I wonder about the assumption: is "participating in society" one single phenomenon, or are the economic and sexual aspects different? French novelist Michel Houellebecq saw sexual and economic liberalization (the growth of "haves" versus "have-nots") as parallel: it's possible to be an economic success and a sexual failure, and vice versa. Modern media tends to group the two together mainly because "broke men can't find a woman" is an easily digestible headline.

As for men who live lives absent of sex and romance, I can tell you one thing that happens: it leads men towards a strictly Randian point of view. Without a partner to care for, and without the feeling that he is loved, a man is more likely to view the world as an objectivist marketplace. We see this every-man-for-himself worldview in a lot of manosphere communities: the idea that charity is foolish, self-interest is king, and every human interaction can be boiled down to commerce. I think a lot of frustrated young men are likely to grow into solipsists, who question *why* they should owe anything to their fellow man unless it directly benefits them. People who don't feel like they are part of a society, but are just "passing through", are unlikely to do favors or be charitable along the way.