If Books Could Kill - The 5 Love Languages

Episode Date: April 20, 2023

What’s your love language? Is it gifts? Words of affirmation? Or is it podcasts about books with extremely weird, reactionary gender dynamics?Support us on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/IfBooksPodWhere to find us: TwitterPeter's other podcast, 5-4Mike's other podcast, Maintenance PhaseSources:Can Gary Chapman Save Your Marriage?The Sixth Love Language Does Not ExistHow ‘The Five Love Languages’ Gets Misinterpreted The 5 Love Languages Don’t Matter as Much as You ThinkThe Creator Of The 5 Love Languages Is A Homophobe And This Is Why We Can't Have Nice ThingsFamed Author Gary Chapman Talks Love, Marriage, Sex Evangelicals IncorporatedThanks to Mindseye for our theme song!

Michael. Peter. What do you know about the five love languages? Yes, this is one I had to update my deal breaker on dating sites from the Myers-Briggs personality type indicators. The core thesis of the five love languages is that people have different preferences in how they express and receive love, and that those preferences fall generally into five categories. Words of affirmation, quality time, receiving gifts, physical touch, and acts of service. The basic lesson that Gary Chapman, the author, is teaching here, is that if you want to be a good partner, you need to learn to speak your spouse's love language. This is why I've been slightly nervous about this episode, because it honestly just seems so harmless and constructive to me.

I don't know about like these five categories specifically, but the idea of having this meta conversation with your partner about the ways that you appreciate them and the way that you appreciate being shown love seems like totally fine to me. I actually agree. And I think that of all the books we've covered so far, this one is the least objectionable on its face. There is a real utility to this core concept of realizing that your partner may not receive affection the way that you do and trying to understand

what makes them feel loved and appreciated, right? And I think the sort of simplicity of that idea is the reason that everyone knows this book. It's just a useful way to think about relationships, about how you and your spouse might differ and like what it means to be a good partner. I never actually knew that this was based on a book. I thought it was just something that started appearing

in framed posters in Airbnb's, starting in like 2015. There are some other really good elements within this book. Chapman uses the love language idea to discuss how love is not just like a magical feeling, but something that requires effort to maintain. He says that being loved gives us a sense of purpose and makes us feel valued and significant,

which I do just for the purposes of our canon, want to point out is also what Fukuyama said about liberal democracy. He's got the thymus section of the poster up in all the Airbnb's. Just trying to connect as many threads as I can through our episodes. He also has some good real estate investing advice. The book has sold over 15 million copies. It was originally published in 1992 and was fairly popular, but actually took off in the late Aughts and early 2010s.

An updated version is published in 2015, which is important because I read the updated version, and then I went back and read through the original version. And several of my friends like you, when I told them I was doing the book for the show, they said they didn't think the book was too bad and they thought the ideas were good. And what I said to them was, I bet you read the 2015 version. Oh, so it's like the misogyny minus version like they they cleaned it up for the hashtag

blessed crowd. Now, interestingly, the main way the love language's concept has been like absorbed by our popular culture is as like a self-directed personality test, right? People love to describe their own love languages. It's functionally a meme now where people just tweet, like having a giant laundry pile, I never put away as my love language. I think it's important to note that like,

that's not what Chapman was trying to get across. He wanted people to understand their partners love language so that you can learn how to make them feel appreciated. So our culture has sort of done a classic American culture thing of taking something and repackaging it and it's like shallowist and most selfish iteration. It's supposed to be how to be nice and it ends up being how other people can be nice to me. Yes. Right. No, I want gifts. I want gifts. So when you did Meta from Mars, you got suspicious of John Gray's credentials halfway

through the book and you started digging around and found out that his PhD is pretty much fraudulent. Gary Chapman does not put PhD on the cover, but he holds himself out as Gary Chapman PhD. And I was like, okay, you know, fool us once, right? As of now, there is a zero tolerance environment for marriage counselor authors on this podcast. His PhD is real. Okay. He got his masters and PhD in religious education from Southwestern Baptist theological seminary. Oh, as well as a masters in anthropology from Wake Forest. One of those sounds real. Yeah. Look, I didn't want to get into the merits of seminary schools, but suffice it to say that we are treading in more legitimate waters than we were with Gray. So Gary Chapman is a pastor, essentially?

He's like, he's coming to this from religious angle. He is a pastor, and yeah, it's important framing, because again, the core concept of this book, I think is quite good. The actual book sucks. And that's basically what we're gonna talk about. Before we get into the substance of the book, I think it would be useful at this point in our podcast

to talk about the hallmarks of like shitty bestselling self-help. We need like five rules of the five types of bestselling books. And then write a bestselling book about it. Yes. So I think like first and foremost, a lack of science. Yes. A thesis that is presented as if it is scientific. When in fact, there is absolutely no science being done. So is this five-level language is thing just like something he fully made up? Yes. He is pretty explicit about that. He basically says, you know, I was talking

to couples over the course of my counseling career, and I sort of formulated this concept. So there's no, it's not predicated in any real science, there's no like psychology hiding somewhere behind it or something, he just sort of vibed this out. This also makes it harder to debunk because he's not citing any studies. He's just like saying stuff.

