7:55:48 GMT -5
For all of us mismatched did your SO's love languages change? Can you look back now and see that you were always mismatched on them? I can look back and see that my ex is greysexual. She was capable of touch, just enough to procreate,and then deem it "no longer needed". How's that for change! What helped me near the end of the marriage was to observe my ex's same repulsive attitude towards touch with the rest of the family, even the dog!! Definitely a mismatch.
|
|
|
Post by shamwow on Jul 13, 2018 8:18:06 GMT -5
Speaking for myself, knowing W is touching me “because I need it” is a far cry from “because she wants to”; it’s hollow, at best, with little emotional value. And the opposite is also true - if I’m giving in a way that’s not natural for me, it will be forced and easily neglected.I disagree with what I emphasized. Now, that may be true for you. But in general, lots of guys engage in "choreplay" (to provide Acts of Service), for years and years, taking on ever more responsibility in the household and to otherwise satisfy their partner. And they do it willingly. But they never get any reciprocity from their efforts. This is so common that there's an entire book written on this subject, trying to help guys that are hopelessly enmeshed in useless choreplay. No More Mr Nice Guy. It's a free PDF download. While the Love Languages book, which presents a Fairy Tale view of relationships, presents Acts of Service as a legitimate love language, my own view is that In the real world, these are Pillow Princesses, untouchable in bed but directing their staff of servants (their partner) like any good Princess. The book actually promotes that idea, to a certain extent. Not that I'm jaded or anything, LOL. For me the book isn't some kind of love guide. It merely pointed out to me that I had legitimate needs my ex simply had no interest or intention of satisfying. I made efforts to satisfy hers (to the best I could), but it was not returned. I was miserable. Now I'm with a woman with whom we work to satisfy the others needs. Night and day. I think the love languages are a good tool. But the first sentence should be a disclaimer stating that none of the following is any use if you don't give a shit about understanding and fulfilling the needs of your partner.
|
|
|
Post by shamwow on Jul 13, 2018 8:22:21 GMT -5
One of the crazy things about this for me is that if you ask any of my friends or even my kids and their friends or my famiky they would all say touch would be my love language. I am really affectionate!! I always have been. Not even talking about sex, just cuddliness and affection. My bestie is not as touchy as me but she knows I need it and we are very cuddly together. She always says it is good oractuce bc her h needs more affection than is natural for her to give. The real question I am asking myself is why I married someone who is not now nor has he ever been affectionate or even needed or felt comfortable with it. I know the answer is tied up with religion and the moment I was in, some of the religious teachings I was connecting to at the time. I did lie to myself and believe it wouod change after marriage but this is what the religious structure demanded so it was not out of left field. But now I know he was drawn to that religious structure naturally and never intended it to change. I am trying to understand my own behavior with compassion balanced with critique. For all of us mismatched did your SO's love languages change? Can you look back now and see that you were always mismatched on them? Interesting question. I think my ex recognized early on touch and words of affirmation were my love languages. She provided these even though they were not hers. Then I slid a ring on her finger and that was no longer necessary.
|
|
|
Post by beachguy on Jul 13, 2018 9:28:20 GMT -5
I disagree with what I emphasized. Now, that may be true for you. But in general, lots of guys engage in "choreplay" (to provide Acts of Service), for years and years, taking on ever more responsibility in the household and to otherwise satisfy their partner. And they do it willingly. But they never get any reciprocity from their efforts. This is so common that there's an entire book written on this subject, trying to help guys that are hopelessly enmeshed in useless choreplay. No More Mr Nice Guy. It's a free PDF download. While the Love Languages book, which presents a Fairy Tale view of relationships, presents Acts of Service as a legitimate love language, my own view is that In the real world, these are Pillow Princesses, untouchable in bed but directing their staff of servants (their partner) like any good Princess. The book actually promotes that idea, to a certain extent. Not that I'm jaded or anything, LOL. For me the book isn't some kind of love guide. It merely pointed out to me that I had legitimate needs my ex simply had no interest or intention of satisfying. I made efforts to satisfy hers (to the best I could), but it was not returned. I was miserable. Now I'm with a woman with whom we work to satisfy the others needs. Night and day. I think the love languages are a good tool. But the first sentence should be a disclaimer stating that none of the following is any use if you don't give a shit about understanding and fulfilling the needs of your partner. The book does hold itself out to be a love guide. I agree with you 1000% that it is useless if your spouse is unwilling to return your love language. The problem is compounded by the fact that making love is not like loading the dishwasher (an act of service). Your spouse might not demand the same level of spontaneity, desire and enthusiasm loading the dishwasher as is necessary when the love language is sex. The same is true, I think, for most relationship self help books, and couples and sex therapy. They ignore the fact that in most cases that show up here, the refuser has no desire to have sex with the refused and never will (even if they once did). Of course if they acknowledged that they would not be able to sell books or therapy time, at least into this audience.
|
|
|
Post by DryCreek on Jul 13, 2018 9:33:17 GMT -5
“But that is not necessarily true. Someone could view the Touch love language as totally non-sexual. They may perceive it as holding hands, cuddling, and the like- but never sex.” True. This is what the Love Languages author says in the book. northstarmom, this is probably true, and I also get the similar point by beachguyMy idea was more that if I naturally do Touch because that’s how I express myself... if that happens to be a primary language for her, then my giving of Touch is meaningful to her as the recipient. It’s a natural fit; it all works effortlessly. However, if I got a positive reaction when I did X, that alone would inspire me to do X for her, even if it wasn’t something that naturally occurred to me. So, I see that the “be multilingual” suggestions can work if the motivations are sincere. Personally, I’ve lived in a broken dynamic where the motivations are mechanical, so I see “translation” as a forced behavior. I might do X because it’s meaningful to her, and she might similarly do Y for me. But when the heart isn’t in the giving, the actions ring hollow and don’t really carry any value. I don’t want reciprocity or obligation to be the motivation for giving what I need. Although motivations are independent of Love Languages, it seems a very easy trap to fall into when your partner speaks a different language and translation has to be deliberate. It also seems much easier to fall into neglect. Bottom line... I’m not saying translation can’t work, but things can be so much more natural if you have the same languages to start with.
|
|
|
Post by northstarmom on Jul 13, 2018 9:35:41 GMT -5
“The same is true, I think, for most relationship self help books, and couples and sex therapy. They ignore the fact that in most cases that show up here, the refuser has no desire to have sex with the refused and never will (even if they once did). Of course if they acknowledged that they would not be able to sell books or therapy time, at least into this audience.”
Those book sales would plunge if refusers told their spouses the truth: that they are not sexually attracted to their mates and have no interest in becoming attracted to them.
|
|