Another look at the love languages

Photo by RDNE of pexels

It can only be your language when you fluently speak it and readily understand it. This should apply to love languages too.

But more often than not, we see people claiming to have a love language they don't speak themselves. They simply claim what they will love the other party to do for them. If it is yours, you should be the speaker and not a mere hearer. It's called a language for a reason.

If I were to be in a relationship with you, I wouldn't want you to tell me what your love language is; merely watching your gestures towards me should make it obvious enough.

If what you claim to be your love language isn't clearly seen in your actions towards me, your lover, I best believe that whatever you assert as your love language isn't truly yours; you're simply going for what will favour you.

And when it's all about an individual's gratification, it shouldn't be called a love language; selfish language will be a better fit. Because love is more about what you give than what you receive. I mean, the proof that I love you should be seen in my contribution to your wellbeing and not merely in how much I can draw from your well.

Equating that to a literal language can be likened to a person who loves how a language sounds but neither speaks nor understands the language. And it's a well-established fact that a language isn't yours merely because you admire how it sounds. If that were the case, I should be claiming French as my language. Oh my goodness! That language is absolutely sexy to my ears.

Don't, for any reason, misconstrue this piece to interpret that I'm against you having expectations from your partners. Expectations are legitimate things to have, so you're at liberty to have one. But it's only fair that we ask you to only expect what you give.

Only expect to receive what you can give. Is that too much to ask for?

Many may argue that a person who isn't financially buoyant might have gifts as her love language but can't express it because of her financial status. The argument doesn't, however, hold water because gifting has little to do with the quantity and size of the gift. If you're a giving person, you'll be comfortable sharing the little you have, especially with your lover.

Love language shouldn't even be restricted to what you do for the person you're in a relationship with. You should be your first love interest. Doing for people the things you can't do for yourself isn't healthy; you'll likely burn yourself out in the long run. The worst of all is expecting from people what you don't do for yourself.

A mere glance at how you treat and carry yourself should tell me how you expect to be treated. Again, if your love language is gifts, this has very little to do with buying expensive gifts for yourself when you aren't a high-income earner. Within your income range, you should be able to buy things for yourself in order to convince me that receiving gifts is your love language. Aren't you supposed to, first of all, love yourself?

I can't imagine a person who can't provide simple services for himself claiming that acts of service is his love language. Just tell us that you're looking for a free maidservant in the name of a relationship. Mister, Confess. You wouldn't die from doing so.

At least, with the way I service my hair and tend to my beards, I'm well within my right to claim acts of service as my love language.

On a more serious note, you really don't have to be conventional. It's okay to be eccentric. You don't have to choose one or more of the established love languages as yours. Just like me, your love language can be nothing.

I mean, even in a relationship, I expect nothing from people, and I welcome it if nothing is expected from me.

If you speak my language, which is nothing, buzz me up; who knows, just maybe we could work something out.