This is an interesting comment, and the answers are every bit as interesting.

Human sexuality isn't just a duality of extremes, nor even but two ranges of possibilities.

Human hypersexuality is perhaps the trait that differentiates us from every other species. I have joked that it isn't writing, language, civilization, tool use, or any of these admirable qualities that make us different from other animals: it is the pimp.

While that is intended as a joke, it is nonetheless true. People mirror the sexual strategies of every other species, but the madam, pimp, or matchmaker has no analogy elsewhere in the animal world (except for birds, and bees, fertilizing flowers. But this is not a mode of sexuality for those fertilizing species, unlike our own).

Given our variability, not just in sexual strategies, and mechanisms used to compete for status, but in culture, I reckon there are spectrums of spectrums of interpretations, and expectations, of gender. The usurpation and simultaneous demonization of masculinity in the Western media presently is probably amongst the most toxic possibilities - particularly for women.

Men, after all, are expected to man up and tough it out when life unfairly does them harm, as being demonized does. Being simultaneously elevated to usurp the masculine (which this symbolism clearly attempts, both to point to the higher status of masculinity, and to usurp it), while demonizing that vaunted goal, is bound to induce cognitive dissonance, particularly in those women most successful at it.

What the purpose of that confusion might be, if it is even intentional, or given consideration beyond it's utility to create chaos, is unclear to me.

Thanks!