I get all this stuff, I see all the studies, and I still stand by my analysis that in practice the results are mostly worthless. The differences in all these studies if you actually read them are quite small or the results are for something that doesn't translate into "DTFness" even if it translates into some result in a study. Yea, telling if a girl is DTF is easy, but it has very little to do with telling where in her cycle she is which is my point. And seriously, ear lobes turn red? You always get hard when around a fertile woman? Lol give me a fucking break.

I get all this stuff, I see all the studies, and I still stand by my analysis that in practice the results are mostly worthless. The differences in all these studies if you actually read them are quite small or the results are for something that doesn't translate into "DTFness" even if it translates into some result in a study. Yea, telling if a girl is DTF is easy, but it has very little to do with telling where in her cycle she is which is my point. And seriously, ear lobes turn red? You always get hard when around a fertile woman? Lol give me a fucking break.

If a PUA is not getting his dick hard when interacting with a fertile woman, the woman is either an ugly/fatty or the PUA's testosterone level is low due to some sexual dysfunction/disorder.

This is a total load of shit. They will get this similar hard on with women who are not fertile also. Anyways, I don't know why I bother to respond to you anymore, you are clearly completely delusional as I have said multiple times already.

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.

Yep, nice logical response.

Except for 6 posts in this thread, I have never insulted you as a person anywhere in this forum. I have on many occasions though picked on your ideas.

If you cannot distinguish between a personal attack versus a healthy, passionate disagreement on ideas, then that's not my fault.

yep, keep avoiding actually responding to threads where I show that the studies are garbage...