Many non-male authors make some crucial mistakes when they write m/m romance. Those mistakes are not literary blunders, but they lack the fundamental perspective on how a gay man navigates the world of romance.
Missing out on that can lead the story to become too dry, obvious, and soul-less for the readers.
This guide covers the crucial parts that make male-to-male romance realistic, relatable, and stick in the reader’s mind.
We also dig into the fundamentals of writing the dialogue for this trope. These dialogues are the reflections of how males show their love to their male partners without being verbose.
And much more. Let’s dive in.
Table of Contents
Demonstrate Don’t Declare
The fakeness or superficiality that is so evident in m/m romance is not the failure of plot or character. It’s the misinterpretation of the male emotional language.
The solution, and the foundation principle for writing authentic male-to-male romance is to embrace the core philosophy of “demonstrate, don’t declare.”
This is the principle of “action” over exposition or explanation. Which means the verbal part in m/m romance is really low. And your scenes or dialogue must show that. (More on it later)
In the context of m/m romances, love, loyalty, trust, and vulnerability are not things that are primarily stated with words, but things that are consistently proven with actions.
You get this right, and your story will have depth.
Most non-male m/m writers fail to understand it. And that leads the characters to over-verbalize feelings that feel so out of place or out of character that it breaks the reader’s immersion.
The roots of this communication style are deeply embedded in the concept of male socialization.
In western culture, men are raised with a set of implicit scripts that prioritize stoicism, competence, and reliability over overt emotional expression.
Vulnerability is often coded as weakness, and direct emotional declarations can feel uncomfortable, threatening, or performative.
As a result, powerful feelings are not suppressed. Instead, they are channeled into different, non-verbal forms of communication.
Understanding this isn’t about applying a rigid stereotype. It’s about recognizing a powerful and prevalent cultural current that shapes how your characters might interact with the world and each other.
Let me demonstrate to you with an example
The “Declare Method” that is so off-putting for the readers of this genre. Picture this: Male character A has just survived a dangerous situation. His partner, male character B rushes to his side and says, “I was so worried. I was picturing the worst, I don’t know what I would do if I lost you.” While heartfelt, this direct emotional exposition can feel jarring or “off” for characters who are males.
The “Demonstrate Method” which you should use. Male character A has just survived a dangerous situation. Male character B has spent the last twelve hours tracking them down, fighting, and moving heaven and earth to get to them. When they are finally safe, Character B says nothing about his feelings. Instead, he shoves a bottle of water into Character A’s hands and says, with gruff anger, “You’re an idiot. Don’t you ever do that again.“
In the second example, the declaration of love is contained entirely within the action of the rescue and the implication of the anger. The anger itself is proof of the deep fear of loss.
The harsh words are a deflection from a vulnerability that is too intense to state plainly. This is the essence of “Demonstrate, Don’t Declare.”
It is a more complex and layered approach that builds a profound sense of trust and intimacy in the reader because they, too, have to witness the proof rather than just being told the conclusion.
Mastering this principle is the key to unlocking an authentic voice of male-to-male romance.
The Unspoken Language: Bonding Through Action
How do characters show a growing bond, respect, and even care, often without uttering a single sentimental word?
It begins by understanding the fundamental dynamics of how many men build relationships. They build it not face-to-face, but shoulder-to-shoulder.
Male-to-male romances need action-based intimacy. Males don’t forge connections by looking at each other and discussing their feelings. They do it by standing side-by-side, looking out at the same world and tackling the same problem.
And you can easily do that by bringing in scenes of shared activity like fixing an engine, building a shed together, navigating a corporate merger, or beating each other in a video game. These are real-life scenarios that men can relate to and it wards off the intense pressure of emotional interaction that men dislike.
Male-to-male romance, and even friendships, thrives on a neutral territory where trust can be built through competence, and respect can be earned through shared struggle. The emotional bond they develop is a result of a practical alliance.
Again, let me give you an example.
The Ineffective Face-to-Face Method: Two rival mages, forced to work together, sit down to rest. One says, “I feel like our animosity is holding us back. Tell me about your childhood so I can understand you better.” This feels artificial because it forces a type of verbal vulnerability that is atypical of men.
