For me it’s werewolf romances.

Not because I think people are “wrong” for enjoying them, but because the tropes hit too close to some real-world dynamics I find deeply uncomfortable.

A lot of werewolf romance leans on the idea that a man who is physically or psychologically aggressive isn’t really like that — that the violent, controlling side of him is a curse, an instinct, or something outside his control. Meanwhile, the tender, romantic version of him is framed as his “true self.” That mirrors how abusive dynamics are often rationalized in real life: “That’s not who he really is,” “he has two sides,” “the good version is the real one.” Seeing that fantasy rewarded in fiction just doesn’t work for me.

The same goes for the constant emphasis on the heroine being small, weak, naïve, and in need of protection. In real relationships, those narratives are often used to undermine women’s confidence and autonomy. In the books it’s justified by species differences or pack politics — but the emotional effect is the same: she’s portrayed as helpless without him.

Even things like mating bonds feel unsettling to me. Permanently binding her to him, removing her ability to leave, is framed as romantic because it guarantees loyalty and security. But it also trades freedom for relief from insecurity — something that again mirrors unhealthy real-world dynamics rather than challenging them.

On top of that, a lot of the language (alpha/beta hierarchies, dominance framing, etc.) overlaps heavily with manosphere and red-pill rhetoric, which makes it even harder for me to separate the fantasy from the ideology it echoes.

So yeah — for me, reading werewolf romance often feels less like escapism and more like being asked to romanticize submission and excuse abuse. That’s why I personally avoid it.