This commentary concurs with the thesis of Wahring et al.: romantic relationships matter more for men than women. However, it questions the reason that the authors marshal, namely, that women have more supportive social networks than men do. The authors blame “gender roles” as the ultimate reason. Still, why do cultural and social norms discourage, relative to women, men’s bonding with extra-marital networks?
Let us commence with another paper appearing in this journal (Kruglanski et al., Reference Kruglanski, Ellenberg, Yu, Lemay, Moskalenko, Szumowska, Molinario, Pierro and Contu2026): romantic love is based on the actor’s quest for significance. If men have greater quest for significance than women, this explains why men demand romantic attachments more than women. However, concurring with Wahring et al., women equally demand romantic attachments but are able to satisfy them via social networks. Thus, we cannot suppose an asymmetric demand for significance to explain the puzzle.
To solve the puzzle, this commentary employs two assumptions. First, men and women equally desire to have offspring. Second, men and women equally prefer to raise their own biological offspring over fostering the offspring of other people. Thus, ceteris paribus, a man prefers to marry a woman without children over a woman with children, and vice versa. The difference in behavior, hence, cannot arise from preferences, complying with Stigler and Becker (Reference Stigler and Becker1977). The only option left is finding an asymmetry in the budget constraint. Women are constrained by 9 + x months of pregnancy and lactation, while men are constrained by zero months.
Let the man and woman meet and make a contract to have their own biological child – fully motivated by symmetrical preferences. However, once the woman is pregnant, the man can renege and vanish, looking for another prospect of propagating his own selfish genes. The woman can also renege. Thus, we have the classical “commitment problem” facing both cisgenders (Khalil, Reference Khalil2010). However, the woman suffers from a more severe form of the commitment problem than the man – given the difference in the budget constraint. That is, if the man reneges, the woman cannot as easily compensate for the loss as the case if the woman reneges.
Different cultures devise different institutions to solve the commitment problem. One institution is dowery payment – an upfront payment of money by man to the woman or to the woman’s family. Another institution is the scolding of women who lure and snatch a married men. In modern societies, neither institution is effective for reasons that cannot be discussed here. However, briefly, regarding the dowery institution, it is easy for the man, relative to the woman, to borrow money for another dowery – i.e., given the already established fact of asymmetry of the budget constraint. Furthermore, the scolding of women who lure men away from marriage to the point of carrying out “honor killing” can no longer be exercised in open societies, such as our modern societies, where the entry and exit are easily available to all.
In this light, modern societies have to erect a new viable and efficient institution to rectify the perennial gestation-commitment asymmetry. The institution is the grounding of marriage on romantic love. Romantic love promises to discourage the man from reneging on the marriage contract. This should not mean that cisgender romantic attachments are absent in pre-modern societies. However, they are usually neither celebrated, ubiquitous, nor generally the ground of the marriage contract.
Put differently, what is the institution that assures the woman that the chosen man will find it difficult to renege in an open society such as our modern society? She will select, ceteris paribus, the man who is more dependent on her for his intimacy needs than she is dependent on him. This appears in popular culture in films and songs “as if” women are more romantic – as Wahring et al. mention – when in fact women are in the competitive market for the most romantic men, ceteris paribus.
Jane Austin’s novels have ushered in this new institution – viz., romantic relationships as the basis of marriage – with a big bang. As Chwe (Reference Chwe2013) astutely shows, Austen is a game theorist par excellence. Her novels are populated with characters that interact with each other strategically – i.e., they choose actions on the basis of their expectations of the reaction of others. While Austen shows the benefits and pitfalls of strategic actions of her characters, what is remarkable is her ability to weave together romantic attachments and strategic thinking.
As Austen’s novels of romance astutely demonstrate, romantic attachments cannot be separated from everyday problems, including the commitment problem. Romantic attachment is an invaluable institution in modern societies. The woman would prefer, ceteris paribus, to marry a man who is romantically attached to her than another man who is less romantically attached.
The proposed gestation-commitment asymmetry model needs greater development, which cannot be undertaken here (see Khalil, Reference Khalil2025). However, it is legitimate even at this preliminary stage to raise one objection. The proposed model can explain why women demand men more intensely who are romantically attached to them, ceteris paribus, than vice versa. However, why would men harbor romantic and intimacy needs more intensely than women? That is, why are men less successful than women in forming extra-marital networks?
The answer is already implied in the proposed model. Namely, one way men compete with each other is to signal to women that they are ready to forego/ditch their extra-marital social networks. Indeed, the proposed model has a clear prediction: Women are more ready, in the initial formation stage, to cease a romantic relationship with a man if he is strongly attached to his buddy-friends, not to mention his mother and sister, than vice versa.
In short, romantic relationships matter more to men than to women for a simple reason: Women have a more intense demand for men who are ready to maintain very minimal outside options for intimate support than vice versa. The pre-commitment of men for such very minimal outside options performs the same function as dowery, i.e., to rectify the perennial gestation-commitment asymmetry.
Thus, this commentary offers an endogenous theory of the rise and change of gender roles with regard to romantic attachments.
