I rebooted my social life

I'll defer to you of course if you have personal experience that I do not. But would it not become more complex than a "woodworking club" (men's shed) or than a brick mason's guild as soon as a complex filter such as religion is introduced?

> I won't analyze the sexism or male only nature of the fraternity

No need to analyse the usefulness of fraternity (or sorority), I think. It's just a fact that sometimes the sexes don't want to mingle. What could become problematic are cases of gender-fluidity.

This is (obviously?) not a fact. I’ve had a blast hanging out with a family in Peru for the last 24 hours. I also always have a great time when I visit my sister, her husband and their little kid.

Long conversations about interesting topics are one way to have fun. And you’re right, those don’t happen as much if you just take a child free couple, some parents and maybe kids and put them in the same room.

Bigger get togethers help a lot. One kid is a handful, but six kids of varying ages can actually be easier. You can also have fun in other ways like dancing, decorating or lighting fireworks (one activity from last night).

We don’t need to step back and work out the fundamental nature of sex and gender in order to have a functional conversation about them.

I don’t need to provide a definition of a chair before I can tell you that ones with three legs are more stable (“but what is a chair? what is the exact definition? aren’t some of them tables? aren’t some three legged chairs less stable?”). We just don’t have to do this. Do you do it for chairs? Or just gender? Why? Does it help feminism or trans rights to interrupt a conversation about male mental health with a semantic rabbit hole?

As for your second paragraph, there very much are studies showing the correlation being described, and they’re very easy to find. It would have been far more constructive to actually ask rather than suggest it’s an “assumption” — or even better, to research it yourself.

I realized all of this while not having gone to the apparent extreme you have, and never stopped building new friendships, but my level of engagement in those friendships and how I felt about them did change. I don't believe you can constantly add new arbitrary friends and have them all be equally as deep or stimulating—it's not economical from a time perspective, assuming you want to be friends with yourself too and devote time to your own interests alone—but that doesn't mean you need to exempt yourself from social life altogether.

Additionally, I've found that the people I'm exposed to and can build strong relationships with are only limited by own interests and depth. I have been fairly one-dimensional at times, and thus my friends end up being people who can tolerate that one-dimensionality. If I bring political bs to every party, I'll only be invited to parties I won't kill the vibe at, it's not their fault, and likewise if all I could talk about was programming, I'd only have tech friends. Incidentally I have only two tech friends among at least 20-30 pther "strong" friends from completely unrelated backgrounds with different dispositions.

It's okay to not miss a specific type of social life, but I think it's worth reflecting more deeply on a lack of interest in any social life. Your social life should not be transactional, imho. A book won't show up to your wedding, a book will not wave at you while on your to a grocery store, and a book will not climb a mountain, go biking, or play cards with you during a rainstorm on a train. Your romantic partner might, but they can't be expected to do it all the time. I don't do any of that with all my friends either.