We appreciate that the authors are challenging the common belief that romantic relationships matter more to women than to men. Indeed, a substantial body of literature from across disciplines documents that all humans, regardless of gender, benefit from close connection with others, and investigations of key intimacy-generating interpersonal processes within ongoing romantic relationships, like receiving well-provided social support or having a partner express gratitude, regularly reveal no gender differences in short-term boosts to felt intimacy, relational wellbeing, and even mood (e.g. Algoe, Fredrickson, & Gable, Reference Algoe, Fredrickson and Gable2013; Mosanenzadeh et al., Reference Mosannenzadeh, Kouri, Luijten, Schoebi and Karremans2025).

No surprise to us, but perhaps against gender stereotypes, such data suggest that men are human, too. In this context, it is important to acknowledge that intra-sex differences often exceed between-sex differences (Hyde, Reference Hyde2014), a crucial nuance that the authors do not address. Nevertheless, the authors do point to a few areas of average differences between men and women that merit attention.

Their central argument is that men are more dependent on their romantic relationships than women, because men are less capable of expressing their emotions and vulnerabilities, and therefore receive less emotional support from their broader social network. As a result, the argument goes, men must rely more heavily on their romantic relationship to fulfill their support and intimacy needs. We believe that there are at least two potential problems with this interpretation of the data. First, their central line of reasoning raises a critical question that the authors do not address: if the main problem is that men are less likely than women to express their emotions, shouldn’t they also receive less support within their heterosexual romantic relationships than women? And thus, should men as compared to women not be less rather than more dependent on their romantic relationship to fulfill their support needs? Second, while the authors argue that men depend more on their romantic relationship because they receive less emotional support from their social network, as far as we can tell, this causal relationship has not been established. It might just as well be the other way around: women seek more support outside of their romantic relationship because men are less capable of fulfilling their emotional and intimacy needs.

Indeed, in contrast to the authors’ focus on men’s lower capacity to express their emotions as the prime mechanism, we propose a more parsimonious – and arguably more plausible – explanation for why heterosexual men are more dependent on a romantic partner – or perhaps more accurately, why women are less dependent on a male romantic partner: men, as compared to women, on average may be less skilled at providing high-quality social support. This could explain many of the empirical findings discussed by the authors. For example, men receive less support from their social network not because they fail to express their needs, but because their networks are often composed of other men, who may also lack strong support-provision skills. Women are less likely to initiate a relationship, perhaps because during early interactions, they may realize a man lacks responsiveness and emotional support skills. Women are more likely to break up than men, because over time, they become increasingly disappointed by their partner’s inability to meet their emotional needs. And finally, along the same reasoning, women suffer less from break up than men because they lose less in terms of emotional support, while men lose a key source of support.

Do men, on average, indeed provide lower quality social support? There is some research among heterosexual couples indicating that, especially when problems become more severe, men tend to provide lower quality emotional support than women (Neff & Karney, Reference Neff and Karney2005). Also relevant, there appear to be robust (but small) gender differences in empathy – a precondition for providing sensitive support – with men on average scoring lower than women (Baez et al., Reference Baez, Flichtentrei, Prats, Mastandueno, García, Cetkovich and Ibáñez2017; Christov-Moore et al., Reference Christov-Moore, Simpson, Coudé, Grigaityte, Iacoboni and Ferrari2014). Yet, these gender differences may largely stem from biased expectations and stereotypes related to traditional gender roles, rather than from biological differences (Löffler & Greitemeyer, 2021). Similarly, research on emphatic accuracy – the ability to correctly infer the interaction partner’s emotions and thoughts – has revealed similar gender differences, favoring women (e.g. Thomas & Fletcher, Reference Thomas and Fletcher2003). Notably, research has demonstrated that these observed sex differences are attributable to differences in motivation rather than inherent ability. When situational factors such as encouragement and salient gender role expectations are present, men perform comparably to women on tasks involving the inference of others’ mental states (Ickes, Gesn, & Graham, Reference Ickes, Gesn and Graham2000), suggesting that men may, in principle, be equally capable of providing effective support.

Although the authors briefly acknowledge the possibility that men, on average, may be worse support providers, throughout the article, they emphasize that men as compared to women are less skilled at expressing their emotions. Indeed, they conclude their article by expressing the hope that, in an evolving society in which social life is less gender-specific, “men will be able to more openly express and show their vulnerabilities” – thus increasing the likelihood that their needs for intimacy and support will be met. We want to add a complementary perspective: we hope that in such a society, men will be more strongly encouraged and become better at providing emotional support – so that women’s needs for intimacy and support in heterosexual relationships are more likely to be fulfilled as well.