pure conjecture

I believe that more and more "popular" music focusses on the objectivity of women -- mainly as sex object and in some cases toys -- merely living, but inanimate objects. My hypothosis is: (assuming that the lyrics are reasonable foundation for the author's general belief system regarding sex and gender roles)
Is the intent of the discourse to fit in to the growing trend toward sexual prowess over others, sexual pomp and circumstance or (here is the dangerous statement); the attempt to subordinate a woman-figure, since, for so-long being controlled in a single-mother household?

In other words, finally free of being "dominated" by the only parent figure -- mother, a man acts out in opposition to authority, in a way he could never do with his only authority figure. The woman -- being more than a placebo for the mother, is a model of the authority, with specific differences in that a different relationship is formed with another woman, sexual in nature.
Being controlled is a terrible stigma in many groups -- more so in urban areas where you can gain status through subjegating others. This comes into play greater in institutions -- schools, detention centers, jails, prisons. A continuing and escalating cycle of control and violence to maintain that control manifests itself in quasi-obsession. OIn that failure to fully dominate this other, relegates the man back to the boy -- psyche in anguish.
Combine this with drug and stimulant use -- stimulants may include social seclusion through many avenues including single-player video games for many hours both buidling asocial tendencies and diminished discernment of non-comparable simuli.
Moreover, aggressive games (and violent games also) tend to favor the schema of subjegating others to your will. Many games offer reinforcement in that the greater the violence and aggression, the greater the outcome -- success and or short-goals (points). Media exaggerbates this with reverence for violent celebrities who include sports figures.

Aside: Bobby Knight -- a chronological adult, foul-mouthed, violent, even choking students and adults, was allowed to stay at IU Bloomington for many years despite his criminal behavior and was adored for it. I personally wished he had been in jail and would still be there.

Although it's nice to say, "there it is ... that's the problem right there!", but it isn't that simple. Even clearer is that, if the causation were just that -- and nothing else, how would you improve it and change it? Would you conjure reasonable, rational fathers out of the air?

An urban single mother, having little money for herself, now has at least one child. This strain worsens as the child and the mother grow older. Let us examine three overly-simplistic, plausable but unrealstic examples:

Mother A: little education, which leads to low-paying jobs. Assuming that she is paid at least minimum wage and has one child, she must know how to get help. Many do not. Assuming that she doesn't get help, either throuugh apathy, ignorance or denial; stress sets in -- tension in family unit. Money then is more important than safety. She might conclude that taking risks is better than not taking risks. Taking risks might include: endangering herself through vocation (illegal activities or activities that surrounded by illegal acts [huh? oh, drugs, theft, prostituion -- payment for sex even if it isn't money), co-habitator choice (man who is engaged in illegal activities or whose presence worsens the family unit -- not being in funds or overspending) or endagering her child through the above scenarios or through abandonment intentionally, disparingly (due to over working), ignorance of importancce.
People tend to learn through environment. What a person imitates is completely dependant on the person. If there is no positive consistent male role model, the child must seek out role models. In the above case, there is neglect -- leaving the child to wonder why. If there are other significant others in the area -- it is likely that the child will seek out those persons -- whether they are good or bad influences. She reacts harshly at seemingly random times and doesn't understand the illogic of children. She is in control sometimes -- harsh when she is. Here, women may be seen as violent, controlling and spiteful. To vanquish this beast, a man must take great conrol, at almost any means -- to defend himself.
add here the concept of large metro areas with gang activity where most children feel compelled to join a gang, leading to criminal activity and encouraging violence.

Mother B: she is better educated, with a more stable income and possibly better resources overall including car, house, furtnishings, food, freinds. While she is raising her son, she -- not a boy, is still ignorant of what boys are, how they change, what they do. Not wanting the son to feel unloved, the mother may overcompensate by either having a series of not-so good role models around or tragically either no role models (wishing to do it all herself) or only family members who are helpful, but aren't a good mix of some differing perspectives. Also, there may be difficulty finding a family member wishing to be father or uncle figure. Perhaps they are too busy or unwilling. The child, bored, seeks out others. Perhaps he finds positive role models, but perhaps not. Again ... a static evironment, leads to boredom. Through growing periods, boys will have testtosterone surges that will make them react like a woman during her menstration cylce ... happy, moody, wild, aggressive ... aloof. During the teen years, this doesn't quiet down or have months off. He never knows what he is. She's in control, but perhaps too much. Perhaps women, for this boy are unimportant or over dominant.

Mother C: a better situation for many. She is capable of caring for herself and at least one other. She is raising her child. She's doing very well and makes opportnities for her son that others could not. To overcompensate for the lack of father, she is all things ... and will not allow others to destroy what she has created. This will-be man is constantly shielded and protected from all things, including his own wrong-doings. While this doesn't, perhaps encourage violence toward women, but it may develop into a poor perspective, in that women are his servents or they are general pawns ... and that men are greater -- especially him.

Anyway ... the hypothosis --- examples, nothwithstanding is: a growing populaiton of women-controlled (single motherhood) of so many single or groups of boys, contributes to the perspective of the need to dominate women -- if through no other means ... sex or through violence.

In the develeopment of sex, it is a hormonal stimulating act, which requires stimulation of testtosterone and adrenaline. Through years of disturbance, and fear, sex becomes and stimulating act of control and dominance. Escalating this to sadism and sexual sadism (including rape) would then not be unpredictable. Preferences for ages may be an overextention of inferiority, fear, and anger. An easier target is one who is more easily dominated -- physically. Thereofore, younger targets are prefered, at least at first.

Cunning can be a powerful addition, in that deception is a greater part of seducing and illiciting a desired response.

NOTE: urban is exactly that... urban. I mean that an urbanite can be of any color, creed, etc.