Culture The High Cost of Men's Loneliness



KEY POINTS​

  • Men often don't have close friends. In heterosexual relationships, women often maintain friendships for the couple.
  • Boys start out feeling as connected in their friendships as girls do, but they tend to neglect personal relationships to pursue external success.
  • Loneliness is correlated with longevity. It is a risk factor for health problems such as cardiovascular disease and stroke.
M.MEDDAHpixabay

Lone wolf
Source: M.MEDDAHpixabay
Saturday Night Live recently aired a brilliant sketch titled “Man Park.” In the sketch, a young man waits anxiously for his partner to return from work. He has few if any friends, and has had little social interaction all day. She listens, barely managing to feign interest in his data dump about the series of banal events of his day. As is often the case in heterosexual relationships, she reverts to the role of mommy, exhorting her partner to go outside and play with his friends. When he protests that he has no friends, she takes him by the hand as she would a little boy, and walks him to the “Man Park” to play with the other men. The men approach each other awkwardly, unsure of how to make a friend, while the women patronizingly urge them on.

The seemingly unending pandemic has raised awareness of the physical and emotional consequences of isolation. Men tend to struggle with isolation and loneliness more than women. Thomas Joiner in his ground-breaking book Lonely at the Top (2011) says that men have made a Dorian Gray-like trade of success in the external world for a deep sense of loneliness, emptiness, and disconnection. Boys start out feeling just as connected in their close friendships as girls do, but they tend to neglect their personal relationships to pursue external success. When men lose the protective social structures provided in high school and college, they often find themselves interpersonally adrift, unsure how to establish or maintain close relationships with other men or women.

In heterosexual couples, women tend to handle all the social relationships for the couple and the children. This may fall to women because they are aware that their male partners do not have substantial relationships outside of the family as they do. The women may pull their partners into socializing with other couples so that the women can have more time socializing with each other without that becoming an issue in the marriage. They may even arrange “play dates” with their friends’ partners so that their partner will be more interested in socializing as a couple.

Women can do this so seamlessly that their partners often remain blissfully unaware of all the work their partners are doing to manage the social relationships in the family. Men are often happy to have their partners take care of this because they are socialized not to value social relationships very highly, and on some level, they may also recognize that they are not very good at it themselves. It is typically only when they are divorced or widowed those men realize how few relationships they actually have that have not been arranged or managed by their partner, and how vulnerable they have been in depending entirely on their partners for all of the connection in their lives.
article continues after advertisement
A reporter for the Boston Globe was initially offended when his editor asked him to write an article about “how middle-aged men have no friends:”
"Excuse me? I have plenty of friends. Are you calling me a loser? You are . . . I quickly took stock of my life to try to prove to myself that I was not, in fact, perfect for this story.

"First of all, there was my buddy Mark. We went to high school together, and I still talk to him all the time, and we hang out all the . . . Wait, how often do we actually hang out? Maybe four or five times a year? And then there was my other best friend from high school, Rory, and . . . I genuinely could not remember the last time I’d seen him. Had it already been a year? Entirely possible.

"There were all those other good friends who feel as if they’re still in my lives (sic) because we keep tabs on one another on social media, but as I ran down the list of those, I’d consider real, true, lifelong friends, I realized that it had been years since I’d seen many of them, even decades for a few (Baker, 2017)."

