Provoking Questions. Hard-to-Swallow Answers.

To what extent is hypergamy determined by biology, and to what extent is it shaped by the cultural and social environment in which a woman grows up?

Cultural, social, and physical environments are derivatives of biology across millions of years — including the biology of nature (external to man). The doorknob in your house has that shape because your hand has that shape. Your daily routine, in your city and country, is the way it is because the climate, vegetation, and terrain are the way they are. Thinking in purely material terms, biology is always the starting point. The difference between cultures is that in some of them, men rise to power without merit (monarchies, for example), and that is attractive to women — but not as attractive as it would be if the same man had risen to power self-made. Biology doesn't change. A successful entrepreneur in the Western world who carved out his career through hard work and ethics is far more attractive than a wealthy dictator who rose to power on "blue blood." Desirability can't be bought. Therefore, hypergamy has a biological foundation. Yuval Noah Harari, in Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind, reinforces this perspective by arguing that human culture is, ultimately, an extension of biology — "since the Cognitive Revolution, Homo sapiens has been able to revise its behavior rapidly in accordance with changing needs, opening a fast lane of cultural evolution that bypasses the traffic jams of genetic evolution." In other words, culture accelerates and modulates what biology has already determined, but does not replace it. Harari also observes that "biology enables, culture forbids" — meaning that biological drives (such as hypergamy) exist as natural expressions, and each culture only decides how to deal with them, never eliminates them. Hypergamy, therefore, has a biological foundation. Culture merely dresses that biology in different clothes.

Is the concept of male "value" (status, money, social dominance, looks) universal across cultures, or does it vary significantly depending on context?

The concept is universal from the perspective of the women most desired by men — that is, the youngest and most attractive ones. Of course, a woman, both consciously and unconsciously over time, looks for a man who is the best "total package," which includes more things like charisma, emotional stability, and loyalty. At the peak of physical vitality and beauty, there are very few women who would be exceptions (they wouldn't even register as a statistical number): imagine a 19-year-old woman (very attractive) who has tenacity, patience, loyalty, a tendency to forgive, is studious, takes care of her body and spirit, helps family and friends, is empathetic toward differences, and so on. Practically a utopia. Those are traits acquired through lived experience and suffering. And suffering comes with time — or if the woman was born without the attributes of beauty. Enlightened beings, as Dr. David Hawkins himself researched — documented in the book Power vs. Force — are so rare they number no more than a handful in the entire world. An attractive woman at the peak of her youth is at her biological maximum of reproductive power. It's an extremely short window of time, generally lasting up to 2 years between the ages of 18 and 23, during which she can choose any man she wants. And it's during this period that she tests multiple men (which didn't happen when we were cave-dwellers, for various reasons including safety, climate, and mobility), accumulates physical and emotional baggage, and the Blue Pill beta provider ends up paying for it later (a "Sugar Daddy," for example, is the pinnacle of the Blue Pill beta provider). Extremely rare are the women who manage to override biology (with emotional maturity in their choices) when their physical peak is at its height. Therefore, male "value," as perceived by the most attractive women, is universal — because it stems from biology. Within the stratification of "attractive women," the exceptions are so rare they wouldn't show up in any statistics.

In the book you say that denying hypergamy turns rejection into "injustice" — in your view, what is the real psychological cost for a man who refuses to accept this pattern?

The problem is that Blue Pill concepts are deeply embedded in the male psyche. It's biological and historical. The cost of this is becoming bitter and fixated on the "bad things" in life and "personifying/blaming" the female gender (as "lab-grown Red Pills" do). No woman is "at fault" for being hypergamous, just as no man is at fault for desiring beautiful, young women. The first step in dealing with reality is acknowledging reality. Being "rejected" is something that happens to every human being, including attractive women (who are constantly rejected by various Alpha Males) — so when a man considers himself "wronged," he's opening the door to a victim mentality that distances him from the man he wants to become. The cost is heavy. And often imperceptible, because it's diluted over time.

You cite the Pareto Principle applied to the sexual marketplace. Does this model actually hold up against data, or is it more of an explanatory metaphor? How did you arrive at this reading?

