I understand his point, but I think it is only right to a limited extent. His explanation implies you can make sex infinitely expensive - that men are infinitely adaptable to any demand or price point and will meet that regardless just so they can fuck a wet hole. Problem is, if that were true we wouldn't have sayings like "the juice just isn't worth the squeeze" - a man determining that even though he probably could sleep with the woman, that she is too much hassle and suffering to be worth the effort. I also think it is a bit cynical of him to suggest the only reason men take on leadership roles (like being community leaders) is because they want to get laid. In a weird sense he is just reducing men to their sex drives. I am not articulating this in the best way possible, but I think it is a very ugly way of looking at men, though of course, I know everything he produces is done so with the intention of maximising engagement, not producing a rigorously nuanced philosophical treatise on the topic.