The sad truth of this is that had he relied on some science and cited it, we would now be like pulling apart his application of that science and explaining why it's so stupid. But you can't incorrectly cite scientific research when you're not citing scientific research. I'm tapping my head right now

like the gift of that dude. Chapman like hints at science like he'll occasionally say things like psychology supports this like psychological research supports it. Oh, great. And then you look back at the notes like the footnotes of the book. There are four and three of them are to the Bible. No way. What's the fourth one to? The fourth one is just to an article on a website by someone named Kelly Flanagan titled why one text message is more romantic than a hundred Valentine cards. What? I would like to see Kelly Flanagan's foot notes, please.

It's that proverbs and Luke twice. So quality number two of the best selling self-help book, it's please. It's that proverbs and Luke twice. So quality number two of the best-selling self-help book, it's presented as a cure all. Yes. There's no nuance. It's not like this is a useful thing to keep in mind. It's like here is how to fix your relationship flat out period. And like this is the one thing you need to know to solve every single relationship problem. This is what John Gray was doing too. Number three, filler. A book that is like 200 pages long when you can get the entire message from the back cover.

That is like quintessential self-help, right? Now, a big reason that these books get popular is the simplicity of the central concept, right? Which generally means that you're going to need filler. Something I forgot to mention in our Rich Dad Poor Dad episode was that he includes an entire Robert Frost poem. Start to finish because it takes up like a page and a half. The tactics that these people use to take up space are incredible. So first you have like the chapters themselves, which all start with an anecdote that is very repetitive.

A couple comes in and they're like, we don't get along anymore. And Chapman is like, what if you've spoke each other's love languages? And they're like, whoa, you saved our marriage. And then he like extrapolates a bit, end of chapter. Now if you're remembering like the secret, the last 40 pages were like biographies of the contributors for this book. The last 30 pages are FAQs and a love language quiz. Hell yeah. You also at the end of each chapter, there's like a little mystical summary of the advice the chapter contained. Man, he couldn't even do that with the footnotes though. He couldn't add some extra links to

hoof posts. I didn't realize how funny the footnotes were until you asked what the other footed was. I think the last feature of the best-selling self-help book is not actually within the book. It's the cash grab spin-offs. Is there like love languages for kids? Yes, there is. And like love languages for her, love languages for him.

Yeah, you've got the five love languages of children the five love languages singles edition the five love languages of teenagers the five love languages Four men there is no for women. Okay The five love languages military edition. Okay Teens guide to the five love languages. Now, you might think that's duplicative, but the five love languages of teenagers is for parents to understand teenagers. The teens guide to the five love languages is for teens. And there is also, I forgot to mention my apologies, the five love languages of God. Oh, okay. Now, that one I actually read a little bit because I was I was like, what does he mean by giving gifts to God? Is he talking about like human sacrifice? That's

what I was wondering. But no, it's actually like God is speaking the love language. So it's like God is giving you gifts. But then isn't God's like number one love language like retribution? If you actually read the Bible. All right. I think it is time to dive into the book. The opening little vignettes takes place on an airplane. He has seated next to a man who turns to him and says, what kind of work do you do? And Chapman says, I do marriage counseling and lead marriage

enrichment seminars. And the guy goes, I've been wanting to ask them on this for a long time. What happens to love after you get married? Chapman's like, well, what do you mean? And the guy goes, I've been married three times, and each time it was wonderful before we got married, but somehow after the wedding, it fell apart. All the love I thought I had for her and the love she seemed to have for me evaporated.

He then walks Chapman through his three marriages. He says, in the first one, we had three or four good years before the baby came. After the baby was born, I felt like she gave her attention to the baby and I no longer mattered. He talked about the second marriage, which was following a sixth month dating period. Then they split. Then the third marriage, he dates her for longer, but he just says, you know, she became a negative person after a bit, and I began to resent her, and we broke up. See, if she had this on her hinge profile, he would have known her future.

And then he turns to Gary Chapman and says, so my question is, what happens to love after the wedding? Is my experience common? Is that why we have so many divorces in our country? And those who don't divorce, did they learn to live with the emptiness or does love really stay alive in some marriages? If so, how?

This is quintessential Gary Chapman dialogue, just the most like transparent exposition you can imagine. Yeah, yeah, yeah. If so, how? What's with the divorce rate in this country, Gary? Can you lay out the premise of your work for me, please? Right. Are there languages of love?

Gary, would you say so? This is every scene in the first half of Tenet. It's like, can you just explain, did you actually to me what the fuck is going on right now? So he uses that little question as the sort of prompt for the book. And then he sort of makes his way to the love languages themselves. The first love language words of affirmation. And we start the chapter like almost all of his chapters with a wife asking for help. Okay. She says that she's been asking her husband to paint the bedroom for nine months to no avail. Has she tried a different modal verb?

I don't know. The bedroom. No matter how she asks him, she says no matter when, he doesn't do it. Now, what Chapman advises is don't ever mention painting the bedroom again. And instead, start complimenting on the things he does do. Okay.

In the hope that these words of affirmation will motivate him to paint the bedroom. Oh, in metaphor Mars, like you were hinting at, the author talked about using the term would you instead of could you when asking your husband for a favor? And now we have Chapman saying, stop asking, start giving him compliments for other housework he did.

