Do Men's Friendships Need to Be "Deep"? Emotionally Restrained Camaraderie Counts Too

Two Dimensions of the Conversation About Men's Friendships

"I spend 20 hours a week with my fishing buddies, but we only talk about fishing—hardly ever about feelings." This is the scene writer Tyler Austin Harper describes in his Atlantic article "I Love My Emotionally Restrained Friendships." In a podcast interview, he pointed out that discussions about men's friendships often conflate two different dimensions: the quantity dimension (men have fewer friends) and the quality dimension (men's friendships are emotionally restrained, with little open disclosure of innermost feelings).

Harper's core argument is that the former is indeed a problem, while the latter is not necessarily one. Men's preference for activity-based, lower-emotional-intensity companionship is not inherently wrong.

"Emotional Restraint" Is Not "Emotional Absence"

In public discussion of men's friendships, a common critical characterization is that men's friendships are too shallow, not "heartfelt" enough. Harper does not deny the truth of this observation—men do talk less proactively about marriage, children, and emotions. But he cautions that this observation easily slides into a vague value judgment: the assumption that "not talking about feelings" means a deficient friendship.

In his view, only by separating "men have fewer friends" from "men's friendships work differently" can we reach a more accurate conclusion. The former is a structural problem worth attention; the latter is a preference that should not be pathologized.

Emotional restraint, in sociological and psychological contexts, refers to an interaction style characterized by curbing emotional expression and avoiding excessive self-disclosure—not a lack of emotional experience or empathy. It is fundamentally different from alexithymia, a clinical condition involving difficulty identifying and describing one's own emotions; emotional restraint, by contrast, is a culturally learned behavioral norm. Multiple studies on men's friendships indicate that men are not devoid of emotional needs, but tend to express care and connection indirectly through shared activities and side-by-side collaboration. Equating emotional restraint with poor friendship quality therefore conflates two distinct levels: expressive style and emotional capacity.

Why Activity-Based Friendships Work

Fishing partners, bowling buddies, sports friends—what these relationships share is that they revolve around concrete activities. Harper uses his own fishing partners, with whom he spends 20 hours a week, to show that such companionship does not lose value for lacking emotional confessions. What the two share is time, setting, and common interests—not inner monologue.

This model has practical logic: the activity itself provides a reason and rhythm for being together, reducing the pressure of "having to find something to talk about." For many men, doing things side by side feels more natural than heart-to-heart talks face to face. Harper stresses that the problem is not the preference itself, but whether it gets misread as a deficit in emotional capacity.

Activity-based friendship is a classic category in friendship research, opposed to "conversation-based friendship." Sociologists have noted that friendships can be maintained both through face-to-face conversation and through shared activities—the latter's core mechanism being "joint attention," where both parties direct attention toward the same object (fishing, a ballgame) rather than scrutinizing each other. This model lowers the pressure of social performance and makes interaction more natural. Research also finds that men more often use side-by-side rather than face-to-face interaction, which does not necessarily mean shallower relationships—only that the vehicle of connection is different.

The Quantity Problem Is What Really Deserves Attention

Harper clearly distinguishes "having fewer friends" from "having shallower friends." In his judgment, the decline in the number of men's friendships is a definite problem worth taking seriously; but "emotional restraint" in friendship quality should not be lumped into the list of problems.

This distinction has practical significance for public discussion: if all men's friendships are held to the standard of "must have deep confessions," men who find satisfaction in activity-based friendships may feel invalidated. Conversely, only by acknowledging the legitimacy of multiple forms of friendship can resources be focused on the truly urgent problem of isolation.

The decline in the number of men's friendships is a trend repeatedly confirmed by multiple surveys in recent years. A 2021 report by the Survey Center on American Life showed that the proportion of men reporting "no close friends" rose significantly over three decades, from about 3% in 1990 to 15%. This phenomenon is linked to broader social isolation, declining community participation, longer working hours, and other factors. Public health research associates long-term isolation with deteriorating mental health and increased cardiovascular risk, so "having fewer friends" is not just a social issue but a health issue. This is the backdrop for Harper's emphasis that the quantity dimension is more urgent: it points to measurable structural risks, not a debate over stylistic preferences.

Are Your Friendships Deep Enough?

Harper ends the interview with an open question: if you have a male friend, do you think he needs "deeper" friendships? There is no standard answer, but it reminds us that when evaluating friendship quality, the feelings of those involved matter more than external standards. For some, fishing buddies are enough; for others, the lack of an emotional outlet is a genuine struggle.

The real question worth asking may not be "why aren't men's friendships deep enough," but "do men have the freedom to choose the form of their friendships—and when they want something deeper, do they have the channels for it?"

One-line Summary

Men's friendships should be distinguished by quantity and quality: having fewer friends is a problem; emotional restraint is just a preference.

Paragraph Summary

Drawing on writer Tyler Austin Harper's views in The Atlantic, this article argues that discussing men's friendships requires distinguishing two dimensions: the quantity dimension (men have fewer friends) and the quality dimension (men's friendships are emotionally restrained, with little open disclosure). Harper holds that the former is a real and urgent structural problem, while the latter is an interaction preference that should not be pathologized as "deficient friendship." He illustrates with his own experience of spending 20 hours a week with fishing buddies while hardly discussing feelings, showing that activity-based friendships are equally valuable. The article further notes that measuring all men's friendships by the single standard of "must have deep confessions" would deny the genuine satisfaction people find in activity-based relationships, and calls for focusing on the more urgent problem of male isolation and the declining number of friendships.