Romantic love is complex and difficult to define. I believe that the authors’ important empirical claims are sound, but their conceptual interpretation of these claims is problematic. I first present the authors’ three major empirical claims (shown as “a”) and my brief responses (shown as “b”) indicating why their empirical claims do not support their conclusion that men are more romantic than women.

(1a) Relative to women, men expect and gain more benefits; hence, men are less likely to initiate breakups and suffer after breakups more than women.

(1b) Receiving more benefits (romantically or otherwise) does not imply becoming more romantic, as the essence of romantic love is not receiving, but rather giving.

(2a) Men develop more dependency on women than vice-versa.

(2b) The value of dependency is significant in parental love, but less so in romantic relationships that flourish when mutual, equal shared interactions are present.

(3a) Men say “I love you” faster and experience love-at-first-sight more frequently, while women initiate most divorces.

(3b) Falling in love faster may indicate the presence of a superficial attitude that lacks romantic profundity. More than men, women aim for romantic profundity, and hence consider achieving genuine enduring romantic love as more difficult, and accordingly initiate divorces when relationships lack such profundity.

A central romantic phenomenon, which seems contrary to the authors’ major conclusion (that men are more romantic than women) and was not discussed by them, is infidelity, which is the leading cause of divorce, and is more common among men – although, as in other matters, this gender gap is currently narrowing (Rokach & Chan, Reference Rokach and Chan2023).

Related to the above differences is the distinction between romantic intensity, which is a snapshot of a momentary peak of passionate, often sexual, desire, and romantic profundity, which takes time to develop and refers to the lover’s broader and enduring attitude. External changes are highly significant in generating romantic intensity. When experiencing romantic depth, familiarity, stability, and development, all of which require time, are more important. Novelty, which underlies romantic intensity, is useful in preventing boredom; romantic familiarity, which is central in romantic profundity, is valuable in promoting flourishing (Ben-Ze’ev, 2019, Reference Ben-Ze’ev, Pismenny and Brogaard2022).

I claim that for women (in comparison to men), profundity and time are more important in romantic relationships. One evolutionary reason for this is that women bear children. Men are also more easily satisfied with brief, superficial romantic intensity. Accordingly, men achieve sexual satisfaction much faster than women. This is one reason, as the authors rightly claim, that men are more interested in casual, short-term sexual relationships, and women prefer long-term, committed sexual relationships over short-term ones.

In moving from mere romantic intensity to romantic profundity, it is not only time spent together that matters but also time spent on shared activities. Indeed, an influential approach to romantic love, the Dialogue Approach, considers the shared connection between partners as the bedrock of love and views shared emotional states and joint activities as the foundational features of the connection. Flourishing romantic connections do not merely require time, but also compatibility, which enables shared activities. In such activities, both partners contribute (though not necessarily in the same way or to the same extent), and their contributions fit together to actualize the common good (Krebs, Reference Krebs2015).

The Dialogue Approach emphasizes the importance of autonomy and equal status for both partners. If one partner is dependent and receives more than they give, as the authors claim men do, then this partner’s ability to enhance romantic profundity is limited. Moreover, in such inequitable romantic relationships, both partners consider themselves to be in an undeserved situation, which encourages extramarital affairs. This is the case for both the “superior” partner, who feels that they could do better, and for the “inferior” one, who feels indignant at being unappreciated by the partner (Prins, Buunk, & VanYperen, Reference Prins, Buunk and VanYperen1993).

The lesser significance that men give to time, profundity, efforts, and other types of investment explains why men (relative to women) fall in love and express their love faster, expect and gain more benefits, and are more dependent on women than vice-versa. This may explain the tension between men and women; women prefer profound enduring romantic relationships, whereas men often prefer superficial, brief, intense romantic encounters.

In summary, the important empirical claims provided by the authors do not support their conclusion that men are more romantic than women. Contrarily, these features make men’s attitude toward love more superficial and less romantic than the female approach. Being romantic does not involve merely intense sexual desire, but more so, calmness and the ability to act slowly and profoundly. If you know you are already in paradise, there is no need to rush, and in doing so, sacrifice romantic endurance and quality.