So now you get to prove that learning a skill lets you affect your own testosterone levels. Good luck with that. Testosterone is a hormone pumped into your system mostly based on age... you have no conscious control over it, and learning game isn't going to increase your testosterone. You might learn to do things women like, and ovulating women might find that more appealing... but it has nothing to do with your testosterone. In fact, if your testosterone surged and it DID affect the woman's behavior it probably wouldn't matter if you were "nice" or "bad."

Women get horny because of two hormones: testosterone and estrogen. This theoretical discussion is about PEAK Ovulation. Peak Ovulation Theory as applied to pick up asserts that girls will fuck with the bad boy during peak ovulation and the rest of the menstrual cycle, they will get it on with the nice guys.

Thread Argumentative Style

Before we proceed further, let's define the argumentative style of this thread to even the playing field. These are the basic academic standards in argumentative writing: http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/659/01/

To present your ideas clearly, you might want to consider using some of the more popular analytical frameworks around like these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic_philosophy or this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SWOT_analysis, or any other widely used analytical framework. Here's a brief on how to apply analytical frameworks: http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/ar-anframe/

But since this is a PUA community and not an academic community, we will be more liberal. The thread style of argumentation should go like this:

• Introductory Greeting --> Idea or Counter Idea --> Supporting Facts or Explanations --> Conclusion --> Polite Summary Greeting

INTRODUCTORY AND POLITE SUMMARY GREETINGS

The following or equivalents are acceptable introductory and polite summary greetings in this thread:

1. Fuck you fucktard/idiot/fruitcake/asshole
2. You're a fucking... moron/idiot/faggot/asshole
3. Bullshit./ You are stupid./ You are an idiot./

Any unsupported assertions that are libelous should be considered flaming. For examples, "Your mother is a fucking whore that my football team fucked in the garbage bins down by the alley." "Your dick is maggot infested from untreated gonorrhea." These kinds of arguments will be reported to moderators as flaming.

However, these examples will not be considered flaming: "Your mother is a fucking whore that my football team fucked in the garbage bins down by the alley. Here's the video/ picture of your mother. I have it because you are my neighbor." "Your dick is maggot infested from untreated gonorrhea. Here's the picture of your dick. I know because I'm your STI doctor."

If you find the acceptable argumentative style offensive, DO NOT POST in this thread.

Kindly elaborate why Karl Grammer's and Durante's studies on ovulation are poorly designed. Likewise, since you appear to have a higher level of erudition than Grammer or Durante, please provide your alternative on what a well designed study looks like.

Send me full studies or links and I will tear them to shreds because there simply is NO evidence that your ovulation crap is practical in real life. Statistically significant in some research does NOT mean practically significant. You need to get that into your head. I already crushed that one study by Gangestad and the other idiotic fashion study which only had any relevance in situations where women were primed with attractive women in their area... good luck knowing how a woman was 'primed' before she went out, and even then the difference was 25% in behavior which when you factor in confounding factors at a club or out in day game equals almost no practical benefit.

When I have more time I will post relevant data from the studies (again, I did so in another thread already) to demonstrate that statistical significance doesn't actually mean shit by itself, what matters is also HOW significant and HOW big the gap is. When you take into consideration a zillion confounding factors out there when it comes to actually picking up women, none of these studies so far that I have seen have the ability to have a practical impact on your probability of seduction. This is more or less obvious when one looks at the actual numbers and factors in the VERY imperfect science of detecting ovulation in real life + confounding factors that may be leading to the woman's behavior.

You're a fucking idiot.

Back pedaling now, hmm?

Shut the fuck up fruitcake if you can't back up your ridiculous claims! Bwahahaha.

Lol I already did back them up in another thread:

a-girl-asks-if-i-intend-to-sleep-with-h ... 66-30.html

And will do so again if others but you want to see it here vs clicking the link.

Can you even read? Are you sure you aren't a bot that randomly searches for studies and links the abstracts? All this shit is worthless in practice as I have said 100x and said again here. Anyways, you are clearly a delusional idiot, keep sniffing women's panties and measuring their skin temperature. I'm done with you. Welcome to BLOCK. hmm, apparently I cannot block users/put them on ignore officially, but consider yourself ignored from now on, at least by me. Most likely all of those with a brain who know anything about pickup have already ignored your garbage a long time ago.

blah blah blah blah blah I'm an idiot blah blah blah blah blah I'm a moron blah blah blah blah blah I suck at life blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah I post random charts without context or whole study blah blha lbha lbhal bha I cherry pick random garbage blah blah blah blah blah I never linked to the studies i keep quoting blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah lbah I am total idiot blah blah lbha lbhal hba

as for your chart .. did you even look at it?lol.. that scatter plot is more or less random as anyone with a fucking brain can see when they look at it which makes the fit of these lines complete random garbage. Hardly a substantial difference. Plus, these scatter plots did not adjust for a HUGE confounding factor that was even discussed by the authors you failed to mention, relationship satisfaction. In otherwords, more absolute impractical bullshit. You also interpreted the chart wrong... there are also a ton of women who were NOT ovulating who were sexually attracted to others as anyone can see from the chart, it's the DIFFERENCE between the two that matters, not the total numbers. Duh. Anyways, Link those studies you like to jerk off to that you keep saying I ignore and I will tear them apart.

NEXT!!!!

This is bullshit pseudo analysis of the figures and graphs. The study is open to everyone else so they can read the entire facts and figures and discern TF's bullshit for themselves.

Yep, they will read it and see I am right and you are a moron. "pseudo analysis" better than "blatantly misinterpreting and misleading on purpose analysis".

Anyways, at this point I have said enough, per my posts in other threads and this. It is clear that I am right and that women being ovulating has little practical relevance for a PUA. Much more relevant is when a woman is having her period because many men won't sleep with her then or she will be too embarrassed to sleep with you on her period. That is actually practical. This garbage is not. Plain and simple. Keep having fun jerking off to studies, pick and choosing graphs, linking to poorly designed studies, ignoring obvious flaws, posting scatter plots that look more or less random and regressions that have hardly any fit, etc. etc. etc.

Bottom line, you clearly do not know the difference between practical and statistically significant/some garbage someone wrote in an abstract or some tiny difference observed in a study. The most likely reason for this is that you have no actual experience with women other than watching porno and reading studies or jerking off to studies about ovulation, because if you had experience with women you would know nothing you linked to has almost any practical implication. Have fun cherry picking things I said without context etc. to try to save face. It's ok, everyone here already knows you are a KJ idiot, you aren't fooling anyone anymore.

I am the worst poster on this forum. I suck at life. I have never been with a woman, I prefer to jerk off to studies on the internet.

I'm banging a latex sheep right now with high quality artificial asshole that feels like the real thing. I've picked it up at a bazaar selling imported goods from China. It baaaaas like a real sheep and it has big horns that I like to stroke until I pop my load at its face. Awesome man. You should try it.