As a philosopher I'd like to take the liberty to discuss some of the important (for the incels and also for the noncels) points:
Natural needs are like itches on your skin.
This analogy isn't correct enough but let's use it practically.
You feel itchy so that you have to tickle them, but Buddhism can enable you not to feel itchy.
Let's suppose it's possible. Then it leads to
dangers. Yes,
seriously: think about it:
1/ feeling itchy shows (alarms) that there is something wrong (an animal, dirt, allergy, etc.) and you can take the necessary measures. For example, to stop eating the dangerous for your body (allergic reactions) food or to deal with the mosquito around that cause your itchiness. But if you don't have the itchy feeling (sense) then you're unaware what's wrong.
2/ feeling hungry, thirsty, etc. are (to a certain degree) useful for you, because they remind you that you're out of energy, vitamins, etc.; you're dehydrated. What if you (somehow, due to Buddhism, for instance) in one moment forget (stop feeling) any hunger and thirst. You are dead in less than a month. The same comes about feeling cold, for example. If you don't know that it's too cold and take measures to warm yourself you're dead too. Maybe, in school, you had some language exercises like "They died from cold and hunger. -- 他们死于寒冷和饥饿。", I mean that it's a primary school knowledge level, where the pupils learn that you should avoid the cold, the hunger and so on (thus, you
better don't "liberate" yourself from these useful, natural senses, feelings, needs.)
Of course it makes you feel good to tickle them, but won't you feel better not to feel itchy anymore?
At the beginning, yes, but (as I explained above)
in a long term to become a senseless (which is doubtful but let's just suppose it's possible to achieve via Buddhist practices) is leading to dangers and death.
And this is the so-called 'real happiness' in the perspective of Buddhism. And when you are 'free' from 'natural needs', you become an 'Arhat'.
The natural needs are really natural, so we can't use quotes (to doubt them) if we want to be realistic and right. The so-called arhats are not completely "free" from their natural (biological) needs. They may suppress some of them (like the sexual desire and others) but the basic ones: to eat, to drink, to go to toilet, to sleep... they can't. So this "liberation" you're talking about is just an illusion, a wrong definition even (giving up, suppressing all that is natural, avoiding most of the things, isolation, not even trying to achieve what most of the people achieved in the society... it's not a "liberation", it's nothing more than a "self-limitation".)
And no, I don't think I will give up Buddhism within 2 yrs... It is really helping me a lot.
I met many people who said that the religion helping them a lot (for example an Arab girl said she is happy no matter what because she just believes in Allah. Other two, Europeans, a male and a female, said they're secured because they have their faith in Jesus...) so, yes, to a certain degree the religions may "really helping you a lot"
but this doesn't make them full of truths or useful about everything. You may think about this in that way: reading manga stories (or some good novel) may also help you to feel better, to feel "it is really helping me a lot" and so on, but this doesn't make the stories real and this doesn't guarantee you will be better only with the (religion, manga, novel, etc.) in a longer term. You need more, for example:
science,
social support,
self-improvement...