At the end of the day, how many psychological tricks are we as a society prepared to deploy to get these guys to do their chores? This actually came up a lot in menor for Mars women or for Venus, this idea that as soon as you stop asking him to do things, he will spontaneously do them for you, which seems just totally wrong to me. Because like, if all you're doing is being nice to me, how would I even know that you want me to paint the bedroom? I'm trying to think of something that would work less on me than just never asking me. I would immediately be like, oh, she doesn't care anymore.

Yeah, exactly. I just didn't do anything and then she dropped it. Awesome. It seems to me like it's a way of just redirecting the fact that you're annoyed, that you're being nagged about it. Yeah. And trying to turn it into like, well, I would do it if you weren't nagging.

Exactly. Which I don't think is actually true. I think you just don't want to do it and you're too chicken shit. Right. Like, either nut up and do it or like launch a negotiation of like, I don't want to do this for these reasons. Right. Exactly. It's like, well, if you were different,

I would have done it by now. Right. What you mean to say is I don't want to do this. And also, I don't want to be bothered about not doing it. So there is some good advice for couples in here, compiling lists of your partner's positive traits and then using them as a reminder to give affirming compliments.

I thought that was a nice little suggestion. But then he has one particular couple who is struggling, make their lists, and I'm going to send them to you. Okay, Andrew is list. Looked like this. He is aggressive in his work. He has received several promotions through the years. He's a good financial manager. He's always thinking of ways to improve his productivity. He's generous with finances and agrees I can use the money from my job anyway I desire. Mark's list looked like this. She keeps our house clean and orderly. She helps the kids with their homework. She cooks dinner about three days a week. She teaches first grade Sunday school. She chauffeurs the children to all their activities.

Again, this is supposed to be a list of like positive traits that the spouse has, right? The prompt was things you like about the other person. That is the quote from Chapman. His list about her is essentially a list of chores that she does. Yeah. And hers about him is just like he has a job.

It's someone described me in these terms. I would like not feel like they loved me. that she does. And hers about him is just like, he has a job. Someone described me in these terms, I would like not feel like they loved me. How could you? Mike's podcasts come out on time. Mike's really passionate about his podcast. I'm like, do you think I'm smart or funny? Right. This is my LinkedIn profile that you're giving me. It's not even framed in terms of like, oh, I admire his passion or something. Right.

Something that feels like more of a real compliment. It's just like, he is doing business successfully. Yeah, he's always working and he's very good at working. Bizarre. In the earlier editions of this book, the lists are longer. It's still all chores for him and finance stuff for her. The husband says in the older version that

one of the positive traits of his wife is she does the washing and some ironing. The wife's list includes he bought us a recreational vehicle. Side note, this is one of I think two parts of the book where a wife mentions that she loves that her husband owns an RV. of the book were a wife mentions that she loves that her husband owns an RV. And I think it's probably worth floating the real possibility that Chapman has made some of these up for that they're just sort of like gussied up versions of much simpler anecdotes from real life, which means that like maybe he's creating fictional dialogue where man expressed appreciation for women. And he's just continuously listing chores. This is also where his background is a pastor comes in, right?

Right. It's not like he came with the five level languages after working with a broad swath of couples. He was presumably working through the church with fairly conservative Christian couples. There's a layer here that I think is like the book's central flaw, which really didn't hit me until I was staring at this little list. He is proposing the idea that you can solve marital problems by speaking the other person's love language, but like the question lurking unanswered behind nearly every anecdote in the book is, should these people be married? Chapman's always end in all of the couples problems being resolved, no matter how dire

the situation seemed before. That creates a sense in the reader that any problems in a relationship can be solved using these tactics. Yeah. That's just not true. And maybe even viewers into being dangerous advice, right? If you're in like a particularly unhealthy, abusive relationship. Right.

And again, Chapman is a conservative pastor. The only times divorce are mentioned in the book, or when he's either talking about how close a couple came to divorce before he saved them, or how unfortunate it is that divorce rates are so high. Maybe his love language is just reactionary boilerplate about how society is crumbling all around us. Not only only to get off their phones.

All right. Quality time. This is number two. The chapter is about the idea that some people feel most appreciated through quality time spent with their partner, which she makes clear involves like giving your undivided attention. The primary anecdote is that this couple comes in and the wife is like, he never spends any time with me. And the husband, Mark, says, she's always complaining about me not spending time with her. And Chapman is like, well, maybe try spending time with her.

Yeah. And Mark is like, Dr. Chapman, you've saved my marriage. I'm not exaggerating. This is the course of events. Chapman tells the guy to spend quality time with his wife and he goes, Dr. Chapman, that is what she has always complained about. I didn't do things with her.

And it's like, so she was telling you, Mark. Yeah, so do you just need a man to tell you this? Right. And you think it's real? I mean, that's genuinely what's happening. And this is not the only time that this exact dynamic plays out in this book. Like his wife has just been telling him

the same thing for years. They go to counseling and Chapman is like, yeah. Yeah, been time with her. And he's like, without you, Dr. Chapman, we'll be divorced. I would say the main issue in our relationship is that my wife keeps asking me to walk the dog. What should I do?

Well, I don't know, man. If you sort of take a step back and look at these books, like I'm coupling men from Mars and five level languages together, even in their telling, they can't put together a tale of like normal, competent and loving men. You know, like these guys are just like hapless losers. This isn't John Gray's book, too, where like there's very few examples and the examples that they have. It's like not even like sitcom episode levels of complexity. Right. It's just like he never brings the groceries in from the car. And like, well, yeah, then he should just do that. It's not like these are not like real human problems.

