Like, it's probably more noticeable that you don't have any romantic or sexual relationships than it would be if you don't have any true, close, platonic connections. Romantic and sexual relationships have things that are very obvious and for the most part, exclusive to them, such as kissing, making out, sex, etc. Platonic relationships that are true and close are not as visible, they're more feelings on the inside (not to say that there's none of those feelings involved with romantic and sexual relationships). If you look exclusively at the activities done with a platonic friendship, it's not very different from an acquaintanceship, or an activity partner.
I've met people who claim they have friends, but they're just coworkers they talk to a bit, guys they play games with, or guys they see at the sports bar a lot. Not people who actually support each other or any true connection. Now granted, there's nothing wrong with having those acquaintanceships or activity partners, and it can be argued that they're necessary for a fulfilling life, but they're not the same as a true connection or friendship. If you've never had that or hadn't had it in a while, it can be hard to tell what that feels like.
The only way to make these connections is through social skills, which a lot of people lack. They lack social skills, so they don't make connections, platonic or romantic. Since romantic and sexual connections have more exclusive activities, it's more easy to notice them than the lack of true friends. So I'm wondering if all this talk about the lack of romance and sex is really just poor social skills.
Social skills are misnamed. It should be social talent.
Either you have it or you don’t.
No amount of interaction is going to fix the fact that I can’t read facial expressions.
I don't think not having the ability to read facial expressions is 100% by nature, we just spend less time talking face-to-face and developing the ability to read faces than any generation before.
I remember reading an anecdote from a psychologist who realised their younger clients don't differentiate between real and online conversations mentally, and speak about conversations they had on social media just as if it was an irl conversation. Gen Z (especially post-covid) are spending most of their time talking in groupchats and text messages, completely losing the facial cues attached to conversation. Of course there will always be people who struggle with social cues but it's noticeably worse with the crowd that grew up online.
I think the fact that those two categories are lumped in together is kinda the point. Some things are indeed able to be trained, even if that training isn’t going to result in parity with an average person’s ability. But the dominant thought process is a bunch of people who come by these things naturally calling them all skills and implying that people who can’t do them haven’t worked hard enough.
Personally, I struggle to find the balance of “it’s okay that I can’t do this” and “it’s unfair that I have to put in this extra but I’m still gonna try my best”. With most social deficits, really.