This commentary challenges the target article’s sociocultural explanations for men’s greater relationship investment, proposing instead that evolved sex differences in sexual desire, combined with societal changes in industrialized welfare states, better account for observed patterns. As traditional male contributions lose value and sex differences in sexual desire increase with age, men face diminishing relational prospects and greater costs from breakups.

Wahring et al. argue that men are more dependent than women on romantic relationships for emotional support and intimacy. We propose a testable implication of this asymmetry: if women benefit less from relationships, they should be choosier about entering them. Evidence from personality and dyadic studies supports this prediction and suggests productive extensions of the authors’ framework.

Compared to women, men seek romantic relationships more, benefit more from said relationships, are less likely to initiate breakups, and suffer more afterwards.

Explanations based on the availability of emotional support are unnecessary. The four patterns can be explained more parsimoniously by sexual selection, which is applicable to all life forms, including humans, and by family law in WEIRD societies.

The negative effects of oppressive societal narratives on well-being, as illustrated by research on fear of being single, provide contradictory evidence to the claim that men suffer more after romantic dissolutions. We propose that well-being after romantic dissolution is not dependent on gender, but on whether the individual belongs to a marginalised group and their capacity for social resilience.

The target article attributes four gendered patterns to men’s relative scarcity of non-partner intimacy. I argue that two patterns are robust, two are not, and in none does the evidence substantiate an intimacy deficit as the primary driver. The sweeping title claim is therefore unsupported, yet it may still spark productive debate.

Differences in well-being in the life trajectories following the end of a relationship can be co-determinants of gender-specific differences in the fear of losing a relationship. Social norms, conventions, and institutional arrangements can lead to gender-specific consequences for economic well-being when a relationship ends. If these are anticipated, they can cause differences in this fear of loss.

While this commentary concurs with Wahring et al., their explanation of the asymmetry begs the question: Why are men less successful in forming brotherhood social networks than women? This commentary offers an answer: Given their difference in investment/child, men are incentivized to renege on commitment more than women. Hence, women choose, ceteris paribus, to marry the most romantic man available.

We propose a more parsimonious and, arguably, more plausible interpretation of the gender differences described by the authors. Specifically, the central issue may not lie in men’s lower propensity to express their emotions, but rather in the generally lower quality of support that men tend to provide compared to women. This alternative interpretation calls for a different solution.

Gender imbalances in intimacy behavior reflect culturally contingent expressions of attachment organization rather than fixed gender differences. Building on Wahring et al.’s model, we apply the Biobehavioral Cultural Model of Attachment to show how affiliative behaviors vary with socioecological conditions, early reinforcement patterns, and cultural norms, offering a dynamic, context-sensitive account of intimacy across diverse settings.

Increased vulnerability in elderly men to their partner’s loss by death, and also due to dementia, is discussed through the lens of attachment theory. This vulnerability stems from compromised emotional regulation, reward processing, and limited social support. For this reason, dementia-related ambiguous loss is particularly challenging for them because it requires complex emotional adjustment, adding to caregiving and household duties.

When it comes to true romance, the relationship between a man and a woman surpasses anything comparable in the animal kingdom. This is due to our evolutionary past, in which solitary, tree-dwelling ape men were transformed by the rigors of life on the African savannah into loyal and caring human fathers. But everything in evolution comes at a price, both for men and women.

This paper reflects on why the belief that romantic love holds greater significance for women than for men persists despite empirical evidence to the contrary. It suggests this assumption is shaped by media portrayals of romantic love and argues its persistence across gender lines is sustained by the entrenchment of a male perspective that media representations help normalize.

Wahring et al. do an impressive job of documenting existing evidence for concluding that romantic relationships matter more to men than to women. Yet, their conclusion seems too simple to us. A consideration of more motivations for forming romantic relationships, use of more operational indices of mattering, and consideration of additional populations of people will paint a more complex picture of how, why, and for whom romantic relationships matter.

Wahring et al. highlight gender differences in romantic relationships, attributing them to disparities in social support. We propose that cognitive mechanisms – particularly autobiographical memory – also contribute. Superior emotional memory in women may not only foster relational insight but also facilitate emotional detachment, whereas weaker emotional memory in men may hinder processing, exacerbating distress post-breakup. Integrating memory research offers a complementary lens on romantic attachment and dissolution.

Men’s support deficits explain gender differences classically associated with parental investment theory. That is, men may have sex on their minds not because the costs are low, but because sex is a primary route for constructing something profound that they lack: an emotionally fulfilling relationship. The breadth of findings consistent with the support-deficit explanation has made it the parsimonious one.

Heterogeneity in romantic relationship research highlights the need for research exploring how factors such as cultural contexts and socialized norms influence benefits differentially experienced by people of any gender: Both benefits and costs should be assessed. Understanding the burdens of roles generally assumed by women can promote social change to decrease gendered disparities and to improve romantic relationships.

We argue that early parenthood temporarily reverses the relationship interdependence patterns described by Wahring et al. Western mothers typically rely on partner support as new caregiving demands restrict their access to external support networks. What begins as heightened maternal dependence sets in motion gendered role divisions that crystallize over time, ultimately allowing men to derive greater benefits from romantic relationships.

In their target article, Wahring et al. present compelling evidence that romantic relationships may matter more to men than women, but their explanations remain largely proximate. We offer alternative evolutionary interpretations of the observed sex differences in falling in love, breakup initiation, remarriage, and mortality outside of relationships. We argue that these patterns better reflect sex-differentiated mating strategies, social alliance formation, vulnerabilities to singlehood, and the greater importance of female survival for offspring survival and hence for their reproductive success.

The target article suggests that romantic relationships matter more to men than women. I discuss the work of West, Popp, and Kenny (2008), suggesting that properly testing for hypothesized sex differences requires gay and lesbian couples to serve as reference groups. A modified actor-partner interdependence model (APIM) can then test if relationships matter more to men in relationships (i.e., straight and gay) or matter more to people in relationships with women (i.e., straight men or lesbians).

Wahring, Simpson, and Van Lange’s model is well-argued but underspecifies the psychological processes contributing to men’s relationship maintenance behaviors. Extending their model to the realm of moral cognition, we propose that men utilize partner-serving moral double standards to excuse their female partners’ everyday relationship transgressions. Such hypercrisy helps men to sustain romantic relationships from which they benefit more than women do.