Is chivalry or chauvinism the order of the day?

Being a man is becoming increasingly complex.

There are so many options for men to choose from: the moisturising ruggedly silent types, the silently rugged caveman type, geeks, sporty, metrosexual, homosexual, homophobic, misogynist, monogamist, patriarchal, cross-dressing, crossly dressed, bearded hipster dressed like a lumberjack, chief executive in Canadian tuxedo (all denim) cowboy hats and yoga mats, suits and ties, boat shoes and lies, man-o-war, sailor ashore, bogan in black, athlete on track.

Now we have a new type - the Dadbod. I have it from solid sources on the internet that this is a thing.

Dadbod describes a bloke who is not old but not young, who has a body that combines the possibility of having been in a gym at some point that has, over time, morphed into something with a small beer belly. This is the new abdominal six-pack that comes from drinking six beers and eating hot chips regularly.

It seems to fit along the same continuum as Dad Dancing. Both Dadbod and Dad Dancing share a completely shameless delusion - those with Dadbods are convinced women find them crushingly irresistible. Dad Dancers think they are being cool and still hip with the moves while their terrified children try to hide.

Chronologically, these men may have left their adolescent years long ago but their adolescent has never left them.

I suspect that is part of the reason for the national dismay on hearing that the Prime Minister thought it was okay to repeatedly pull a young waitress' ponytail. This was the behaviour of a young adolescent who thought it was a joke.

Let's turn this around - if she had pulled on his tie, his bodyguards would have grabbed her and hauled her away and possible charged her with assault. In fact, his security detail, knowing the law, should have pointed out to him that his actions could be technically considered a form of assault.

What it has done is clearly demonstrate entitlement, and abuse of the power imbalance implicit in the relationship between a Prime Minister and a waitress. This is not suggesting that John Key intended harm, but pulling her hair did violate the young woman's right not to be manhandled without her expressed permission. A joke is not a joke if you are the only one laughing.

This is one very clear signal among a mix of messages that men are attempting to translate into today's world. It is a place where girls can do anything and men need to do something. There is some confusion around how this might work.

Are we meant to be still holding doors open for women or is that considered demeaning, suggesting it is something they are not capable of doing themselves? Does offering to carry something heavy count as courtesy or will it be taken as a hint that women are not able to do such tasks?

Should a man agree to go to a movie without first assessing the film plot's ratio of fast cars to kisses? If a man offers to buy a woman dinner in a restaurant in a forest, does the sound of her refusal still ring in the ears?

Are we meant to be ruggedly cute in a dishevelled but incredibly fashionable way that looks like we don't really care when clearly we do? (My favourite description of Sir Bob Geldof was that he looked like he had been sleeping in a skip with a family of badgers).

Or are men supposed to not give a toss about what they look like because this highlights their authentic character? I dunno - do you?

Terry Sarten is a writer, musician and authenticated satirista - feedback: tgs@inspire.net.nz