First: Define the terms

Assalamu alaikum. Look at this nonsense. If you have a theory that relies upon terms that have no set definition, your theory is rubbish. With the red pills and the tomasiin, it's like playing whack a mole. You know?

If they say hypergamy is this, then you shut that down. And then they say, no, that's not actually what hypergamy means. It means this. And you shut that down and they know hypergamy doesn't mean that, it means that. And then high value male doesn't necessarily mean rich, it means something else.

Then they say, no, it means this, it means that, it means the other. It's always changing. It's constantly changing. The definitions are not set. So now we have a new definition of what a high value male is which is competence.

A competent man. Okay. So a competent man is by definition a high value male. Right? Okay.

What if he's also short, fat, and bald but highly competent? Is he a magnet for the ladies? According to you, he's not because he's short, fat, and bald. So his competence, mafifaide, no use. Right?

So then it becomes, well, no. It's also it's competence but also he has to be, you know, over six feet tall and handsome and ripped and, you know, six pack and all that. Okay. So which one is it? What's the actual definition?

You're using terms that have no fixed definition. So you're telling men that they have to be something that you can't even define. So then it also becomes what a high value man is, any man that a lot of women are attracted to. And in those women are hypergamous because they're attracted to a man that women are attracted to. That makes sense to you and you call that scientific and a Praxology and all of this BS.

You are leading people into the absolute muck of Jahiliya, of evolutionary psychology, the theory of evolution, all of this nonsense, pseudoscience, and leading them away from actual guidance. Just stop.