Loneliness is not only an unpleasant feeling; it is an interpersonal impairment that causes significant harm in the lives of men. Research suggests that a focus on the accumulation of wealth and material goods results in less overall happiness in life and less satisfaction in intimate relationships (Baker, 2017). The Harvard Study of Adult Development (Harvard, 2017) followed a group of men for eight decades. Throughout the study, at different points in their lives, the men were asked, “Who would you call in the middle of the night if you were sick or afraid?” Those men who had someone to turn to were happier in their lives and their marriages, and also physically healthier over time.
article continues after advertisement
The danger here is not only the emotional cost of loneliness, although that is substantial. Close relationships with other people have more of an impact on our physical health and longevity than even our genes do (Mineo, 2017, Vadantam, 2018). A satisfying relationship life can extend longevity by up to 22 percent. Loneliness is a risk factor comparable to smoking, obesity, and high blood pressure (Holt-Lunstad, et al., 2010, Hawkley, et al, 2010, House, et al., 1988, Murphy, et al., 2017). Loneliness in men is correlated with cardiovascular disease and stroke; 80 percent of successful suicides are men, and one of the leading contributing factors is loneliness (Murphy, et al., 2017). While many physicians ask questions about risk factors such as smoking and alcohol consumption during an annual physical, the research suggests they should also be asking about how satisfying their patient’s closest relationships are.
This post was excerpted in part from Hidden in Plain Sight: How Men’s Fears of Women Shape Their Intimate Relationships (Weiss, 2021).
 
I think it would be valuable to get a woman's perspective on the nature of female relationships.
In my experience, the vast majority of women don’t have ‘female relationships’, they have a group dominance competition.

There are quite a few well-adjusted women out there with a healthy view of relationships (mutually emotionally supportive, noncompetitive, and not status driven) but these are comparatively rare, in my experience, compared with the number of women in their 30’s and 40’s who still act like it’s high school.

It’s also why there‘s so many status-seeking harpies all over social media, mindlessly trumpeting their blind support for the latest trendy cause. The consequences of supporting open borders or anti-white activism aren’t as important as being the first person to express the ‘right’ opinion and garner all the praise.

Media likes to portray intrafemale relationships like the characters from ‘Sex and the City’, whereas my experience tells me they’re actually more like the the actors from SATC, who apparently for the most part can’t stand each other.
 
That just means you dont know how to socialize with people in general. Pick up a hobby that involves other people and then talk to those people until you make friends.
How old are you? Once you hit 40 making friends becomes much, much harder, this is widely agreed upon regardless of how good your social skills are.

Most meaningful friendships are made early in adult life.
 
How old are you? Once you hit 40 making friends becomes much, much harder, this is widely agreed upon regardless of how good your social skills are.

Most meaningful friendships are made early in adult life.
Go join an activity with people your own age and then talk to them, its that easy.
 
  • Men often don't have close friends. In heterosexual relationships, women often maintain friendships for the couple.
Well, gee, honey, you cut him off from all of his friends (and often times from most of his family, too)- don't you dare fucking bitch and moan that you have to "maintain friendships" on his behalf (with people that he probably tolerates at best, actively dislikes at worst).
 
I'm a woman who has spent much of her independent life alone; for some reason I've never felt the inclination to seek friends. I'm on good terms with my colleagues but that's about it.

There was a guy I was with a while who was very isolated. While I wasn't trying to force him to socialise we'd go on walks and bump into people. He was chattier than me so he often liked to strike up conversation and ask questions. He was a bit of an oddball though so a lot of people tended to avoid him.

The next guy I met openly lived ankle-deep in pizza boxes, plastic bags and dirty clothes and even had a cocaine habit yet still invited me to his flat. He texted me after I 'd left to say "Probably scared you away, I scare myself sometimes lol" - I think he knew he was offputting but maybe figured that at least he could have some female company for at least a short while before she politely excused herself and briskly walked back to the car.
 
How old are you? Once you hit 40 making friends becomes much, much harder, this is widely agreed upon regardless of how good your social skills are.

Most meaningful friendships are made early in adult life.
Holy shit.

This just sums shit up.

All these people talking about "Oh, men have a hard time making friends..." and shit.

It's not fucking hard if you aren't a sped who has never done anything in your life and can actually look another man in the eye while you talk to him.

I hit 40 it was actually EASIER to talk to people about shit.

And as for the article, a woman talking about men or masculinity is like a fish talking about riding a bicycle, the only thing they have in common is how the seat smells afterwards.
 
I used to volunteer at a food bank.