All right. Let's move on to receiving gifts. Most of the chapter relatively anodine advice about how some people like to receive gifts and like different ways to become a better gift giver and how to balance it with finances. I mean, this one has always resonated with me because I do not give a shit about gifts. This has like always been like something that I was not aware of about myself until I found this framework. I was like, Oh, okay, like notes to self, note to others. When dating me, like, I just don't really care if you give me flowers. I'm not going to remember that in like six hours. And like, that seems vaguely useful to me. One of the most useful things about this framework is just a simple reminder

that because you don't like something or don't think something is important, it doesn't mean that other people have the same feeling. Totally. It's just reminding you that other people's brains don't operate the way that yours does. One weird little aside about this chapter is in the new version, he used the term friend zone offhand. Oh, okay. And I was like, oh, that's weird, because that is a term that originated primarily with

the pickup artist community and it's just sort of weird to see a marriage counselor using the language. I'm not sure that he understands what he is saying. How does he use it? That's like a weird thing to bring into like a couple's paradigm. He basically leads off with an anecdote being like, Jeff had been in the friend zone with Becky

and then Jeff catches like a baseball at a game and gives it to her, then they fuck her. I don't know, I don't know, it was bizarre. This one also feels fake. Yeah, no, I didn't understand that one either, but again, I was sort of like, yeah, maybe this is just not the love language. Yeah, sure.

Maybe it is normal for someone to just get a gift and be like, I like this guy now. Yeah, I don't know. I don't know. This is something I always trace to Hollywood, but I wonder if it also goes back to these pop bestsellers. The idea that you've expressed interest in someone, and they're like, no, no, I don't like you.

And then you do some grand gesture or like give them a gift, and they're like, okay, I'm into you. Just as like one of the dumbest and most pernicious myths in American life, like in real life, people like you less when you do that. Yeah, in real life, you need to be mean to women and treat them like shit and then they'll like you.

The way out of the friend zone is through negging. Oh God, he talks about giving the gift of yourself, which means just being present. Oh, that's just the other one. That's just like the quality time one. Right, exactly. It's quality time. I was like, all right, this is more filler, right?

He was like, all right, what other kind of gifts can you give? I guess you can give yourself. Yeah. The gift of self part contains another example of a situation where you're just looking at a straightforwardly awful relationship. And you're supposed to believe that he has like salvaged it using the power of love languages. I am going to send you an excerpt.

It says, Sonia once said to me, my husband loves softball more than he loves me. Why do you say that, I inquired? On the day our baby was born, he played softball. I was lying in the hospital all afternoon while he played softball, she said. Was he there when the baby was born, he played softball. I was lying in the hospital all afternoon while he played softball, she said. Was he there when the baby was born? He stayed long enough for the baby to be born, but 10 minutes afterward he left.

It was awful. It was such an important moment in our lives. I wanted us to share it together. I wanted Tony to be there with me. That baby was now 15 years old, and Sonia was talking about the event with all the emotion as though it had happened yesterday. Have you base your conclusion that Tony loves softball more than he loves you on this one experience? No, she said. On the day of my mother's funeral, he also played softball.

Did he go to the funeral? Yes, he did. He went to the funeral, but as soon as it was over, he left to get to his game. I couldn't believe it. My brothers and sisters came to the house with me, but my husband was playing softball. Okay, this guy's clearly having an affair. Clearly doesn't like his wife. I mean, look, this man is a demon. These are like the most important days in her life over the span of like 20 years. And he just like strategically picks them to play softball. I'll see if I can make it. Yeah. I'll try to pop in at some point for the birth of a child. So, Chapman goes to the husband. And the husband says, I knew she would bring that up.

And then he says that he actually went to the softball game to brag to his team about the baby. And he was like shocked that she was upset when he came home. I don't know. And then paraphrasing his response about the funeral, he basically says, well, I bet she didn't tell you this, but I spent the week prior to her mother's death helping out. So after the funeral, I wanted to place off ball to relax. Okay. So those are the reasons he provided. And Dr. Chapman is like, well, look, this is a well-meaning sincere guy who just doesn't understand his wife's love language.

The final advice that he gives here is, quote, if the physical presence of your spouse is important to you, I urge you to verbalize that to your spouse. It sounds like she has. It sounds like this is a story that she's told throughout the marriage. Literally has been mad about the softball game for 15 years. Yeah.

And then he did it again on the day of her mother's funeral. Yeah. What else is she supposed to do here? But again, this is a situation where Chapman is like, hey, the next time she has a once in a decade trauma, don't go play softball and he's like, Gary, you're a miracle worker. How do you come up with this?

It's like he's chalking this up to a misunderstanding. Right. He just doesn't understand the gifts that you need of time. This is not the gift of yourself. This is an obligation that you have as like a human being who cares about another human being. Yeah. There is no saving this man.

Maybe this is another feature of these self-help books is they give this advice that is kind of like the starting point right of like understanding each other's love languages. Like that seems like a useful framework. But ultimately you have to implement it. And the problems in the relationship aren't necessarily people not knowing this stuff. The information is available, but they're just not doing anything with it.

