People, especially women, naturally respond well to smoothly, confidently and naturally executed alpha dominance. But when you write it out in cold, analytical language, it sounds creepy and/or rapy because they're imagining what it would look like if some try-hard, clumsy "average joe" tried it.

I think this distinction is perfectly illustrated* by this clip from Louie (starting at 2:12).

The casual, comfortable dominance of the fit black friend is what TRP is trying to describe and explain, but the forced, awkward, creepy approach of Louie is what detractors are picturing in their mind when they read it described in text without visual context.

Another good example of this is Russell Brand kissing a reporter. If you were to describe this encounter in analytical language without the visual feedback to see his disarming, charming attitude, just about anyone would think it was a story of sexual assault and male "entitlement" and "objectification".

(And yes, I think this is also somewhat applicable to the Trump "pussy controversy". I personally think Trump is more like Louie than the black friend in the first clip, which is why everyone is so appalled by it. But, I think we've beaten that issue in to the ground already, so I don't really want to get in to that here.)

*I know a lot of people are going to complain that this is fiction, and the writer could have made up any number of possible responses from the women in this scene. But the point isn't that this "proves" that it "works", but merely that I think it illustrates it well, much like how a hypothetical narrative can be used to illustrate a point without having to be a factual account.

(Minor formatting edits)