The Effective Shoulder-to-Shoulder Method: The same two mages must combine their skills to decipher a crumbling, magically-trapped map. For hours, they work in tense, focused silence, speaking only in clipped fragments related to the task (“The northern rune is fading,” “Counter the ward, I’ll handle the script”). The bond isn’t formed by talking about their feelings. It’s forged in the shared goal, the grudging reliance on each other’s expertise, and the non-verbal rhythm they develop as they work.
Action-Based Intimacy
The shoulder-to-shoulder bonding leads to action-based intimacy, which the male characters express through “acts of service” for each other.
These little acts are rarely grand or romantic. On the contrary, they are practical, observant, and real-world proofs of a developing bond. It’s a quiet declaration that I am considering your well-being.
For example, your protagonist is a detective obsessively working a case, papers spread everywhere, ignoring his own needs. His rival from another precinct, who is forced to share the workspace, walks in.
He says nothing, but wordlessly places a bottle of aspirin, a sandwich, and a file with a newly uncovered lead on the one clear corner of the desk, and then leaves. That single, gruff, practical act speaks volumes more than any heartfelt speech about teamwork could.
The unspoken language is nuanced by two other critical elements: non-sexual physicality and comfortable silence.
As the walls between them lower, the physical distance often closes in casual, non-romantic ways.
A playful shove, a brief hand on the shoulder to get their attention, leaning back in a chair until their heads are almost touching. These small moments test the boundaries and demonstrate a growing ease and lack of threat.
That ends up in the demonstration of trust displayed by a comfortable silence.
The ability for two characters to simply exist in the same space, each doing their own thing without the need to fill the void with noise, is a profound statement.
It says, “My sense of self is not threatened by your presence. I am at ease with you.”
A scene where two characters read in the same room for an hour without speaking can be more intimate than a kiss, because it proves the foundation is solid.
These actions are the words of your story and they are the sentences in the silent conversation that builds a love that feels, above all, real.
Crafting Dialogue That Hits Harder
Now comes another important mistake that non-male writers make while writing m/m romance.
And that’s ignoring the economy of words when writing dialogues. While actions form the foundation of the bond, dialogues are the pillars.
The key to writing powerful M/M romance dialogue is to embrace brevity, where less is profoundly more. It’s not about what is said, but about the immense weight of the few words that are being said.
At the heart of this principle is the understanding that for many men verbal vulnerability is a high-stakes currency.
In a world that often conflates stoicism with strength, the act of explicitly stating a fear, a weakness, or a deep need is a calculated risk. So, extra use of words for them becomes a devalued currency.
For the characters in a male-to-male romance, using more words is the emotional equivalent of laying down your weapons and trusting your enemy not to strike.
A character who constantly talks about his feelings will have his emotional declarations lose their impact. A character who almost never does will shake the reader to their core when he finally speaks his heart.
The Ineffective (Devalued Currency) Method: A stoic soldier who, in every other chapter, pulls his partner aside to say, “I’m scared,” or “I need you.” The repetition drains the words of their power.
The Effective (High Stakes Currency) Method: The same stoic soldier, after a harrowing battle that nearly killed his partner, sits cleaning his weapon. He says quietly, without making eye contact, “When I couldn’t find you out there… I thought about my brother.” This single, understated, and deflected sentence is a massive emotional payload. It’s powerful because it’s all he says, leaving the reader and his partner to understand the immense fear and history packed into that one admission.
Think of dialogues in m/m romance as coded languages where you as a writer can truly shine by unlocking the deepest emotion with an analogy rather than explicitly stating the feelings.
There are a few other things that are indispensable while writing dialogues in a male-to-male romance.
Humor and Sarcasm as Deflection
Males often use jokes to bleed out the tension from a moment that is becoming too emotionally intense.
Sarcasm can be a way to say something sincere without the discomfort of earnestness. “Couldn’t have done it without you, you insufferable genius” is an example of a profound statement of admiration and reliance disguised as a backhanded compliment.
Understatement as a Megaphone
The bigger the feeling, the smaller the words. After a life-altering event, a character is more likely to say, “Well, that was something,” than to deliver a monologue on their trauma.
The vast chasm between the catastrophic event and the impossibly small description is where the reader feels the true, unspoken depth of the character’s pain.
The Interrogative Check-in
Within this coded system, there are specific tools that you can use for expressing concern without using intimacy.
Consider questions like “You good?”, “Need a hand?”, or a simple “Hey”. They’re not just fillers. They’re a quiet knock on the door that allows the other person to answer with an equally brief “Yeah, I’m good,” or to open the door to a deeper conversation if they choose.
