If attraction brings us to the door of the relationship, as we said last time, what keeps it alive once the initial enthusiasm has settled? One of the clearest and most useful explanations I have encountered comes from an apparently simple concept, but one with profound implications in couple life: love languages. Not as a magic formula and not as a universal solution, but as a tool for understanding a real and frequent phenomenon: that two people can love each other sincerely and yet each feel, individually, unloved.

Gary Chapman, a marriage counsellor with decades of experience, observed a recurring pattern in the couples he worked with: partners complained of not feeling loved, despite the other person making visible efforts. The conclusion he reached is that people express and receive love in fundamentally different ways. And when the two ways don't match, real love is present, but it doesn't arrive.

The five languages and what lies behind them

Chapman identified five main ways in which people express and receive love: words of affirmation, quality time, receiving gifts, acts of service and physical touch. Each has an internal logic and an origin usually connected to early experiences.

Words of affirmation are essential for people who grew up in an environment where verbal validation was rare or conditional. For them, "I love you," "you matter to me," "I appreciate what you do" are not mere courtesies. They are emotional oxygen. Their absence creates a silence that feels like indifference, even if the partner demonstrates love through other channels.

Quality time means genuine presence, not physical proximity. Not being in the same room while each looks at their own screen, but truly being there, without distractions, with attention directed towards the other person. For people with this primary language, the quality of time spent together is the clearest indicator of how important they are to their partner.

Receiving gifts is not about materialism. It is about symbolism. A gift thought through, chosen with attention to the other person's preferences and needs, communicates: "I thought of you when you weren't there." For people with this language, the gesture matters more than the material value. And forgetting important moments, a birthday, an anniversary, can be experienced as proof of profound indifference.

Acts of service are the concrete actions through which you ease your partner's life: you cook when you're tired, because you know they are exhausted. You sort something that was stressing them. You take on a responsibility that wasn't yours, because you can see the other person is overwhelmed. For people with this language, "I love you" is demonstrated through what you do, not through what you say.

Physical touch goes far beyond the sexual dimension. It includes touching a shoulder in passing, holding hands while walking, the farewell embrace, physical closeness on the sofa. For people with this language, the absence of physical touch is felt as emotional distance, regardless of how many kind words are spoken or how many practical things are done.

Where the real problems arise

The most frequent problem is not that people don't love each other. It is that each expresses love in their own language, not in their partner's. And this is not a moral failing; it is a limitation of awareness.

If my primary language is acts of service, I will express love by cooking, repairing, organising, solving. And I will be convinced that my partner feels loved, because I would feel that way if someone did these things for me. But if their primary language is words of affirmation, they will receive very little of what I am trying to convey, even if the flat is immaculate and all the practical problems are resolved.

Both love. Both make efforts. And yet both feel, to varying degrees, unloved. Not out of ill will, but from an unawareness of the way the other person receives love.

Beyond theory: applying it in real life

The theory is useful, but its application is more nuanced than it appears at first reading. A few things I have observed and which I think deserve to be said.

The first is that love languages are not static. They can vary depending on the period, on stress, on emotional state. Someone whose primary language is ordinarily quality time may, during periods of vulnerability or illness, need much more physical touch or words of affirmation. Remaining attentive to these variations is a form of genuine presence in the relationship.

The second is that there is an important difference between knowing your partner's language and speaking it fluently. You can know intellectually that your partner needs words of affirmation and still forget to offer them, because it isn't your natural mode of functioning. Speaking a love language that isn't native to you requires deliberate and repeated effort until it becomes habit.

The third, and perhaps the most important, is that the theory of love languages should not become an excuse for rigidity. "I don't naturally receive words well, so I don't expect you to say them" is a misreading of the concept. The idea is not to limit yourself to your primary language or to ask your partner to adapt entirely to yours. The idea is to create a conversation about the way each of you feels loved and to meet somewhere in the middle, with flexibility and goodwill from both directions.

Criticism of the concept and its limits

I want to be honest about the limits of this theory as well, because it seems intellectually dishonest to present it as the complete truth.

The main criticism from researchers is that the empirical evidence supporting Chapman's theory is limited and that simplifying into five categories can be misleading. People are more complex than any typology and reducing relational needs to five languages can create a false clarity.

The theory can also be used to avoid real responsibility. "I didn't know that was their language" can become an excuse for years of inattention. And in relationships with power imbalances or toxic dynamics, love languages don't resolve the fundamental problems.

That said, as a tool for opening conversation about needs and expectations in a relationship, I consider it valuable. Not as absolute truth, but as a shared vocabulary that can facilitate a discussion many couples never have: how exactly each of them feels seen and loved.

The best relationships I have observed

Regardless of the theory they use as a reference, couple relationships that function well over the long term share one thing: partners are genuinely curious about each other and pay attention to the way each of them experiences and receives love. This doesn't come from a manual. It comes from a genuine desire to be present for the person beside you, not for the image you have constructed of what love should mean.

Think about your partner or the person you care about most right now. How do you believe they feel most deeply loved? And when was the last time you acted consciously in their language, rather than your own?