My main problem with the article is that it treats the complex relationship between men and women in a univariate way - looking only at sex and analyzing it with a marketplace/economics lens.

It's so extraordinarily more complex than that.

Men are not slavish automatons who only desire sex. We're complex organisms with multiple (sometimes conflicting) desires - love, companionship, meaning, importance, sex etc... sex is on that list, but its priority is very different for different men.

It's not abnormal for a man to evaluate a woman who appears to only offer sex and decide "nah, not worth it - not what I'm looking for". This may have absolutely nothing to do with how many partners she's had (or has) - and may have a lot more to do with a rational risk/reward analysis based upon whether she brings more than just sex to the table.

The term "incel" is derogatory and doesn't take the above into account. There's a lot of nuance. Involuntarily celibate? What does that even mean?

Does it mean "I would have sex with any female, under any circumstance, regardless of her character and attractiveness, but I am unable to"?

Or does it mean "I evaluate the whole person, and I haven't found anyone who's both interested in me and meets my criteria, but if I could I would"?

And at what point does the person who feels the latter decide to become voluntarily celebate because the whole thing is just too much of a hassle, too painful, and there's no upside? A phenomena that's rising, by all accounts, in both men and women.

I thought the article was interesting, but I'm personally more interested in discussions with a broader scope and more nuance.