Teasing and Insults
Men love to be nasty with each other in a good way, and they don’t mind it all.
As trust solidifies into a true bond, teasing and insults can become a primary form of affection.
This is a powerful indicator of intimacy.
It says, “I know you so well, and I am so secure in our bond, that I can mock your flaws and we both understand it’s an act of love.”
When one character pulls off an incredible feat and his partner’s reaction is a wry, “Show off,” it is often a far more intimate and authentic response than a simple, “Wow, you’re amazing.”
It’s a language built on shared history, and it’s reserved only for those who are trusted completely.
Moving Beyond Heteronormative Framework
Another important reason for the hollowness or phoneyness in a male-to-male romance that non-male writers write is that they stick with the core dynamics of heterosexual romance from the male point of view, which we call heteronormativity.
In writing, Heteronormativity is the subconscious projection of traditional, gendered roles onto a same-sex couple.
You create heteronormativity, and thereby destroy the m/m romance, when you assign one partner the “masculine” role and the other the “feminine” role. That creates a bond that imitates a relationship between a man and a woman.
Big mistake!
The most common manifestation of this is the “big, stoic, masculine man paired with a small, delicate, emotionally expressive man” trope.
While characters can certainly have these traits, the problem arises when these physical and emotional characteristics are bundled together.
The smaller partner often becomes physically weaker, emotionally effusive, and is implicitly tasked with performing the majority of the relationship’s emotional labor. This inadvertently recreates the very dynamic many queer relationships seek to escape.
As a non-male writer, your goal should be to create a relationship where both partners are responsible for the emotional core, even if they approach it in different ways.
Alter the Male Gaze in M/M Romance
The most potent tool to combat heteronormativity is to know more about the male gaze in gay romance.This isn’t about objectification, but about the specific lens through which a man might perceive and desire another man.
Often, non-male authors will, without realizing it, write descriptions of male beauty that align more with a female perspective on what is attractive in a man.
Let me show this with an example.
The Common Pitfall (A Misapplied Gaze):The writing might heavily feature descriptions like, “He admired the delicate curve of his jaw, the lush sweep of his long eyelashes, and his slender, elegant wrists.”* While these can be beautiful descriptions, an over-reliance on words associated with delicacy and fragility can contribute to the feminization of one partner.
A More Authentic Male Gaze:The perspective might be more grounded in presence, competence, and a different set of physical cues. For example: “He was drawn to the solid line of his shoulders, the quiet confidence in his stance. He watched the way his hands, broad and capable, handled the intricate device with practiced ease.” Here, the attraction is tied to strength, competence, and physical presence, which are the hallmarks often central to a male-coded perspective of desire.
Remember, that you’re writing romance between two men. Even if there is a significant size and strength difference, both characters operate with a baseline of male physiology.
Avoid the “one partner is smaller and more tender than the other” and the damsel in distress dynamic.
I can’t show it better than giving you an example from a m/m romance book that I recently read.
The Ineffective Method (Heteronormative): The smaller character, trying to move a heavy piece of furniture, struggles pathetically until the larger character effortlessly swoops in to lift it for him, reinforcing a protector/protected dynamic.
The better way to write this scene without sacrificing the dynamic between the couple should have been equal participation.
The Effective Method (Partnership): The characters’ strengths are different but complementary. Perhaps they need to move the same heavy piece of furniture. Instead of one failing and the other succeeding, they do it together, using teamwork and strategy.
Or maybe the smaller character isn’t a brute, but he’s a brilliant strategist or a crack shot, while the larger one is a master of close combat. Their competencies are distinct but equal.
The goal is not to make your characters identical. It is to ensure their differences stem from their unique personalities, skills, and backstories, not from a subconscious attempt to fit one of them into a “wife” role.
You are writing a partnership between two distinct, capable men.
Adding Depth: The Lived Experience of a Gay Man
Writing an authentic M/M romance means engaging with the lived experience of being a gay man in a world that is not always accepting or safe.
And don’t believe that you have to only write about the lived trauma.
It’s about adding a layer of profound realism to your characters’ internal lives, their fears, their behaviors, and their ultimate triumph in finding love.
Ignoring this context can make your characters feel like they exist in a vacuum, robbing their journey of its full emotional weight.
And you can do it in six ways.
Write About the Closet
A central element that is common to many gay men’s life, is spending years in the closet.
