The concept presented in the article is compelling, well-articulated, and thought-provoking. However, in our view – contrary to the authors’ suggestions – it does not describe universal mechanisms of human behavior but rather reflects a specific socio-cultural and historical context. We believe that the behavioral patterns identified by the authors can be fully explained by cultural influences rather than biological or evolutionary factors.

A central premise of the article is that seeking emotional support constitutes a fundamental and self-evident motivation for forming close relationships. The authors claim that women, fulfilling this need through diverse social connections, are less dependent on romantic partnerships than men, who often struggle to express vulnerability outside of intimate relationships. While persuasive, this argument presupposes a universal emotional template that does not withstand historical or cross-cultural scrutiny. The expectation that romantic partnerships should serve as primary sources of emotional support is a relatively recent cultural development. For centuries, marriage primarily served economic, political, or social purposes, and emotional attachment was rarely regarded as a sufficient basis for creating romantic bonds (Coontz, Reference Coontz2006). It was not until the 17th century in Europe that cultural shifts began to elevate love as a legitimate foundation for marriage – and only in the 20th century did emotional closeness and mutual involvement become widely seen as essential to romantic relationships (Finkel, Reference Finkel2019; Giddens, Reference Giddens1992). As such, forming relationships primarily for emotional support and intimacy is a relatively new phenomenon, historically no older than approximately 150 years.

The dynamics described in the article are not only historically situated but also deeply embedded in cultural frameworks. To understand the motivations and behaviors of both genders as described, it is crucial to consider the influence of patriarchal culture and its definition of masculinity. Traditional masculinity emphasizes emotional restraint, dominance, and aversion to traits perceived as feminine (Gerdes et al., Reference Gerdes, Alto, Jadaszewski, D’Auria and Levant2018). In romantic and sexual contexts, it expects men to initiate contact, show confidence, and achieve sexual success. Internalizing rigid masculine norms centered on emotional suppression and self-reliance often leads to underdeveloped emotional competencies, limiting men’s ability to engage in a range of social relationships (Karakis & Levant, Reference Karakis and Levant2012).

In societies governed by patriarchal values, traditional gender norms often afford men structural advantages, especially when women are economically or socially dependent. In such contexts, women may remain in unsatisfying or unfulfilling relationships due to limited alternatives, social stigma, or material constraints. Men, meanwhile, may successfully form partnerships without necessarily offering emotional intimacy or stability. However, as societies progress toward gender equality and women gain greater social and economic autonomy, these dynamics begin to shift (Rudman & Phelan, Reference Rudman and Phelan2007). Increasingly, women expect emotional reciprocity and personal fulfillment from their partners, and when these expectations go unmet, many choose singlehood over compromised relationships (Finkel, Reference Finkel2019). Notably, many single women report high levels of life satisfaction (DePaulo, Reference DePaulo2023), reflecting early socialization that encourages building and maintaining a variety of emotionally supportive connections – a point acknowledged by the authors themselves.

In contrast, many men raised within patriarchal cultures may find singlehood more challenging. Socialized to embody strength, independence, and emotional stoicism, they often lack the emotional competencies and interpersonal skills required to foster deep, supportive relationships outside of romantic contexts (Nordin, Degerstedt, & Valmari, Reference Nordin, Degerstedt and Valmari2024). When these traditional gender norms encounter the realities of increasingly egalitarian relationship expectations, men may find themselves caught in a double bind: unprepared to meet the emotional demands of modern partnerships and simultaneously lacking alternative sources of emotional support. This dissonance can result in social isolation and emotional frustration, prompting some men to seek solace and validation in online spaces such as the “manosphere.”

There, young, single men – who view romantic and sexual success as the ultimate markers of male worth – form radicalized communities. Some, such as involuntary celibates (incels), promote relational fatalism and hostility toward women in the form of “blackpill” ideology (Stijelja & Mishara, Reference Stijelja and Mishara2023). Others adopt the “redpill” ideology, which treats romantic success as a metric of masculine value and encourages manipulative tactics to “win” women (Van Valkenburgh, Reference Van Valkenburgh2021). In both narratives, male worth is defined primarily by romantic and sexual achievement, placing immense pressure on men and intensifying feelings of inadequacy among those who fail to meet these standards (Smith, Butler-Warke, & Stevens, Reference Smith, Butler-Warke and Stevens2025; Vallerga & Zurbriggen, Reference Vallerga and Zurbriggen2022).

Consequently, beliefs that equate masculine value with romantic and sexual success – reinforced by manosphere communities – may discourage men from building broader support networks. This narrow focus can be counterproductive: strong social ties not only reduce loneliness but also increase the likelihood of forming romantic relationships (Marabel-Whitburn et al., Reference Marabel-Whitburn, Greenwood, Mansour, Francis, Olsson and Macdonald2023). An overemphasis on romantic achievement may therefore trap men in a vicious cycle, undermining the development of other ties crucial for emotional well-being.

In sum, we contend that the emotional dependence and relational struggles faced by contemporary men are not rooted in biology or evolutionary imperatives, but rather in a clash between traditional gender norms and growing female emancipation. The inability to form close friendships and family ties is not biologically determined but results from masculine stereotypes ingrained from early childhood – stereotypes increasingly misaligned with the gender-equal norms of modern Western culture societies (Bareket & Fiske, 2024). Emotional needs are fundamentally the same for all genders, and the capacity to feel, understand, and express emotions is not governed by biology but shaped by cultural norms and socialization, as the notion of Normative Male Alexithymia suggests (Karakis & Levant, Reference Karakis and Levant2012).

For these reasons, we argue that attributing the issues described in the target article to biology or evolution is both misleading and unjustified. The relational difficulties faced by men today are not products of natural law but of cultural legacy. Recognizing this distinction is essential if we hope to move beyond outdated frameworks and promote healthier, more adaptive models of masculinity and emotional well-being.