I like can't believe these guys are like the way he frames it is like, oh, I wanted to go tell them. He makes it seem as if there's this perpetual softball game going on that he can like pop it in out of no, he was trying to make the game. He was like, push, push. So, although to be fair, when I, on the day that I was born, my dad did get an oil change on the car. But that pays off, that's an investment. I mean, it was like labor takes a while. So, you know, it was on the way.

He's like, yeah, there's not really anything for me to do for the next four hours. So I might as well go get an oil change. And that's why I'm like this. That's why I'm like this, Peter. That's an incredible dude thing to do for the next four hours, so I might as well go get a oil change. And that's why I'm like this. That's why I'm like this, Peter. That's an incredible dude thing to do. I know. The dudeest imaginable thing. Acts of service is essentially what it sounds like. People who feel appreciated when the other person does something for them. Is that this just the same as all the other categories, though?

I've never actually understood this one, because there's a gift of type of act of service and isn't quality time a type of act of service. Well, it's not a perfect science, all right? These are... But acts of service to Gary Chapman, again, mostly means chores. Oh, that makes sense. So like, yeah, I took care of this thing for you. It would sound less romantic if the category was called chores, but that's what it is. Oh, God, logistics. Oh, this is mine. Peter, holy shit.

This is mine. So physical touch is the last one. This chapter has the standard anecdote where there's a miserable couple that ends up loving each other again after they figure out their love languages. Chapman takes a moment to criticize non-monogamy. Okay, great. He says, quote, this age is characterized as the age of sexual openness and freedom. With that freedom, we have demonstrated that the open marriage,

where both spouses are free to have sexual intimacies with other individuals, is fanciful. Those who do not object on moral grounds eventually object on emotional grounds. Yeah, tell me you've never worked with gay couples without telling me you've never worked with gay couples. There's no citation or anything. It's just sort of like open marriages don't work moving on. As a kid who grew up in a Christian household, I will say when whenever Christians talk about sex, it gets really weird, really fast because like the only framework they have for it is like marital intercourse.

And so they have like no idea how like dating works. If I was a 24 year old virgin, and someone was like, you're a few legal documents away from having sex, can't tell you how quickly I would have jumped into it. Oh yeah. There are a lot of gender tropes and then the physical touch chapter,

manwatt sex all the time while quote, women need to feel a close emotional connection for sex to be satisfying. Women be talking. Women be a mountain. I was reading an article by someone who was in a seminary learning these and mentioned that people in the class kept accidentally describing women having sex with men as an act of service rather than physical touch. That basic thought recurves throughout the book. Like the sexual desire of men is a given and the sexual desire of women is not discussed.

Does he only mean sex here? Or does he also, I always thought this meant, you know, cuddling. No, he does not just mean sex. No, he means cuddling, massage is, things like that. It's meant to be inclusive of all sorts of touch. With friends, I always really appreciate it when friends are just touchy people.

It feels like I know where I stand with them. I hate it. Oh, do you? You're just recoiling. I shouldn't say hate it, but when guys do the back pat, I'm like, oh, okay, what's your problem? Are we in a fight? So I think this is as good a time as any

to discuss the sexism that runs through the book. Chapman again is a conservative pastor. He very plainly subscribes to certain gender roles and marriages. In one late chapter, there is a story about a marriage that appears to involve a potentially abusive husband. According to her, he is mistreating her verbally berating her, telling her that he hates her frequently. He refuses counseling and

therapy. She goes to Chapman. She says, all of her friends were telling her to leave him. In the early editions of the book, Chapman theorizes that the guy's love language is physical touch, and his advice is for the wife to start initiating sex frequently and more aggressively. No way! She says that will be hard for her because sex with him makes her feel used and unloved. Oh my god! And Chapman tells her to deal with it by remembering Jesus' sermon on the mount in order to gather the strength. Holy shit. Look, I wanted to make a sermon on the mount joke, but it's like a little too serious of a situation.

It's a really dark anecdote, actually, that he's just... So for resenting this, it's like, fuck him until he's nice to you, basically. Yes. Or like, give him what he wants. There's a husband who is fairly strongly implied to be abusive or at least mistreating her significantly. He's not involved in the therapy and the advice based on a guess about his love language is to fucking more. He doesn't need to change his behavior at all. It's only her that has to change how she reacts to that. In the newer editions, he changes the story so that his advice is just to be physically affectionate.

Ruffle the guy's hair, things like that. And then she asks about sex. Okay. After which his advice is to engage in it more slowly over time as she begins to feel more loved and appreciated. But that's again, just do this thing and he will spontaneously treat you better, which is like not my understanding of abuse dynamics. Right.

If you're nice to him and ruffle his hair, he'll get less bad. I don't know. He basically toned down how problematic the advice is, but I'm not sure that it actually changes how effective it would be. Right. And there's a sort of like every marriage

can be saved by running through this, right? Every problem can be solved by doing love language analysis, no matter how severe the crisis is. And when you're looking at a little anecdote like this one, it really jumps out at you where you're just like, oh. Now I'm becoming more shocked that he didn't tell that one lady to start playing softball. Actually, your problem.