Not literally. But the closet is the period when they hide their orientation for many reasons. Whether your character is still closeted, recently out, or has been out for decades, that experience is a formative one.
The closet isn’t just a place of hiding. It’s a state of being that teaches secrecy, self-monitoring, and risk assessment.
These are not habits that vanish overnight and they leave a significant impact on the psyche of the character. The lasting psychological effects can be a powerful source of internal conflict and character development.
And you, as a writer, can show these effects in four unique ways:
Hypervigilance
An ingrained, subconscious habit of scanning a room and assessing its perceived “safety level” before the character shows any form of interest towards his potential partner.
Things like taking longer than usual to approach, checking the signs if it’s socially accepted, or even assessing that the person whom he is attracted to is receptive to his approach.
Reluctance with Physical Affection
The reluctance to show physical affection towards the same sex can come from the family upbringing or being raised in the conservative part of the society.
A deep-seated hesitation to hold hands, kiss, or even stand too close in public spaces, is born from the years of spending time in the closet or from the need to hide.
A character might instinctively flinch or pull away from a partner’s touch in public, not from a lack of love, but from a deeply conditioned reflex of self-preservation.
Internalized Homophobia
Many gay and people in the entire spectrum of the queer group can have internalized homophobia. It is quite a sensitive issue when you try to write about it.
It’s not about a character actively hating that they are gay. It is the insidious, subconscious absorption of society’s heteronormative standards and anti-gay biases.
And it can manifest in many ways such as:
- A character being overly critical of other, more flamboyant or effeminate gay men, a defense mechanism to say, “I’m not like those gays.”
- A deep-seated, nagging fear that their relationship is inherently less valid, less permanent, or doomed to fail compared to a heterosexual one.
- The character can face intense discomfort with labels. He might be in a loving, committed relationship but balk at using the word “boyfriend” or “partner,” especially around straight people, because the word makes the relationship too “real” and therefore too visible.
Code Switching
Characters in the formative stages of m/m romance cope up with the above struggles in what I call as “code switching”. It’s the conscious or unconscious shift in behavior and mannerisms to navigate different social environments.
The way your couple interacts alone in the safety of their apartment should be markedly different from how they act at a conservative family dinner or in a potentially hostile public space.
Showing these shifts adds a powerful layer of realism. It illustrates the constant, low-level work your characters are doing just to exist, making the moments where they can finally relax and be their authentic selves together feel incredibly realistic to your readers.
Found Family
For many queer people, especially those with unsupportive biological families, their primary network of love, support, and guidance is a tight-knit family they have chosen for themselves.
This found family is of mentors, and peers who provide a safe space, offer advice, and serve as a powerful reminder to your protagonist (and the reader) that love and acceptance are possible. Integrating a found family grounds your characters in a community and makes their world feel richer and more realistic.
Questions to Ask Yourself
Before you write m/m romance, there are these basic questions you need to ask so that it puts things into your perspective.
- Am I telling the reader these characters care for each other, or am I demonstrating it through their actions?
- Is their dialogue revealing character and subtext, or is it just stating emotions?
- Is the dynamic between my characters a partnership between two men, or have I subconsciously assigned them gendered roles?
- Have I considered how their history and the world around them shapes their behavior, their fears, and their love?
Consider the above questions as a checklist that help you move beyond the surface of the trope and into the heart of your characters.
You begin to build a love story that feels not just passionate, but inevitable. You create a bond so thoroughly earned that when your characters finally come together, the reader doesn’t just celebrate it, but they believe in it.
Summarizing
Writing romance is an exercise in deep empathy. And m/m romance is no different. It’s about learning to listen to an emotional language that may be different from your own and where the most profound feelings are often housed in the quietest moments.
The ultimate goal is to build a relationship that feels not just plausible, but unshakably real.
And we do it by embracing the central principle of demonstrating, but not declaring, which helps us to shift our focus on what they do rather than what they say.
We explored the unspoken language of shoulder-to-shoulder bonding and saw how powerful acts of service can be in proving a connection.
The economy of words in male-coded dialogue, where understatement and humor often carry more weight than grand declarations. We’ve challenged ourselves to move beyond easy heteronormative roles, and to add the rich, crucial context of the lived queer experience, from the shadow of the closet to the strength of a found family.
So, what have we missed out? Do you think there’s anything more we can add to make gay romance more realistic and relatable to readers? Mention it in the comments below and let us know.