“My take on this as a man is that we get weirded out when we are not the sexual aggressor or sexually dominant.”

You’re projecting your desires/insecurities on to all men here (and for the rest of the comment, save for the final anecdote about your insecurity). It’s a common rhetorical trick to speak from a place of artificial authority to make what’s being said seem more important and create an ingroup/outgroup dynamic wherein the ingroup is normalized and the outgroup is otherized deviants. This is the rhetorical equivalent of a pufferfish inflating.

The assumption that you are a man and therefore qualified to speak for all other men — or, really, anyone other than yourself — out of a desire to have your insecurities/desires validated as “normal” (read: widely shared) rather than take personal ownership of them contributes to the underlying societal problems Emma’s essay explores.

A good place to start the cultural paradigm shift required to ameliorate these societal problem is to recognize that no one has the authority to speak for anyone else unless explicitly granted permission and contemplate the insights that will come from figuring out why the need to insulate oneself from one’s own desires/insecurities via a rhetorically constructed false sense of strength in numbers exists at all.