Love Is a Menu, Not Five Languages

For more than three decades, the idea of love languages has offered couples a simple promise: If you can figure out your partner’s “language” and speak it fluently, your expressions of love will finally reach them. The metaphor is intuitive, comforting, and wildly popular. Millions of people have taken quizzes, labeled themselves, and worked hard to make their love land.

And yet many couples find that even after learning each other’s supposed love languages, something still feels off. They may be “speaking” the right language but not feeling deeply loved or satisfied, research suggests. Or they may feel loved in one moment and neglected in another, despite no change in their partner’s intentions. These frustrations raise an important question: What if the problem is not that we are speaking the wrong language but that we are using the wrong metaphor altogether?

What if love is not best understood as a language at all? An alternative view—one grounded in decades of relationship science—suggests that love is better understood as a menu, offering partners multiple ways to show care rather than a single mode to master. Healthy relationships, like healthy bodies, do not thrive on a single ingredient. They require a range of essential nutrients, offered flexibly and adjusted over time.

This mindset shift—from languages to menus—does not dismiss people’s experiences of feeling especially moved by certain acts of love. Instead, it reframes those experiences in a way that is more accurate, more inclusive, and ultimately more helpful for sustaining long-term connection.

Why the love languages metaphor stuck—and where it breaks down

To understand why the love languages idea resonated so powerfully, it helps to appreciate what it offered at the right cultural moment.

First, it gave people a vocabulary. Many couples struggle not because they don’t care, but because they lack words for what they need. Saying: “My love language is quality time” can feel easier—and less vulnerable—than saying: “I miss you even when we are together.” Second, it offered clarity and a framework. Five categories. One primary language. A clear diagnosis. In a domain as messy and emotional as love, that kind of structure can feel stabilizing. Third, it suggested a straightforward solution: Learn your partner’s language and speak it more often.

But these strengths are also where the metaphor breaks down. Framing love as a language encourages a narrowing logic: the idea that there is a “right” way to express care for a partner and that effort invested elsewhere may not register. It suggests stability, treating preferences as fixed traits rather than shifting needs. And it encourages matching: the notion that success depends on aligning your care with your partner’s “language,” rather than responding flexibly to what they need in each moment.

What research reveals about feeling loved

Relationship science paints a different picture. When researchers study how people actually experience love in their relationships, three consistent patterns emerge.

1. Most people value many forms of love, not just one. When we asked people to rate how meaningful different expressions of love feel—such as affection, support, time together, encouragement, or help during stress—they tended to rate all of them highly. Very few people consistently value only one type of loving behavior while finding others unimportant. In fact, when people are forced to choose a single “primary” love style, their choices often do not match how they respond when each form is measured independently. This suggests that love preferences are not zero-sum. We don’t stop needing emotional support because we enjoy physical affection, just as we don’t stop needing protein because we like carbohydrates.

2. Feeling loved depends more on responsiveness than matching. What predicts relationship satisfaction is not whether your partner expresses love in a specific preferred way, but whether they are responsive to your needs, engaged in the interaction, and willing to show care across contexts. Love does not falter when partners fail to express care, but when they fail to notice what care is needed. A partner who brings flowers every Friday may be “speaking” a love language, but if they don’t notice when their partner is overwhelmed, grieving, or quietly disengaging, the gesture can start to feel hollow. Recent interviews showed that small, consistent acts of effort—such as remembering a partner’s preferences or doing something meaningful without being asked—were experienced as deeply affirming, even when they were not tied to a partner’s “preferred” love language.

3. Love unfolds across situations, not traits. What feels loving in a relationship often shifts as life unfolds. A couple in their 20s might feel most loved through shared adventures and quality time, while the same partners years later—with demanding jobs, caregiving, or health challenges—may value practical help or emotional reassurance. After an illness, a loss, or a period of physical separation, expressions of love that once felt sufficient may no longer meet a partner’s needs.

In this way, relationship needs are not fixed traits but living responses to the circumstances of people’s lives. Any framework that treats love preferences as static traits risks flattening this complexity.

A better metaphor: Love as a menu

What might a more accurate metaphor look like? Imagine love not as a language you must learn to speak and decipher, but as a menu you return to again and again. In this framing, different expressions of love are like different nutrients. Some nutrients may matter more at certain times. Too much reliance on one “favorite” can leave other needs unmet. Health comes from balance, not speaking one language with perfect fluency.

