Did you read the article? He's talking about the fact that the vast majority of "advice" on how to get laid that's pitched at horny teen boys comes from the manosphere, and how that can be addressed. That doesn't seem very contentious to me?

I'm responding to the first like of his skeet, in which he says that the left is silent on this topic. I assure you, the left is not remotely silent wrt dudes trying to get laid.

The original skeet is a link to an article he wrote, in which it's very clear that the "silence" he's talking about is solely relating to advice on how to get laid being offered to hormonal teen boys. I genuinely don't know how anyone who has read the article it links could interpret it wider.

The original skeet, the one I quoted, contains no link at all. The article is maybe a collateral part of the conversation here, but only a collateral part. If I wanted to talk about the article, I'd be in the comments to his article. I'm talking about the thread here.

It's a three skeet thread, the first of which links to the article, and the other two fine a brief precis of it. I see where you're coming from re "I was specifically referring to skeet 2" but it seems odd to excise context. (Fwiw I absolutely agree with your main point)

It has over 750 replies and nearly two thousand quotes -- the conversation goes a lot farther than his three skeets.

“They aren’t offering advice on the subject” is not even remotely the same as “they are completely silent on the subject,” even if I were inclined to grant that first premise to begin with.

Why do people have to be so weird about sex in the first place?

Typically because it's easier than a spending minimal amount of effort on trying to get your shit together.

I like a challenge

Yeah. I don't think the problem is lack of advice. The problem is that a lot people don't want to hear: "Be a functional human being, have realistic expectations, and acknowledge that women have agency"

I'm not quite sure what you mean by that, sorry. "They are completely silent on the subject of how to get laid" and "they aren't offering advice on how to get laid" seems broadly equivalent to me. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're saying.

not even "how to get laid" but "getting laid." I promise you, there are a LOT of ways to talk about getting laid that have nothing to do with advice.

Being completely silent on a subject means being completely silent on it, not talking about it at all. Not offering advice means not offering advice. Offering advice is only a tiny subset of the ways in which you can talk about something.

Oh come on lol. It's abundantly clear from the article that the "silence" referred to is limited to advice to hormonal teen boys on how to get laid. It's a willful misreading to ignore the context and pretend it's saying something it absolutely isn't.

From the article, maybe. From the posts here on this butterfly site? I'd disagree.

I think it's fair to say that, regardless of the article, the lede sucks at best or is a straight-up lie at worst.

I mean, it's literally a post advertising this week's column on a journalist's substack. It seems a bit weird to pass negative judgment without bothering to check whether the impression you got from a (necessarily) tiny precis was actually what he was saying.

He describes the subject as "a progressive approach to romance and attraction," not about "advice about getting laid." Are you really saying that men using leftist spaces to creep on women is outside the remit?

In any case, I *vigorously* reject the framing that any time we're discussing the topic of men getting laid, it's obvious that the presumptively appropriate centering is on men

I don't quite follow this (but again, I absolutely agree with what you said originally). But yeah, I understand the "I hadn't seen the first skeet" thing; that makes a lot more sense. I thought that's what you had reply quoted; if I'm wrong on that then I apologise for the confusion.

It seems more than a bit weird to be this committed to disputing whether a throwaway comment on a microblogging platform addresses a topic to your personal satisfaction.

And yet here we both are, I guess. No, I just didn't understand the response, because it seemed to completely miss the thrust of the article and yet the politics seemed to overlap. Turns out they hadn't read the article so that makes sense now. Phew!

Yeah, you're just interested in a different conversation than I am, is all.