We present a novel theory of moral cognition organized around resource-rational contractualism. From a contractualist perspective, ideal moral judgments are those that would be agreed to by rational bargaining agents—an idea with widespread support in philosophy, psychology, economics, biology, and cultural evolution. As a practical matter, however, investing time and effort in negotiating every interpersonal interaction is unfeasible. Instead, we propose, people use abstractions and heuristics to efficiently identify mutually beneficial arrangements. We argue that many well-studied elements of our moral minds, such as reasoning about others’ utilities (“consequentialist” reasoning) or evaluating intrinsic ethical properties of certain actions (“deontological” reasoning), can be naturally understood as resource-rational approximations of a contractualist ideal.

Many commentaries subscribe to the main conclusions of the target article. Here, we primarily address the need for greater theorizing and empirical findings that seem contradictory to parts of our conclusions. We highlight the importance of integrating evolutionary, ontological, and proximate mechanisms in order to understand differences more comprehensively between men and women in heterosexual relationships in most Western societies.

This article challenges the notion that women are more emotionally invested in romantic relationships, arguing that men derive greater psychological benefits and suffer more from their dissolution. However, the study’s reliance on WEIRD samples limits its generalizability. Future research should incorporate diverse cultural perspectives and explore power dynamics and social support networks to provide a more comprehensive understanding of gender differences in romantic relationships.

This commentary builds on Wahring et al.’s model of male emotional dependency by integrating mating market dynamics. It argues that men’s reliance on romantic partners, combined with competitive pressures and limited emotional networks, creates a volatile psychological landscape. Romantic failure, in this context, can deeply threaten self-worth – fueling distress, behavioral issues, and, in extreme cases, ideological radicalization.

Wahring et al. offer a compelling argument that men depend more on romantic partners than women. Our commentary highlights the importance of integrating cultural frameworks – such as relational mobility, support norms, and masculinity ideals – into their model. We argue that sociocultural contexts shape not only the degree of relational dependence but also the nature of close relationships and support behaviors.

The regularity that romantic relationships mean more to men than to women is an apparent paradox in a sexist and patriarchal culture that suggests the exact opposite. Here we show that this phenomenon is the result of a deeply gender-specific approach to psychological and emotional issues in particular, and that the only way to nullify this is a genderless society.

We argue that male romantic dependency reflects a strategic response to structurally constrained emotional encounters, shaped by both evolutionary network dynamics and media-driven gender norms. Building on Wahring et al., we incorporate theories of population viscosity, reciprocal altruism, and media analysis to show how men’s intimacy is centralized, women’s is distributed, and emotional asymmetries are sustained.

Wahring, Simpson, and Van Lange attribute men’s increased involvement in romantic relationships to biological, evolutionary, and social mechanisms. We argue, however, that the effects they describe are not inherent but culturally constructed – emerging from socially reinforced manhood ideals and evolving gender norms. To support this position, we draw on recent empirical research on traditional masculinity, the manosphere, and incel subcultures.

Romantic relationships matter more for men’s well-being than women’s, a disparity rooted in broader gender inequity. Gender socialization and benevolent sexist ideologies set up romantic relationships to benefit men – socially, emotionally, and practically – while overburdening women. Recognizing the structural forces and broader attitudes sustaining these inequalities is essential to understanding – and ultimately addressing – gendered relationship dynamics.

The dream studies support the notion that partner dreams are more negatively toned in women compared to men, indicating that women do not profit as much from partnerships as men. Furthermore, the findings indicate that the consequences of break-ups might be more stressful for women than men on an emotional level, contrary to the claim in the target article.

Digital technology has transformed romantic relationships, influencing men’s and women’s emotional investment differently. Drawing on “Romantic Relationships Matter More to Men than to Women,” this commentary examines how artificial intelligence (AI)-driven dating, social and virtual platforms reshape partner search and mourning. It analyses synthetic love-from digital mediation to AI companions-arguing that these technologies may reinforce male emotional dependency and heighten post-breakup vulnerability.

Wahring et al. describe that romantic relationships are more important for men than for women, drawing also on evolutionary theory. We suggest that (1) the proposed link between short-term mating motivation and relationship initiation requires clarification, and (2) the use of sexual strategies theory and strategic pluralism theory is inconsistent. Addressing these issues could improve evolutionary models of romantic relationships.

This commentary applies a structural, gender-informed lens to interpret men’s romantic dependence. Gendered arrangements reward masculine conformity and discourage vulnerability, thereby limiting men’s emotional reciprocity and increasing their reliance on women for intimacy. This perspective reframes romantic dependence as a product of broader social conditions, broadening the focus from individual limitations to systemic dynamics shaping relationships.

The beauty of the romantic relationship between men and women is not a matter of comparison. The aftermath is a natural and compassionate expression of agape. Friendship may be the gateway to romance. Theories of liking and courtship address the psychological paradigm of commitment to living together. Above all, the romance flourishes through culture, lifestyles, and the philosophy of life.

The authors argue that romantic relationships matter more to men than to women. They attribute this sex difference to men’s greater dependence on their relationships for emotional intimacy and support. Although we resonate with their hypothesis and recognize the veracity of the evidence presented, we suggest that their model understates the role of sex differences in sexual motivation.

We challenge the conclusion that “romantic relationships matter more to men than women” using ambivalent sexism theory and research. Men’s dependence on women for intimacy and support has harmful consequences beyond men’s wellbeing, including producing ideologies that sustain gender inequality and promote aggression toward women. Ignoring these broader consequences risks perpetuating gender roles that harm people regardless of their gender.

This commentary argues that the explanations for some important gender differences in romantic relationships offered in the target article are proximate instead of ultimate à la Mayr (1961). Combined with the ultimate ones based on Darwinian evolution, it offers a deeper understanding of the relevant factors. Other relevant factors include the higher availability of female prostitutes, cultural differences between the East and the West, and that women have menopause around the age of mid-40s.

Dependence varies with the balance of power between romantic partners, such that the partner who invests less holds greater power than the partner who invests more. Women’s tendency to invest more emotionally, cognitively, and behaviorally in romantic relationships puts men in a position of greater power. Men’s over-benefited or advantaged status makes them less dependent on romantic partners, not more.

Evolutionary theory supports the claim that romantic relationships matter more to men than to women. Humans follow the general pattern of ardent males and coy females, but our mostly monogamous mating system means that sexual relationships generally are romantic. The decoupling of sex and romance may be a modern development that does not represent most of human evolutionary history.

The target article points to evidence that romantic relationships fulfill men’s intimacy needs more strongly than women’s, concluding that romantic relationships matter more to men than to women. In contrast, we use self-determination theory to highlight ways in which romantic relationships differentially affect women’s and men’s non-intimacy needs, arguing that this gender difference is more ambiguous.