Since that was in that anecdote, it was in the first book, that softball league was taking place in the 1980s. So I don't think she was allowed. This is a no wife zone. This is where we go when our wives are giving birth with their moms or dying. What do you, what do you think your love languages, Peter? Did you get more insight into yourself reading this? Truly, I don't know. I would, I can mostly do a process of elimination. I didn't do the quiz at the end of the book. I want to take it so bad right now. Uh, if I had to process of elimination,

and I think I land somewhere around words of affirmation, acts of service. So does this mean I should tell you your smart and funny and do podcast chores? Absolutely. You'll learn more about that in the five love languages of podcasters. His next goal. Right. Although, I guess as you said earlier,

the question isn't what is your love language, but what is your wife's love language? Right. And why isn't it putting up the shelf that you said you were going to do? I was reading off that one anecdote to Lee about the guy not painting the bedroom, and she was like, interesting, interesting comparison. She's tried every motel verb with you, Peter. She's tried Sh modal verb with you, Peter. She's tried should, would, could.

She has, she tried complimenting the things I do do. Peter, you've been podcasting great today. This is also a good segue into like the updates in the new edition. Like I mentioned, there are handful of additions at this book with the big mass market retool occurring in 2015. Given it the old role, doll.

So in the new version, there are a lot of little changes designed to make the book less expressly sexist, less reactionary overall, less overtly religious. Early editions are fairly expressly Christian. Jesus washing the feet of his disciples is an example of an act of service in the early editions. All of that gets removed.

That means I don't have to wash your feet when we hang out in New York. What about that? The sexism in the early editions, pretty much endless. There's one couple in turmoil and Chapman asks the husband what he loves about his wife. The guy says she is a good mother. She is also a good housekeeper and an excellent cook when she chooses to cook. Oh, good one. Throw that twit tonight.

About 40 pages later, there's an entirely different couple. And Chapman asks the husband how he knows his wife loves him. The husband says, oh, I've always felt loved by her, Dr. Chapman. She is the best housekeeper in the world. She is an excellent cook. She keeps my clothes washed and ironed. She is wonderful about doing things with the children. All of these seem to have come from the 1950s,

or some weird world where only the men are working and the women are at home. This is the 90s. Most of these couples, both people, are working. But even if that was your dynamic, it still doesn't make sense to list off the chores as the reason that you feel loved. Like surely there was something more to traditional relationships, even in Christian households,

than just like this transactional he makes the money I do the cooking and clean. Yeah. I keep just reading the ship being like, it's just not what love is, right? Like I might feel like I'm losing it. That's like that review of the Star Wars prequels, where it's like, describe the characters without describing their jobs or their clothes. And like, no one can do it. All of that disappears from new additions.

The end of the book, again, has two love language quizzes, one for each spouse. The way it works is it presents two statements and you choose which one resonates with you more. And then it does that about 20 times and by the end of it, you know your love language, right? The statements in the new edition are functionally identical for husbands and wives, just with the gender swapped. Like it's two versions of the same quiz. But in the early editions, they had all these weird differences. Oh, hell yeah. So it's like when you're vacuuming,

or whatever, from the women. Not super far from what's about to happen, okay. So for men, the statement is, I feel loved when my wife does the laundry. And for women, it's changed to, I feel loved when my husband helps with the laundry. For men, you have, when my wife cooks a meal for me, I know that she loves me. For women, it's when my husband helps clean up after a meal, I know that he loves me.

So, Macy, we're just assuming that the women are doing the laundry in the cooking. Right. And it's like, if he's doing this, it's as a helper. For men, you have, keeping the house clean is an important act of service. Do you want to guess what the women version is? Oh, and like, when my husband takes one chore off my hands. It's, I love when my husband helps clean the house. Helps clean the house. One of the funnier ones, for men, I love having sex with my wife and for women, it's changed

to I love cuddling with my husband. There is no representation in this book for horny women. There is absolutely none. Women are asexual creatures in this book. It is baffling. Yeah, especially considering that men get both sex and our v's. I feel like for a self-help book, that's pretty three-dimensional. There are others, and many of them are very subtle but weird.

Like, there's one that I can't quite put my finger on but is odd to me. For women, it says, I like it when my husband helps out despite being busy. But then the male version is, I like it when my wife helps out despite having other things to do. Oh. Like, the term busy is reserved for men. Right, because that's like a work term. Yeah, it's like work adjacent, right? Yeah, you can't be busy with like house stuff or kids.

No, no, you're never busy. You just have things to do. It's like, you come on. You're not, you don't know what busy means, lady. I got a softball game. You don't have shit to do. My favorite, my absolute favorite one for wives. It says, I love it when my husband gives me a massage. But for husbands, it says, I love it when my wife rubs my back.

Oh, what? Less gay, right? It's like, come on, I'm not, I'm not a lady. I don't get massages. I get my back rough. You call it a massage. I don't get massages. I get my back rubbed. You call it a massage. I call it heterosexual first base. I'm going to a spa to get my HFB.

So that's the book. Now with all of this weird sexist shit going on under the hood here, our tuned listeners and perhaps you, Mike, are thinking, what's this guy think about gay people? Oh, shit. God, I hadn't even thought about this. I just like took it for granted

that like of course it's had a normative. Gay people don't exist in this book. They are not mentioned, no anecdotes about them. Of course. Nothing, it is like the female orgasm. It is just not discussed or implied. But Chapman maintains a website, which at least at one point included a little blog and a few years ago a blogger named Kristen May went digging around on it. So this is a Q&A and the question is, my son has recently told us that he is gay.