During that time I noticed that a lot our users were men in their late 40s or early 50s. They were either divorced and estranged from their children, or they never married. They had been employed, but at the lower end of the wage scale. They'd never made enough to build up meaningful savings, or do anything other than rent. Something had happened that had upset the status quo. Either they got sick and lost their job, or they just lost their job. With no money to make the rent, and with many landlords refusing to accept housing benefit, they lost their homes. They occupied that no-man's land before state shekels take up some of the slack. Sometimes when I talked to them, I could tell they were still attempting to come to terms with how quickly everything had fallen apart.

A common factor was that these men had no-one in their lives. No friends. No one to talk to who might offer advice, insight or practical assistance. They moved through the world unnoticed and unwanted.

Even if you have won multiple gold medals in the Male Misanthropy Olympics (and then obviously failed to turn up to the award ceremony) I would still strongly advise that all men learn how to build and maintain friendships, if only so there is someone who knows that you exist, and who might perhaps look out for you when things go wrong.

It's harder to make friends as you get older, and I've seen what happens when this part of life is taken for granted and/or neglected.
I notice this dynamic with uber drivers a lot, except they're middle aged men who have fallen on hard times who have the wherewithal to start driving uber instead of just flail and give up.

part of me is sympathetic with your food bank guys, and part of me is frustrated and annoyed. On the one hand they are having very legit difficulties that a healthier kinder society would be ameliorating. On the other hand, is what's actually going on that they're giving up the first time things got hard? How do you get to that age and completely fall apart the first time things go south? I sort of wonder if a lot of it has to do with having sailed through life previously - not that they had a super privileged existence but basically all they did was show up and do what they were told, and that worked, until it didn't.

I know a lot of women who have gone through brutally hard times where they were terrifyingly socially isolated, and they were doing it with infants and small children in tow. They didn't have someone taking care of their social needs, or any other needs.
 
It is, and the article is pretty spot on for--and I'm making a jump here--"most men".

My girlfriends have all spent a significant portion of their free time talking to, making plans with and seeing their friends. They don't really do anything together; they usually have coffee or watch tv and talk. We're talking about probably 2 dozen people, each of whom she sees several times a year? I'm not an antisocial guy, but that takes a fuckton of effort and men generally won't get together without a structured activity to share. If I'm not working, I'm working out or doing errands or going on dates and so is everyone else I know. If I'm going to hang out with a buddy, I generally want a reason to, and that's hard when life gets busy, and especially if you have kids.

I think we're more contextual; we're okay with letting people slip in and out of our lives because our relationships are more based on shared experiences than emotional connection. If you've ever met up with a guy after several years and your lives have taken different paths, it can be kind of awkward because you no longer have those shared experiences and it can feel a little alienating. Ostensibly, I will make new friends in my new environment and I'm mostly ok with that, but the pandemic has fucked with men's natural environment (the workplace) and modern life has fucked with a lot of men's "third place", which used to be Church for many, many men.

My girlfriends have never worried about that, because their relationships are all about feelings and emotional connections. They are attached to the actual person, I think.

I'd be interested to hear a woman chime in on this; I can't really speak for them as to why they feel the need to "never leave a friend behind", but I don't think most men feel that same compulsion.
Remember the days when men had lodges they would all hang out in?

It was such a common meme almost every sitcom made during that time would have a "lodge" episode.
 
Rate me "rdbisly" since there's no puzzle pieces, but what exactly constitutes a "friend," anyway?

I feel like some people at my work would say I'm their friend, because I'm always polite and usually jocose. I like my job and I like to say silly shit to people I find agreeable. But I would not call any of them "friend." If I quit, I'll never speak to any of them ever again. It's the commitment level of someone you talk to at an airport bar.

On the other end of the spectrum, I have a few people who would come ready to throw down for me any time, day or night. They're people I love, but honestly I'm not a good person. I go months, even years, without talking to them. We don't really have much in common aside from shared inconveniences from back when we were young enough to feel feelings.

And then I have a few people I've "known" for years and years and talk to every day about Mary Worth or Scooby Doo or what have you. We never talk to each other about deep dark issues, or ask advice on personal matters, or the other things friends do on movies.

