Nowhere in the book does it mention or suggest “if you express love for your partner in his/her primary love language you will get laid”.
And I don’t think anyone who is familiar with the book posited that sex is one of the love languages. I certainly didn’t in my original post.
I wonder what is the value of poking fun at a book that is potentially helpful to others? And why so much cynicism in this thread about reading a book that has provided useful insights for so many?
Finally, my original question—which happened to be about touch—could be broadened to be inclusive of all the love languages. If you are lacking love expressed in your primary love language, does that amplify the importance of that language? (Many thanks to #shamwow for conducting his experiment.)
catsloveme , I'm familiar with this book and used it in my celibate marriage, and I have it in mind in my present relationship.
Its advice has been useful in optimizing the functional relationship but not in the dysfunctional one. I've seen this personally and in hundreds of others on this board. It's a well known book and concept - very popular across the past decade, often cited, but almost never successful.
In the "I Live In a Sexless Marriage" forum, there is a tacit assumption that most of the general experiences and anecdotes outlined here are for people in celibate relationships.
"I Live in a Sexless Marriage" is a problem statement.If it was the "I Want to Enhance My Romantic Game" forum - t
hat's a strategy with a set of tactics. It's not a problem. The most common
mistaken assumption - one in which I was invested as well - seems to be that the s
exless marriage problem results from a lack of romantic strategy or approach. Change the approach and it should restore the broken circuit and get back to the natural state of mutual attraction, and sex will be one of many intimate benefits.
I have since come to believe that in most ILIASM-scale cases, where a person's disengagement, anger, aversion, disgust - has reached a level that they have overridden their own libido - that the problem is actually not about approach or preference, but rather one of category - of the role the person plays in their life.
They don't view their partner as a sexual partner. It's no longer the approach.
It's not that their partner doesn't do XYZ - it's
waaay past that (and likely their partner NEVER did XYZ); it's that they don't view their partner as being uniquely attractive
at all. In fact, they are likely turned off in thinking of them that way.
Think of someone you'd never want sex with - someone you friend-zoned, your brother, a co-worker, Santa Claus - whatever it is. No amount of tweaking to romantic strategy is going to "fix" that, even if it is objectively the correct preference in expressing intimacy. If a person like that wanted you, your goal would be to AVOID it or reduce the likelihood of having to be in a situation in which sex will be expected.
Two things can be true - you DO value touch and enjoy it,
but only from someone you want to be touched by, and you avoid it with people who you don't want.
You might "value gifts", but not from someone who you wish to avoid contact with - such as your partner.
The most common greeting statement on this board,is the the thing my ex-wife told our therapist as soon as we sat on his couch: "We have a great relationship except for this problem with sex!"
A lot of family counselling and "How To books" like Five Love Languages offer insights and advice that are (I think) objectively useful in optimizing a
functional relationship in which both partners are invested - really romantically invested. Even in non-romantic relationships -they show you things that would likely be helpful - better communication, and being taken care of, and greater understanding and collaboration. It's like vitamins
for a relationship that's working or that hasn't been established yet. But ... for something like a dead bedroom, it's like cardiac paddles after rigor mortis has set in. It's almost certainly solving the wrong problem, at the wrong scale, even if it helps incrementally or is generally true.
If it seems people are cynical about what appears to be helpful advice, the cynicism isn't necessarily based on the idea that it's bad practice. It's not all that different from what I do in the business world, bending my style to fit my clients' preference. It's more that it doesn't really seem to solve the problem at the core of the dysfunction and can end up backfiring, or presenting the appearance of "progress" without reaching the minimum threshold for a in intimate, married relationship.
---
And yes, I think the scarcity effect might be a factor. Now that I feel reasonably assured of infrequent but regular sexual expression with a partner who I know digs me, the urgency and desperation of missing that (and intuitively - what that lack signifies)- which had my ex-wife characterizing me as sex-obsessed - has dwindled to what seems reasonable.