I'm having a very hard time dealing with it. How can I help him with this and still show love? And I have sent you Gary Chapman's response. He says, disappointment is a common emotion when a parent hears one of their children indicate that he or she is gay. Men and women are made for each other. It is God's design. Anything other than that is outside of that primary design of God. Now, I'm not going to try to explain all the ins and outs of homosexuality, but what I will say is this. We love our children no matter what. Express your disappointment and or your lack of understanding, but make it clear that you love them and that you will continue to love them no matter what.

I would also encourage you to ask your child to do some serious reading and or talk to a counselor to try to understand him or herself better while continuing to affirm your love. Yikes. I'd actually love somebody to follow up. Like, actually, could you explain the ins and outs of homosexuality? I'd like to hear what you think homosexuality consists of. I want to know what he thinks of as the ins and outs, you know?

I feel like this could be worse. He's like, you know, you love them no matter what. I mean, look, Chapman is not a psychopath, right? He is a dummy, but I don't think that he is like truly evil in the way that like, Matt Wallesher, whatever is, you know? Right. But this is the sort of like, hate the sin, not the sinner shit that keeps kids in the closet.

Right. Express your disappointment and or your lack of understanding. You will have two emotions, disappointment and lack of understanding. There is also a section of the website titled, Understanding Homosexuality. And I will send you the text of that in full. The top is responsible for bringing the Loub. Wow, very, that's really very detailed. He says, I'm meeting more and more Christian parents who are struggling in their efforts to understand homosexuality. Almost all parents, even those who say we

should tolerate all lifestyles, will feel shock and deep pain if one of their children announces that he is homosexual. The initial reaction is that they have failed their children in some critical way. The fact is that research has failed to discover the causes of homosexuality. We simply don't know why some people have same-sex attraction. So what's a Christian parent to do? The example of Jesus would lead us to spend time with them, communicate with them, and demonstrate love for them even though we do not approve of their lifestyle.

Okay, again, could have been worse. Yeah, I think it's more of the same sort of like look, they are awful and gross, but you must still love them. Yeah. I poked around on the archived version of the website and found at least one other section titled Relating Positively to a Child Who Is a Homosexual.

Okay. That suggests Christian counseling for your gay child and ends with quote, your child's choices need not destroy your life. Oh, me being gay has destroyed my parents' lives. That's, I think that's fair. These dated to like 2013 and 2014 again, they're discovered by this blogger a couple years ago, I think 2021, and then scrubbed from the site a few weeks after.

Okay. So all of this has vanished. I found one other interesting little tidbit in 2012 if he didn't interview with the Christian post where he said that part of what led to the topic of sex being perverted by our culture was belief in evolution. Okay. There's a lot going on with Chapman behind the scenes and basically like all of your instincts about his shitty religious beliefs probably correct. I mean one explanation of them

scrubbing this from the website, to be slightly generous, is that like maybe this just isn't his belief anymore. And he's like, oh, that's where I was 10 years ago, but that no longer reflects who I am. It's possible, but I do think that A, we might have seen him say that in some format. And I couldn't find it. Yeah. And B, we know that they're trying to market this book to a mass audience, right? Right. My best read on it is that they were like,

that's not good. That's a little outdated. Let's knock that off the website. And we are good. Right. I agree there's some possibility that he's softened on it, but I don't see any specific reason to believe that that's true. Yeah, there's not like love languages for like same sex couple. Right. I also don't think that you go from evolution denying pastor to like LGBT positive. That sound you hear is thousands of gay people removing their love language from their hinge profile. So there's like a meta item here as we're talking about his religion and what comes out of it. as we're talking about his religion and what comes out of it, there's like this phenomenon of Christian pastors publishing this sort of self-help and relationship advice that I think is worth drilling down on

because it's so ubiquitous. And I think the blog, the old website, is a good example of how pernicious it can be because not only do the books have some weird undercurrents, but also there's like a pipeline into some more expressly reactionary shit. Right. And then at the macro level, you have the Christian publishing industry,

which I kind of want to talk about a bit, if you will allow me. I love this shit because I grew up in the church. I kind of grew up straddling these worlds that there's a whole sector of the economy of like Christian music, Christian books, and like none of these activities follow the same rules as like secular world.

Like there's all kinds of weird like bulk buying that goes on and there's these bands that are like huge in Christian world who like no one has heard of outside of that world. Right. It's really interesting. There's like this weird insularity, but it's like 30% of the US population.

It's like a huge market. By the way, I would have pinned you as having a religious upbringing when you said the word Jesus because you were like Jesus. You really hit it. Jesus. I was like that. Wait till you hear me say,

be yells a boob. So, metastrophilies. I think it's hard for most people to comprehend how influential and vast the Christian publishing industry was, especially in the 80s and 90s. There's a book written a few years back by Daniel Vaca, a professor at Brown, called Evangelicals Incorporated that tracks the origins of this industry. It was a pretty good primer. So the modern Christian publishing company traces back to about the 1930s when two evangelical publishing companies spring up, Erdman's and Zander van.