I don't know. I generally think of myself as having zero friends, but I think someone else's definition would give me a plethora of amigos.

Every single relationship I’ve ever had, the woman’s felt threatened by the fact I had a rich social life that didn’t revolve around her.

The second last girlfriend I had before I got married once drunkenly barged in to one of my regular gaming nights at a friend’s place, demanding to know where the strippers were. We were playing Warhammer 40,000. Strippers would have been cheaper.

I posit that many men don’t have a lot of ‘friendships’ because it’s a choice between that or pussy, and we’re fundamentally more motivated by pussy than by friendships. Women are fundamentally unable to avoid feelings of nagging insecurity when their partner doesn’t need them. Men, in my experience, are generally quite happy for a few hours of peace when their partners fuck off and leave them alone. Who’s really got the problems here?
I never understand the guys that long to get away from their wives. I mean, I understand why they long to get away from them after meeting them, but I don't understand why they bought a ring and legally binded themselves to a harpy.

Sex Ed in high school should focus more on "you don't have to marry the first gutter troll who would agree to marry you."
 
the value of those shared experiences is in part because of the emotions tied to them, and *snip*

I don't think that's different for women, either-- if anything, it's the nature of those "shared experiences" that make the difference.
I gave this some thought over dinner, and I think it's a false equivalence. I'm talking about a fundamental difference in how men and women socialize--for men, those emotions are tied to the activity. For women, they're tied to the person.

I get the same feeling playing pick-up hockey with a new bunch of guys that I did playing with my high school buddies. I do not need to hang out with my high school or college friends, unlike my girlfriends, who treated their old, long-expired relationships like they were precious cargo teetering on a cliff. If I happened to run into some of the guys I used to hang out with, I believe I would think of all the fun things we did together; this is fundamentally different from the women in my life who insist that each and every one of their friendships is somehow special. I can't imagine I would feel differently if we were having tea parties or quasi-lesbian sleepovers (or however women spend their time; I'm assuming its those things) instead of hitting the bars and playing hockey.
And there's no restriction on what the "shared experience" can be
Men bond over the shared experience and especially shared hardship. This is why they claim to be so close with their military buddies. I have to wonder if you dropped them into a warzone now, if they'd latch on to those people instead. Everything I know tells me that women do not do this to the same extent; they bond over shared emotions and derive more value from empathizing with one another on a purely intellectual level--there is no requirement for their best friend to have experienced the hardship with them, so long as their best friend is "there for them" later. I don't believe this is a new concept; there are plenty of other sources that recognize a fundamental difference in how men and women form friendships:
There are also gender differences in adult social style which may involve different trade-offs between the quantity and quality of friendships. Although many have suggested that females tend to focus on intimate relations with a few other females, while males build larger, more hierarchical coalitions, the existence of such gender differences is disputed and data from adults is scarce. Here, we present cross-cultural evidence for gender differences in the preference for close friendships. We use a sample of ∼112,000 profile pictures from nine world regions posted on a popular social networking site to show that, in self-selected displays of social relationships, women favour dyadic relations, whereas men favour larger, all-male cliques. These apparently different solutions to quality-quantity trade-offs suggest a universal and fundamental difference in the function of close friendships for the two sexes.
I feel as though there's something true in that direction, though, that I can't quite make out.
If you could, you'd be a sociologist making $27k a year, so I can't say I blame you.
 
I know a lot of women who have gone through brutally hard times where they were terrifyingly socially isolated, and they were doing it with infants and small children in tow. They didn't have someone taking care of their social needs, or any other needs.
Women who can’t support their kids get free housing, food and money. Men who can’t support their kids get jail.

’Social needs’? Don’t make me laugh. Pretty sure there’s five stepfathers out there for every woman who’s a stepmother.
 
Women who can’t support their kids get free housing, food and money. Men who can’t support their kids get jail.

