Jane:
Morales, sex-positive? Sounds more like a disease
You know to what it refers, and I know you know it.
Ok, let me spell this out for you: why does anyone need to “help” men getting laid?
Because some people are clueless, and make inappropriate advances.
Why do men have always to be associated with getting laid?
Women are no less associated with it. 
But, in this specific instance, the context of the piece (yeah, I know… the concept of context being of significance eludes you — or so you claim) is that it’s addressed to those who consider that the feminist position as espoused by those involved in the “Rebeccalypse” involves denial of men’s right to seek sexual companionship from women.
I understand the EG wanted to get laid, but somehow we extrapolated this as a problem extending to all men?
You are very confused. Greta quite clearly doesn’t imply that wanting to get laid is a problem, but rather, that how one goes about it may be problematic (and, in the case of EG, was so).
WTF is going on here?
You are (whether deliberately or otherwise, I don’t know) being obtuse and failing to grasp the essence of the matter.
It again paints a picture of men being sex-crazed animals, and more, having problems getting laid!
No. It recognises that seeking sexual congress is an instinct in our species, and that per se there is nothing wrong with that.
That’s to what “sex-positive” refers!
How did we get to speak of ALL MEN and SEX? Can you say stereotype, of the worst kind?
You are belabouring your misconception; again:, Greta’s post addresses a specific group.
And yeah, it is perceived by some women as not welcoming, so what?
So, many people involved in the atheist/skeptical movement (I’m not one of those, but RD is) claim that they recognise the gender disparity within this movement’s public events, and that they wish to remedy this situation.
A lot of persons consider a lot of things unwelcome, so what?
So those who claim that this is problematic and that they wish for inclusiveness would do well to this into account.
You’re not welcoming sexual advances? Say so.
Apparently, you’re still missing the significance of the quantifier: what are not welcomed are inappropriate sexual advances, in particular those which ignore the stated position of those to whom such advances are made.
Until you grasp this simple point, you shall not be able to grok the position of those whom you decry.
But do so to people who actually ask to get laid with you, don’t go stopping people on the street telling them you don’t want to have sex with them!
Your hyperbole might have had some point, did it but refer to something that was stated by those you seek to malignly vilify.
Or cautioning them on what not to do in case they ever think of asking you for sex.
And so, you’ve completed the full circle.
Heh. You might wish to read Greta’s post to see how such cautioning (were it taken heedfully) actually helps those seeking sexual liaison.
Can you see how many of them would take offence?
Not only can I, but I have done so.
(Dimbulbs, they are)
Posted too soon, not finished yet: about “We’re trying to make the atheist community more welcoming to women”.
Exactly. And many, many women have unequivocally stated that what keeps them from being involved is feeling uncomfortable due to such things as not being taken seriously as just people (never mind being inappropriately propositioned!).
This is one more allusion to sex; the opposite sex, atheist men (in general!), have problems welcoming women, because *they are women*, because they have a vagina.
Not really — being sexually objectified is but one such concern, though a salient one.
It’s all about men and sex sex sex.
You’re thinking of the gay scene. 
Sexist
I do not think that word means what you think it means.
