I wrote this a couple of days ago, but was waiting to read the book in case I wasn't getting it. I hope those of you who have read it can correct me if I'm taking things out of context:
Many people have pointed at an obvious contradiction between what is supposedly on the books, and Tomassi's online persona. That SHOULD be a red flag. What kind of sincere author says one thing in a book, and then a different message online? Wouldn't he or she care that his or her words are being so distorted? In the case, he himself is promoting division and superficiality online, so one can't even say someone is putting words in his mouth... And even if he wasn't, that IS the result it's having on many people, right? By the fruits you shall know them... One has to stay very critical, since in the end, if he is okay doing what he does, firing people up to play games with each other, etc., he may NOT be doing/believing what he says in his books, or does, but enjoys the attention and the shock factor more than the truth.
The argument that some things he says are true is reasonable, but we also have to remember not to project, and that that is the case with most books, sometimes in a small percentage, and very often when there is an agenda behind it, lies mixed in with truth.
Some other things also strike me as odd:
During her ovulatory or proliferative phase, a woman will be aroused by and drawn to men with more Alpha-like qualities, because her biology tells her it’s “time to mate”, so she will select from the highest level Alpha that she can attract.
During her luteal phase, when the estrogen level decreases and her uterus is preparing to shed, she will then become more attracted to the Beta qualities of long term provisioning.
On a macro scale, women’s unconscious hypergamous nature is expressed in her sexual behaviour and mate selecting patterns at different stages of her life.
I know this is not a quote, but... Many women have been keeping track of their cycles and emotional states (I have). I've spoken to several of them. Bear in mind that you do this for yourself, and not to show someone else. So there is no point in hiding what you CAN see. And I'm pretty sure that if it was THAT simple, then a) no woman would ever take her emotions seriously, and b) she would have an absolute control of herself. Sure, if she's a psycho she might exploit such a simple pattern. But if she was honest, she would know when not to take herself seriously, when not to be a crybaby, etc. On day 5, I'd better stay away from people, on day 14, I better not look at anyone new. Etc.
The pattern is very erratic most of the time. So, I hope I'm wrong, but if that is an example of how Tomassi has studied and interpreted women, it's not very promising. And men have "cycles" too, for that matter. Hormones are know to fluctuate, due to many factors. And one of the things we strive for in here is not know your machine, not have a simple formula for X and Y, because people are way more complicated than that.
Second, this thing about "no woman can love you as you want her to love you". Doesn't that go for both sexes, unless you are talking about mature people willing to be honest with each other and work on themselves? It sounds like a snow flake thing to say, IMO. "Here, I gave you all, I was so good, and you never appreciated me! " It goes both ways, and once again, when people are immature and unwilling to take mutual responsibility.
Third, I think that talking about men’s and women’s “prime times” is only useful up to a certain point. As much as biology plays a big role, it’s not so simple. There is a lot more to people than that. One person may follow a very similar path to another one for entirely different reasons, and viceversa. To say that it's just “sexual drives”/nature is missing the point. Remove "sex" from the equation, and you still have lots of power games and manipulation (again, due to different factors, life lessons, programming, wounding, etc!), just with different "tools".
It's enough to read books like
Fear of the Abyss, just to name one, and see how men and women are not THAT different in the end when it comes to their unconscious motivations. Depending on your past, you may relate to some men's or some women's stories. It's part of the human condition and the state of humanity, not a war.
There are more things that seem quite off, simplistic, materialistic or applicable to both sexes if that. But this is getting long already.
The impression I'm getting is that this could ultimately be a disservice to men. Not only does his understanding of women seem libtardish and immature so far, but also, he is promoting victimhood and game playing, which is not what I would describe as characteristics in strong men. The same thinking that goes on with feminism. Both camps end up trying to create caricatures and embody the worst traits they see in the opposite sex. It's very sad. And for a book which is supposed to help men, isn't it basically reinforcing the old programming? E.g. "Plate-spinning" is telling them that they are nothing but hormones, which is what they have been shamed for for years.
Why not aspire instead to being a real person, strong enough to go through difficulties, to be honest, etc.? The message given to women is similar, if you think about it.
In a healthier society, where boys learn to be real boys and girls learn to be real girls, I think they would both become way more honest about their “evolutionary drives”, and that would make the whole issue less of a mess. Their differences would be attractive and complementary. Nobody would fall easily for the “Disneyland projections”., or marry "mommy" or "daddy". Nobody would have so many expectations about the other, so many false beliefs, so much mess inside, so many games to play. People would be more prone to taking care of each other and valuing truth above all, even when it hurts, because they would want for each person to Be, to grow and help the other grow. So, at least for me, the results of Tomassi's work don't seem to reflect a step in that direction.
There were a lot of things that were way off the mark, especially in the first book. I did also find it kind of bemusing for that same reason. A lot of the traits he ascribes to what women do to men that cause them misery; he is telling them to do back to them because.... wait for it... they’ll like and respect you for it. 