You may love dessert, but you would not thrive on dessert alone. You may prefer protein, but you still need fiber and vitamins. Likewise, you might especially appreciate verbal affirmation, but without trust, care during hard times, shared joy, or accountability, affirmation alone will not sustain intimacy. This metaphor removes the pressure to “get it exactly right.”

Instead of asking: Am I speaking my partner’s language?, couples can ask more generative questions: What does our relationship need more of right now? Which forms of care have we been neglecting? How can we broaden—not narrow—the ways in which we show up for each other?

Expanding the menu: We show love in more ways than just five

When we asked people to describe, in their own words, how they give and receive love—an expanded menu emerged. Alongside familiar expressions like affection, gifts, or time together, people described love as showing up emotionally when life is hard, encouraging a partner’s personal goals, and taking responsibility when things go wrong. They also described experiences of playfulness, shared joy, and practical forms of care that support everyday well-being. Just as important, many people described feeling loved when they were welcomed into their partner’s circle of friends, family, and community.

These forms of love often matter deeply—sometimes more than the classic categories—but they are rarely highlighted in popular frameworks. Yet they are precisely the behaviors that sustain trust, resilience, and satisfaction in close relationships.

Why menus are more inclusive than languages

Another strength of the menu metaphor is that it is more culturally and relationally inclusive. The love languages framework emerged from a relatively narrow context and reflects particular assumptions about relationships—often prioritizing romantic exclusivity, traditional gender roles, and direct forms of expression.

• 

  Spreading Love Through the Media

  This piece is part of a three-year GGSC project to explore love's role in promoting social well-being, bridging divides, and contributing to a good, meaningful life.

  Learn More

But people’s relational lives are far more diverse. For some couples, love means cheering each other on from parallel paths; for others, it means dividing responsibilities and carrying the load together. Neurodivergent partners may find that touch, conversation, or time together require different forms of coordination and care. And when illness, disability, or caregiving enter the picture, love often shifts away from grand gestures toward reliability, flexibility, and staying present.

A menu allows for this diversity. It does not require identifying a single primary form of care or treating other expressions as secondary or optional.

When love languages become limiting

Although the love languages idea was intended to foster understanding, it can sometimes backfire in subtle ways. Some couples might use love language labels to avoid responsiveness: “That’s not my love language” becomes a reason not to stretch, adapt, or grow. Others might become overly focused on matching, worrying that incompatibility in love languages signals deeper relational problems, despite no evidence that matching itself predicts relationship success. And some people might begin to undervalue care that does not fit their label, overlooking meaningful acts simply because they aren’t delivered in the “right” form.

The menu metaphor gently disrupts these traps by emphasizing that love is not about specialization but responsiveness across domains. What matters is not whether care fits a category, but whether it meets a need.

Practicing love as a balanced diet

What does this look like in everyday life?

In practice, instead of asking, “What’s your love language?,” couples might ask more open-ended questions: When do you feel most supported by me? What feels missing lately? What kinds of care feel hardest for us to give or receive? These questions invite nuance and change, shifting the focus from fixed labels to lived experience.

Practicing love as a balanced diet also means building range rather than striving for perfection. No one excels at every form of care, and the goal is not mastery, but a willingness to offer different kinds of love over time. In our research, people who identified strongly with a single “favorite” love language tended to feel less satisfied with their relationships and less certain about their partner’s care, suggesting that rigid preferences may reflect unmet needs or inflexibility.

Preferences still matter. They can offer useful information about what types of care and affection are likely to land most strongly. But they work best as guides, not rules—helping partners decide where to invest effort without eclipsing other forms of nourishment a relationship needs.

Love as ongoing care

Perhaps the most important implication of the menu metaphor is this: Love is not a one-time translation problem to be solved, but an ongoing practice of care. Relationships thrive not because partners perfectly match, but because they remain attentive, flexible, and responsive as needs evolve. They flourish when love is treated not as a fixed style, but as a living system—one that requires nourishment, adjustment, and renewal.

When we stop asking whether we are speaking the right language and start asking whether we are offering a nourishing range of care, we open the door to deeper connection. Love, it turns out, is not about fluency. It’s about choosing what the relationship needs from the menu.