’Social needs’? Don’t make me laugh. Pretty sure there’s five stepfathers out there for every woman who’s a stepmother.
maybe that's because bearing and raising children is inherently valuable? men can't do it. but men who provide value to society don't end up at the food bank.
 
maybe that's because bearing and raising children is inherently valuable? men can't do it. but men who provide value to society don't end up at the food bank.
Ouch. So welfare queens shitting out litters of useless eaters are universally desirable, and every man on the breadline is there because he’s worthless and deserves it?
What a horrible roadmap for a functional society that must be.
 
I never understand the guys that long to get away from their wives.
I fucking love motorcycles.
One of my first big-bore bikes was a 1989 BMW R100GS Paris-Dakar.
I loved that fucking bike and every second on it until I got cleaned up by a woman who left-hand turned across me without right-of-way.
So I bought another R100GS and rode that for a few years, then traded up to the R1100GS, until that one also got wiped out under the same circumstances as my first.
I loved them all down to the core of my being. Big, ugly, heavy, mechanically simple and reliable 'urban assault vehicles' that turned heads everywhere I went.

But at the end of the day, I don't always want to be pulling 600-mile days on the back of a monster bike.
Sometimes I want to fly because it's faster, or drive because it's quieter and drier, or even catch a train because it's meditative and scenic.
So it is with marriage.
 
I fucking love motorcycles.
One of my first big-bore bikes was a 1989 BMW R100GS Paris-Dakar.
I loved that fucking bike and every second on it until I got cleaned up by a woman who left-hand turned across me without right-of-way.
So I bought another R100GS and rode that for a few years, then traded up to the R1100GS, until that one also got wiped out under the same circumstances as my first.
I loved them all down to the core of my being. Big, ugly, heavy, mechanically simple and reliable 'urban assault vehicles' that turned heads everywhere I went.

But at the end of the day, I don't always want to be pulling 600-mile days on the back of a monster bike.
Sometimes I want to fly because it's faster, or drive because it's quieter and drier, or even catch a train because it's meditative and scenic.
So it is with marriage.
Ah, concubines.

I asked and my wife said no.

Bitch.

maybe that's because bearing and raising children is inherently valuable? men can't do it. but men who provide value to society don't end up at the food bank.
There's way too many fucking people already. Being a mother is not laudable, only being a good mother.

If you could, you'd be a sociologist making $27k a year, so I can't say I blame you.
Hey, 14 dollars an hour is fine. You can make a life on that. I mean, unless you had to take out some sort of preposterous amount of debt in order to get that job manning the register at Buc'ees. But who would make a decision like that?
 
Last edited:
Saturday Night Live recently aired a brilliant sketch titled “Man Park.” In the sketch, a young man waits anxiously for his partner to return from work. He has few if any friends, and has had little social interaction all day. She listens, barely managing to feign interest in his data dump about the series of banal events of his day. As is often the case in heterosexual relationships, she reverts to the role of mommy, exhorting her partner to go outside and play with his friends. When he protests that he has no friends, she takes him by the hand as she would a little boy, and walks him to the “Man Park” to play with the other men. The men approach each other awkwardly, unsure of how to make a friend, while the women patronizingly urge them on

And they stole it whole cloth from Shane “The Young Bull” Gillis, who actually was supposed to be on SNL but he got fired two days after getting the job.
 
I know a lot of women who have gone through brutally hard times where they were terrifyingly socially isolated, and they were doing it with infants and small children in tow. They didn't have someone taking care of their social needs, or any other needs.
Your subsequent posts and the other responses you’ve gotten have already answered your question, and frankly so did you before you’d even posed it.

That said, I’m going to join in the dog pile because you’re a misanthropic cunt who, without the faintest shred of self-awareness, thinks the sole value of a woman is her genitals.

The welfare state is always there for women, unless they’re so mentally ill or strung out to be unable to take advantage of the systems. Private charities, too. Women’s shelters. Etc. The near universal human response to a woman in distress, kin or not, is pity and a desire to help. Your response — and the general human response — to a man in distress is indifference or contempt unless they’re family, and even then, it’s not guaranteed family will help. There are no men’s shelters, no special handouts or advocacy groups for men that don’t get branded reactionary misogynistic hate groups.
 
Back