I've noticed how at least some feminists like to throw incel as an ad hominem against an MRA in a debate without considering its implications.

Incel, on its surface, means involuntary celibate. So by calling an MRA an incel, a feminist is presuming that he's celibate and that he is involuntarily so. Now imagine a man presuming a women's sexual habits and see how well that goes down.

In one such debate that comes to mind, just to make the feminist more aware of the implications of their statement, I said that I have celibate for the last few years, but voluntarily so.

Incredibly, the feminist couldn't even fathom that a man would choose to remain celibate for any reason.

In response, I explained that their belief that a man couldn't possibly choose to remain celibate stems from the feminist indoctrination that all men are sex animals who can't live without sex. To underline the point, I'd mentioned a few occasions in the last few years in which I'd turned down an offer (and on three separate occasions by one woman before she understood that I really meant no.

Even after that, they still couldn't believe that a man would choose to remain celibate for any reason.

Finally, to really make the point, I asked how many times a week they had sex, whether it was voluntary, what their favourite sex position was, etc. And then said, guess what, it's none of my business, any more than my sex life is any of your business.

Why is it that feminists feel so entitled in a debate with an MRA to presume his sex life when the reverse would not be tolerable at all? And what makes feminists do convinced that any celibacy on the part of a man absolutely must be involuntary?