During the Great Depression and through the postwar era, these companies played a big role in creating these sort of like distinctive culture of American Protestantism. They are early pioneers of this dynamic that we're kind of talking about where you have this like a robust culturally conservative media ecosystem that exists alongside the mainstream secular one, right? And if you're not looking right at it, you might not see it at all. In the 80s, you start to see mainstream media recognize the scale of Christian publishing in 1988 Harper Collins buys Zondervan. At their peak in the 90s,

they were 4,000 Christian bookstores in this country. Barnes and Noble, I don't think I've ever got over 1,000 locations to put that in perspective. Yeah. For the last 50 years has not been uncommon to see evangelical books top the nationwide bestseller lists. Right. Now, these publishers would publish like all sorts of expressly religious books, of course,

but Zander van in particular pioneers, a space for books that contain what Baka calls an ambient evangelicalism. Books that include conservative Christian tropes and principles, but aren't expressly Christian or at least aren't holding out their religiousness to aggressively. And I think that space is very firmly where this book sits, right? It's guided by conservative evangelical principles. It's written by an expressly religious pastor. And it nonetheless is carefully holding itself out as largely secular and non-ideological, right?

Chapman's not hiding that he's a Christian pastor, but I think he would say, well, this has advice for everyone, right? It sort of like maintains a deniability that the book is particularly religious or influenced by any particular ideology. And in recent years, Chapman and the publishers have clearly taken care to scrub much of like the residual religiosity from the book.

And I think that's important because I think the veneer of secularism allows them to launder some very reactionary thoughts and principles to a mainstream audience that doesn't actually understand what exactly they're being fed. And also provides like a way of entry into a more explicitly reactionary media apparatus, right? So you have like the latent homophobia and sexism of the book.

But then if you take it to the next step and go to this guy's like seminar or visit his website, you're just like confronted with the express denial that LGBT people are valid, right? And evolution. And you're just like one step away from a very conservative sort of world view. And I don't think people know that about this book.

Yeah, that was on the back of all the posters in the Airbnb's, I never checked. By the way, thank you for what that exists. What's your love language? I love women and women only because I am a man. Hahaha. Women and softball, baby. Sports.

It is interesting because on some level, like yes, this is true, but also the vast, vast, vast majority of people who know about the level languages, like never bothered to pick up the book. It's sort of like, well thank God nobody reads any of these fucking books. Right. That's the thing is it's great in this particular case

that no one read the book. Whereas the secret sells 30 million copies and no one knows that it's about quantum physics magic. Yeah, yeah. With this, there's like a two set and summary of this book that everyone would benefit from, right? And so you hear that summary and that's all your brain processes and you move on and that's great.

But if you actually saw what that came out, if you'd be like, oh, it's actually kind of bad that this sold 15 million copies. Right. That's not ideal. And one of the interesting things about that concept of ambient evangelicalism was that there were people in Christian media whose express goal was to drive Christian principles in the broader culture without it being clear

what they were doing. And when you look at a book like this through that lens, it becomes a little more unsettling. Frankly, I don't know how much this is driving Christian principles, but the idea that someone can build a book around really rigid gender roles, really antiquated gender roles, and make it a 15 million book best seller is a little bit disturbing. It doesn't make me feel good about the ability of our culture to digest

this properly. It's funny to me because the gender stuff actually bugs me more than the gay stuff. Just not having gay couples in your book is pretty bad, but also whatever. This is a book for straight couples. Fine. The gender stuff is so fucking pernicious. It puts all of the moral agency on women no matter what the problem in their relationship is. That's so ubiquitous

in the culture, just that like women are in charge of fixing fucking everything. Someone being like, I don't like gay people. It's so transparent that it almost feels better than someone writing out like 20 anecdotes that have really weird gender dynamics. Yeah. It becomes like harder to explain why this sucks. And B, it almost speaks to someone's worldview more. Right?

Yeah. I did a search for criticism of this book, and you find things here and there, some people were questioning how scientific it is, et cetera. Right. But what I also continuously stumbled into was on social media of various types, the individual comments from women raised in conservative households who read the book

and were like, the gender dynamics made me uncomfortable. I didn't find too many people writing a link about that, but it was a common theme. Yeah, it says, I should ruffle my abusive husband's hair. They've, right. There were people noticing that this sucks, but it just didn't get a lot of play. But this is something that is like becoming a theme on the show. How these books take over the culture without anyone really noticing or caring. Right. Okay, 30 million people about the secret, but like, there's no reason for like, you reason for the New York Times to write

a lengthy review or for anyone to publish a thorough authoritative debunking, something like Rich Dad Ported, which I could not find lengthy reviews of the only people that have debunked it, are other fucking real estate grifters, like people trying to sell their own book. If you're someone who is looking for sort of 101 style advisor, yeah, you see this on a poster somewhere and you're like, oh, I'm gonna check this out. There's really no authoritative source being like, here are the reasons why it doesn't hold up.

It's sort of like the elite liberal media has kind of just been like, eh, it's just for the plebs. Right. But like these books are wildly influential. And that's why you need to review them. Yeah, exactly. 30 million people are reading the secret because 15 million people are reading five love languages.

Yeah. So like, yeah, maybe pick it up and see whether it says that like women should be doing every household shore. Like, you know, right. Right. And I think you're right. It stems from an elitism. I can't believe the overwhelming advice from a show about books.

It's like, whatever you do, don't read the books. Thank God, nobody's reading these book. you