You used the right word: "marketplace." Sexual dynamics work exactly like any type of negotiation: whoever has more can bargain more; or whoever has less (but is persuasive) also gets good results. In the woman vs. man dynamic, the woman has more and is also more persuasive. The gap is brutal. Beyond the man's innate biological drive to obtain sex (read: testosterone in far greater volume than in a woman), an average woman still has other resources — what are hair styling, waxing, makeup, types of clothing and accessories if not ways of making raw reality more palatable, more imaginative, more seductive? — that a man doesn't have (or has very little of). And all of this means that a woman can (and wants to) always choose a man well above what would be her baseline level. This is not a metaphor. Analyze Tomassi's writing. Analyze the gender dynamics in large private companies. In public office. In fact, the Pareto Principle is quite conservative for this particular case. An internal OkCupid study — originally published on the platform's blog under the title "Your Looks and Your Inbox" — analyzed data from millions of users and revealed that women rated approximately 80% of men as "below average" in attractiveness, while men rated women along a symmetric, normal curve. In other words: men "evaluate all" women to pick "whoever's available today"; while women "evaluate only the best" to pick "the best alpha out of everyone there." This data is widely discussed in forums like Skeptics Stack Exchange and in independent analyses, and empirically corroborates what Tomassi describes theoretically. Another extremely important point — a direct consequence of all this — that nobody talks about: because of hypergamy, women have a far more distorted view of men than men have of women, simply because men's opinions about the female gender as a whole are derived from evaluating all types of women; whereas women's evaluation of the male gender as a whole is derived from a highly stratified sample: the men who would be "above" average (in the traits desirable to them).

If hypergamy is a female biological imperative, what would you say to a woman who reads your book and flatly disagrees with this characterization of female behavior as something fixed and universal?

Study more. Get out of your bubble. Meet people. Travel. And understand, again, that I don't address the "female gender as a whole"; my content is about "the most attractive women" within the female gender — the ones who pose the greatest dangers to men. So the first thing I'd think, but wouldn't say, is: "Is this woman attractive enough to truly understand, from firsthand experience, the magnitude of the danger a man faces with a beautiful hypergamous woman?" — the answer is usually a resounding NO.

The line between "ethical manipulation" and "deception" that you draw in the book — is it always clear in practice? How will the reader know when they've crossed it?

The line between ethical manipulation and deception is almost never clear. And that's one of the main reasons I decided to release the books in a staggered format, not all at once. Robert Greene's theory is brilliant, full of examples, but in everyday practice there are infinite forces and variables — it's not simple. A person, whether man or woman, will always know (that it's wrong) when they've crossed one of two lines: the line of someone else's free will, or the line of their own selfishness. A woman who uses a "love spell" to lock a man into a relationship has crossed the line of someone else's free will. A man who only thinks about "sleeping with beautiful young women," without giving anything back in the relationship (other than money), has crossed the line of selfishness. Both lines harm other people (and in very obvious and deliberate ways in the examples I cited here) — and while "harming and upsetting" people is something "acceptable" in major endeavors, one should always avoid or minimize those effects as much as possible.

You use examples like the doctor who doesn't alarm the hypochondriac and the father who hides the dog's death. Do those cases have some asymmetry with manipulation in romantic/sexual relationships that's worth addressing?

Not some asymmetry — a lot of asymmetry. Everything is asymmetric; we are organic beings. In this case, my intention was to break the baseline paradigm of the word "manipulation," which carries a primarily negative connotation. Just like "snake" carries a negative connotation for most people — "I saw a snake" means something bad in most contexts (since snakes are possibly, but not always, venomous). But in many cultures, the snake is something extremely positive. I broke this paradigm as a way to draw more attention from my audience to this highly relevant topic: "toxic hypergamy." But the core point is this: men have been conditioned (by various factors, including and obviously biological ones) not to withhold information in gender dynamics. What I teach is: a man not only can but should withhold information, reveal things gradually, and above all, gather information in advance. In other words, be more strategic. Which is exactly what women do. By deconstructing the word "manipulate," I'm attacking the domestication of men in modern times.

If manipulation only reveals itself as beneficial when exposed, how do you ensure that the method you teach won't be used by readers with genuinely harmful intentions?