You have
Access
This commentary concurs with the thesis of Wahring et al.: romantic relationships matter more for men than women. However, it questions the reason that the authors marshal, namely, that women have more supportive social networks than men do. The authors blame “gender roles” as the ultimate reason. Still, why do cultural and social norms discourage, relative to women, men’s bonding with extra-marital networks?
Let us commence with another paper appearing in this journal (Kruglanski et al., Reference Kruglanski, Ellenberg, Yu, Lemay, Moskalenko, Szumowska, Molinario, Pierro and Contu2026): romantic love is based on the actor’s quest for significance. If men have greater quest for significance than women, this explains why men demand romantic attachments more than women. However, concurring with Wahring et al., women equally demand romantic attachments but are able to satisfy them via social networks. Thus, we cannot suppose an asymmetric demand for significance to explain the puzzle.
To solve the puzzle, this commentary employs two assumptions. First, men and women equally desire to have offspring. Second, men and women equally prefer to raise their own biological offspring over fostering the offspring of other people. Thus, ceteris paribus, a man prefers to marry a woman without children over a woman with children, and vice versa. The difference in behavior, hence, cannot arise from preferences, complying with Stigler and Becker (Reference Stigler and Becker1977). The only option left is finding an asymmetry in the budget constraint. Women are constrained by 9 + x months of pregnancy and lactation, while men are constrained by zero months.
Let the man and woman meet and make a contract to have their own biological child – fully motivated by symmetrical preferences. However, once the woman is pregnant, the man can renege and vanish, looking for another prospect of propagating his own selfish genes. The woman can also renege. Thus, we have the classical “commitment problem” facing both cisgenders (Khalil, Reference Khalil2010). However, the woman suffers from a more severe form of the commitment problem than the man – given the difference in the budget constraint. That is, if the man reneges, the woman cannot as easily compensate for the loss as the case if the woman reneges.
Different cultures devise different institutions to solve the commitment problem. One institution is dowery payment – an upfront payment of money by man to the woman or to the woman’s family. Another institution is the scolding of women who lure and snatch a married men. In modern societies, neither institution is effective for reasons that cannot be discussed here. However, briefly, regarding the dowery institution, it is easy for the man, relative to the woman, to borrow money for another dowery – i.e., given the already established fact of asymmetry of the budget constraint. Furthermore, the scolding of women who lure men away from marriage to the point of carrying out “honor killing” can no longer be exercised in open societies, such as our modern societies, where the entry and exit are easily available to all.
In this light, modern societies have to erect a new viable and efficient institution to rectify the perennial gestation-commitment asymmetry. The institution is the grounding of marriage on romantic love. Romantic love promises to discourage the man from reneging on the marriage contract. This should not mean that cisgender romantic attachments are absent in pre-modern societies. However, they are usually neither celebrated, ubiquitous, nor generally the ground of the marriage contract.
Put differently, what is the institution that assures the woman that the chosen man will find it difficult to renege in an open society such as our modern society? She will select, ceteris paribus, the man who is more dependent on her for his intimacy needs than she is dependent on him. This appears in popular culture in films and songs “as if” women are more romantic – as Wahring et al. mention – when in fact women are in the competitive market for the most romantic men, ceteris paribus.
Jane Austin’s novels have ushered in this new institution – viz., romantic relationships as the basis of marriage – with a big bang. As Chwe (Reference Chwe2013) astutely shows, Austen is a game theorist par excellence. Her novels are populated with characters that interact with each other strategically – i.e., they choose actions on the basis of their expectations of the reaction of others. While Austen shows the benefits and pitfalls of strategic actions of her characters, what is remarkable is her ability to weave together romantic attachments and strategic thinking.
As Austen’s novels of romance astutely demonstrate, romantic attachments cannot be separated from everyday problems, including the commitment problem. Romantic attachment is an invaluable institution in modern societies. The woman would prefer, ceteris paribus, to marry a man who is romantically attached to her than another man who is less romantically attached.
The proposed gestation-commitment asymmetry model needs greater development, which cannot be undertaken here (see Khalil, Reference Khalil2025). However, it is legitimate even at this preliminary stage to raise one objection. The proposed model can explain why women demand men more intensely who are romantically attached to them, ceteris paribus, than vice versa. However, why would men harbor romantic and intimacy needs more intensely than women? That is, why are men less successful than women in forming extra-marital networks?
The answer is already implied in the proposed model. Namely, one way men compete with each other is to signal to women that they are ready to forego/ditch their extra-marital social networks. Indeed, the proposed model has a clear prediction: Women are more ready, in the initial formation stage, to cease a romantic relationship with a man if he is strongly attached to his buddy-friends, not to mention his mother and sister, than vice versa.
In short, romantic relationships matter more to men than to women for a simple reason: Women have a more intense demand for men who are ready to maintain very minimal outside options for intimate support than vice versa. The pre-commitment of men for such very minimal outside options performs the same function as dowery, i.e., to rectify the perennial gestation-commitment asymmetry.
Thus, this commentary offers an endogenous theory of the rise and change of gender roles with regard to romantic attachments.
Financial support
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests
None.