I guess I am just similarly ambiguous about women and relationships, and moving towards 60 myself...
Run this by me again. Victoria's Secret is pornographic? It's a lingerie catalogue for f sake. That used to be jerk-off material back in the 50s when there was nothing else, but nowadays I see sexier women advertised as accessories to a car (by implication).
Sorry? It's the guys who are sad is it? Not the women who want "a man of wealth and taste"? Not the women who wax and paint and dress and act and simper and fake orgasms to get what they want? See, I can do boring old pig-bloke, no problem.
Personally, I think women mostly dress up for other women, but I could be wrong. After all, blokeish 'blokes' don't even notice a new hairstyle or new shoes. It sometimes seems to me that most women want a 'real man' except when they are grooming, in which case they are more 'fag-hag' and just wish guys cared about clothes and hair and perfume, and cleaning house, and relating, etc. Male models have designer stubble (a bit of rough), husbands have to be clean-shaven.
I am just writing to annoy, of course (which doesn't mean I don't think this stuff). It triggered a memory of "You Can't Beat People Up and Have Them Say I Love You" by Murray Roman [a 60s comedy album). He had a bit about the difference between the magazines men look at, and the magazines women look at. To paraphrase him "All the women we dig have tits!" You look at Vogue, or something, with (as it was then) Twiggy, and you can see "that it's a dyke thing", no tits. Weird.
A woman gardener in the UK doesn't wear a bra, and all the women viewers are up in arms - didn't we sort this out 30-40 years ago? (and at least their men folk now join them in watching the gardening programme!) Then I tune into "Sex and The City" and topless jiggling and nipple outline is apparently OK in these particular role models.
I'll never claim to understand.