I wrote that "good manipulation reveals itself as beneficial even when exposed." There is absolutely no guarantee that the content won't be used by "criminal" minds, as commonly happens with anything created through technology, for example. A Ferrari has an acceleration control system, but it can be unlocked. Nuclear fission technology is used in bombs, but also in power plants. The only guarantee I offer is to stagger the content while teaching men to think "outside the box" — to be real men in multiple dimensions. Volume 3 of the first book series, which is the deepest and most systematized part, could be used by "a porn industry scout," which is a cancer on humanity; or a "Sugar Daddy," which is another cancer. These cancers are, at the same time, both victims and perpetrators. Just like that young, attractive woman on OnlyFans who slept with over 100 men in less than 24 hours (and later with over a thousand men in less than 24 hours — look it up on YouTube) — they are all victims and perpetrators in relation to other people. There are no guarantees that my content won't be used by people with low moral standards, but I will guarantee that everything is very clearly explained. Especially the consequences. If you stop to think about it, in the first Volume of this first series, there is far more content that women can use to manipulate men than the other way around. Hawkins' theory — never before placed in the sphere of attraction, let alone tagged as "red pill" — is a solid theory, but one that most men won't believe. Women, however, will take it seriously and apply the techniques "against" men. Therefore, after all 3 Volumes, even though I will "lay bare" the behavior and psyche of the most attractive women, far more women will be applying it "against" men than the other way around. And that is yet another sign that men need to step up significantly. And that is what I work for and toward.

The book's title deliberately chooses a loaded word. Was that a marketing strategy, an intellectual provocation, or a philosophical defense of the word itself? What do you gain and lose with that choice?

It was a deliberate choice, a marketing strategy, and a real provocation — not an intellectual one. I could have written "How to Have Great Relationships with Beautiful Women." It wouldn't have had any punch, wouldn't have grabbed attention, and most importantly, wouldn't have hit the nerve of those "Blue Pills" and "lab-grown Red Pills" who keep taking pickup courses and still get walked all over by women without even knowing what's happening. What do I gain and lose? I gain the attention of the audience I want to help, I gain the attention of beautiful women (who will get angry, and that automatically draws more people to read), I gain the attention of unattractive women, so they can support the average man — who isn't an alpha male, but a good-natured guy (at least until he reads and applies my 3 core books). And what I lose is intellectual credibility, because I can't write in a complex or overly deep way — if I did, I wouldn't reach the audience I'm trying to help.

You say that "you only manipulate someone when you're being manipulated." This implies that every romantic relationship is intrinsically an exchange of veiled influences — do you believe that truly symmetrical, non-manipulative relationships are possible, or are they an illusion?

Nothing and no one is symmetrical. If you measure your legs, you'll find a difference in length between the two, even if it's less than 1 millimeter. The speed of light is not exactly 186,000 miles per second — it varies, minimally, but it varies. When you say "veiled influences," you're deliberately using the negative connotation of influencing someone. But even using that negative connotation, the answer is still: yes, completely symmetrical relationships are a total illusion. Soulmates are an illusion. 100% harmonious couples are an illusion (what exists is "more moments of harmony and fewer moments of disharmony," not perfection). Balance, perfect homeostasis, happens for a defined period of time, then it drops or rises, then returns. That's not symmetry — that's flow. And that flow is neither symmetrical nor predictable. In a couple, there is always someone more capable of influencing the other, whether through innate talent or through training and experience. And generally, an attractive woman has more innate talent and more training and experience to influence a man. I'm here to change that.

You treat sex addiction as a problem primarily rooted in male scarcity and neediness. There is a neurobiological/chemical dimension to addiction that exists independently of a man's "mental frame" — how do you reconcile that in the book?

Before the neurobiological/chemical — that is, physical — problem, there is the spirit. But I can't address that subject yet, because if I do, the heads of the men I'm trying to reach might explode. In 1983, neuroscientist Benjamin Libet experimentally demonstrated that brain activity associated with a voluntary act (the so-called "readiness potential") precedes conscious awareness of the intention to act by several hundred milliseconds. Later studies, such as one published in 2008 by researchers at the Max Planck Institute, expanded on this finding: using functional MRI, they were able to predict a participant's decision up to 7 seconds before the person was consciously aware of having made it, by analyzing activity in the prefrontal and parietal cortex. So who controls the body? The brain? But if 7 seconds before I consciously decided to raise my hand there was already activity — who controls the brain? The problem of addiction, of any kind, should not be treated in a purely material way (with conventional medication alone), but holistically. In the book I "raise the flag" on this problem, which is very serious, so that the reader can do their own research (and I've already pointed the way — one of them is Gary Wilson). It's not a book designed to solve that specific challenge, but it's such a significant and serious issue for the subject at hand (dealing with beautiful women) that I had to include it. That said, it's a topic I'll explore further in blog articles and possibly, separately, in a standalone book.

The idea that "real power" makes women naturally orbit a man sounds appealing, but it can also be read as a power fantasy. How do you distinguish in the book between the man who has actually reached that state and the one who simply believes he has?

