Why using Psychology labels so indiscriminatedly?
As a psychologist and also as someone who reads a LOT of MM romance lately, I need to complain about the obsession modern romance authors have with labeling every shy/introspective/awkward male character as “socially anxious.”
No. Sometimes the guy is just shy. Or introverted. Or uncomfortable. Or reserved. Or inexperienced socially.
Not every quiet person has Social Anxiety Disorder.
And before anyone says “social anxiety has different levels,” yes, I KNOW. That’s exactly why this annoys me so much. Most authors don’t seem interested in portraying actual social anxiety with nuance, severity, avoidance patterns, impairment, anticipatory distress, physiological symptoms, post-event rumination, etc. They just use the label as emotional shorthand for “soft vulnerable boy.”
The result is that:
- normal personality variation gets pathologized,
- readers start thinking every introvert is clinically anxious,
- and psychological terminology loses all precision.
And this happens CONSTANTLY in MM romance lately.
Guy sits quietly at a table?
→ social anxiety.
Guy blushes while flirting?
→ social anxiety.
Guy prefers one-on-one interaction?
→ social anxiety.
Buddy, sometimes he’s just shy and likes a man. Calm down.
I’m not criticizing actual anxious characters or mental health representation. I’m criticizing lazy characterization disguised as psychological depth.
Anyway thanks for coming to my TED Talk while I continue reading cozy gay romances where apparently every town has:
- 17 queer siblings,
- 4 queer neighbors,
- 2 queer baristas,
- and a bisexual toaster.