There are women in Brad Pitt's orbit. Is he omnipotent? No. There were also women in Stephen Hawking's orbit. Is he omnipotent? Absolutely not. Did I write about this as a "power fantasy"? No — it's more of a poetic license. A man who has reached that "state" is one who lives in alignment with his purpose. That is the primary indicator. There's the criminal whose purpose is to dominate a rival gang, and the scientist who wants to cure cancer. There are many women "orbiting" both types — including attractive women. What I'll teach is how not to be the criminal — which is why David Hawkins is central to this. But to get to that level, you need to "hit the gym and learn to swim" to pull yourself out of the mud. First I need to teach the basics, give hope, build structure, provide direction. The more sophisticated things come later. There's no point in talking about subatomic physics to someone who hasn't learned to read. The man who hasn't reached that state but believes he has is, essentially, the one who gets results from micro-strategies — usually sexual results — and thinks he's already the King. Living in that illusion, he's digging his own grave under the influence of the mainstream. He's one millimeter away from developing serious psychological problems.

You challenge the reader to eliminate a specific word from their vocabulary and to see male predictability as a fatal mistake. Do you believe these are behavioral patterns that can be taught, or are they personality traits that are hard to change?

Male behavioral patterns (just like female ones) are rooted across different layers. All of them are derived from biology. These patterns are learned (as a function of biology) and become personality traits that are hard to change. But everything can be reversed through metacognition and diligent effort (not only the classic material-level effort like psychotherapy and medication — but that too). Through the practice of metacognition (when someone constantly asks themselves "why am I this way?"), things start to become clearer and the person can begin a transformation. Just as hypergamy is derived from various biological and historical needs of women, male predictability is derived from the need for sex (testosterone). You don't "fight" these things. What you can do is shine a spotlight on them and learn to manage them. You don't fight hypergamy the way "lab-grown Red Pills" do — pointing fingers at women and cataloging all the harm they cause a man. The man is the one who needs to emancipate himself from hypergamy. You don't fight male predictability by lowering testosterone (that would be shooting yourself in the foot) — the man must learn to handle it consciously and use that drive to his advantage.

The book talks about "suffering from abundance" — the idea that being highly desired is also a form of suffering. How do you present this without it coming across as rich-people problems or as a trigger for the reader who's still at the beginning of his journey?

It's not a trigger, and it's not rich-people problems. Although that example is actually a great one: a self-made rich person genuinely faces far more challenges than someone who's broke. He has to deal with far more complex things — taxes, payroll for dozens of people, among countless other things that the average person has no clue about. But back to your question. Ask an extremely attractive 25-year-old woman — one who has already moved past the illusions and innocence, who has already hit "Tomassi's wall" — how many times she's thought about "going unnoticed" or "being less attractive" at certain moments in her life. She'll tell you: many times. She never wished to be ugly, obviously, but she's come to realize that: most of the men who desire her are low-value (unattractive, broke, ignorant, and old); there are lesbians who harass her; in social or professional settings, there's always a sexual undercurrent (from the little gifts she receives to job interviews). "It gets downright disgusting," she'll say. That is extremely stressful. The poor don't know what the rich suffer. The unattractive don't know what the beautiful suffer. For a man in abundance, it's the same thing (the problem is that there are far fewer men in abundance — in terms of women pursuing them — than there are women in abundance in terms of men pursuing them; which is why this concept seems unbelievable): he gets hit on by gay men, older women, beautiful women, unattractive women, everywhere and at all times. But in the man's case there's an additional component: spiritual attacks. Since far more women engage in that kind of practice (just go to those places and you'll see that 65–95% of the clientele is female), this highly desired man is targeted by multiple people everywhere he goes. And that has an effect. And I will prove it with pure logic. So when I say suffering, I mean it literally.

There's a chapter on "short game vs. long game." For the man who wants immediate results but doesn't have the profile, the resources, or the life stage to play the long game — what does the book actually offer him concretely?

In the first book, I offer hard-hitting information about reality, from a raw and unprecedented point of view. I also provide the paths for the reader to study more deeply on their own. But what I'll be teaching, primarily, is the "medium to long game" through Volume 3. The short game is the classic male game — micro-strategies for a man to get quick sex with multiple different women. It's a junior-level game, for young men, and it works — but it's dangerous. When that junior runs into a manipulative alpha female, he'll end up depressed and might lose his mind. Tomassi documents multiple cases of men who attempt suicide. I know cases too. Some skills developed through the short game are valid for men of any age (and for situations like travel, parties, etc.), but it's in the medium and long game (macro-strategies and beyond) that a man will be able to "get into a woman's soul," establish his dominant frame as a man, and begin — if he chooses — a sufficiently healthy relationship with an attractive woman.