TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • Other

      • /r/AllPillDebate
      • /r/AlreadyRed
      • /r/altTRP
      • /r/AntiFeminists
      • /r/askFDS
      • /r/askMRP
      • /r/askRPC
      • /r/becomeaman
      • /r/BlackPillScience
      • /r/Chadfish
      • /r/Divorce_Men
      • /r/EverydayMisandry
      • /r/ExRedPill
      • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
      • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
      • /r/GEOTRP
      • /r/MalePsychology
      • /r/Male_Studies
      • /r/MenSupportMen
      • /r/MGTOW2
      • /r/MuslimRedPill
      • /r/newTRP
      • /r/PussyPass
      • /r/PussyPassDenied
      • /r/RedPillBooks
      • /r/RedPillParenting
      • /r/RedPillWives
      • /r/RedPillWomen
      • /r/RedPillWorkplace
      • /r/RPChristians
      • /r/ThankTRP
      • /r/TheRedPillStories
      • /r/trpGAME
      • /r/TRPOffTopic
      • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
      • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • A Voice for Men
    • Dalrock
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Heartiste
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • Return of Kings
    • The Power Moves
    • The Rational Male
    • The Spearhead
    • Other

      • Alpha Game
      • Archwinger
      • Artful Prudence
      • Black Label Logic
      • Caleb Jones
      • Captain Capitalism
      • Corporate Machiavelli
      • Days of Game
      • Deep Strength
      • Dicipres
      • Donal Graeme
      • Female Misogynist
      • Free Northerner
      • Gaming My Wife
      • Hawaiian Libertarian
      • Illimitable Men
      • In Mala Fide
      • Kill Your Inner Loser
      • KillToParty
      • Krauser PUA
      • LaidNYC
      • NO MA'AM
      • Omega Virgin Revolt
      • Pook's Mill
      • Random Xpat Rantings
      • Red Pill Theory
      • Red Pill Wifery
      • RedPillDad
      • RedPillDoctor
      • Rian Stone
      • RooshV
      • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
      • Sigma Frame
      • The Feminine Woman
      • The Futurist
      • The Masculine Principle
      • The Modern Man
      • The New Modern Man
      • The Obsidian Files
      • The Private Man
      • The Red Pill Room
      • The Red Quest
      • The Rules Revisited
      • Troy Francis
      • Wintery Knight
      • Woujo
      • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Support

OVULATION STUDIES: Actually read the study, not just the sensationalist abstract

joshsway

November 1, 2013
12 upvotes
/r/TheRedPill
Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title OVULATION STUDIES: Actually read the study, not just the sensationalist abstract
Author

joshsway

Upvotes 12
Comments 9
Date November 1, 2013 2:28 PM UTC
(12 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/TheRedPill
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/1pos2s/ovulation_studies_actually_read_the_study_not/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/TheRedPill/ovulation-studies-actually-read-the-study-not-just.232636
https://theredarchive.com/post/232636
Red Pill terms in post
the red pill
Top posts by joshsway

LEARN TO SAY NO: Learn to say no in both dating and relationships

248 upvotes
November 23, 2013
/r/seduction

BASICS: 6 Ways to Approach Women

247 upvotes
October 4, 2013
/r/seduction

HAPPY HOLIDAYS! Giving away my 115 page e-book on approaching women for free...

240 upvotes
December 20, 2013
/r/seduction

ONEITIS: When Oneitis Is Just A Symptom

224 upvotes
December 15, 2013
/r/seduction

7 WING-MAN BASICS: Basic principles all wingmen should know

196 upvotes
November 8, 2013
/r/seduction

OUTER GAME: 7 ways to isolate your target at a bar/club

138 upvotes
September 23, 2013
/r/seduction

BASICS: 5 Low Hanging Fruits

120 upvotes
October 13, 2013
/r/seduction

BASICS: 6 Common IOIs Every Man Should Know

103 upvotes
September 21, 2013
/r/seduction

Comments

[–]AlmostRP5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

That kind of flies in the face of the conventional wisdom around here that women that are ovulating will "spruce up" a bit. But then, I don't think it said how they collected the data... did they just ask? Because then I wouldn't be surprised that they aren't willing to admit it.

Then for the author:

Also, despite the authors failing to highlight this result, enjoyment of casual sex was actually higher in non-ovulating women than ovulating women according to their study. Hmmm…

No it wasn't. They were statistically indistinguishable.

[–]joshsway[S] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

I would link the full study but I could only find it for $32.. there were all sorts of issues with response consistency and yes, lying is a factor. Why do you figure they were statistically indistinguishable? The standard deviations are in parenthesis. The difference was outside the 1sd which seems to be what they were using to determine significance in the points they did highlight.

If you'd like .. email me re:the rest of the study.. but from memory (haven't dug it up again yet) they basically asked the same questions at different points in the cycle.

[–]AlmostRP0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

The average of the population for the two numbers could both be .210. It could be as high as .233 for the first number and as low as .201 for the second. There is quite a bit of overlap there.

[–]joshsway[S] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

That same overlap you describe exists in all of those that they highlight as 'significant'. Which is kind of my point in the first place, that this study, despite the authors really wanting it to show that ovulation matters (See other Gangestad work if you want to know why I believe this, not to mention the abstract itself), showed that most likely, it doesn't matter much.

[–]AlmostRP0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Right, the article is bullshit. Was this peer reviewed? I've published several papers and this kind of bullshit gets published in scraps, not mainstream. At least in my field.

I'm with you bud, it just stuck out that you tried to make that point, but it was just as much bullshit as the rest.

[–]joshsway[S] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'm sure it was. It is one of the most popular papers re: Ovulation theory as are the authors (Gangestad et al). Peer review often means very little in a lot of fields, especially ones with high levels of subjectivity, and especially if the author has already established a reputation, as I am sure you already know. This isn't mathematics.

[–]mister_zd0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Female sexuality largely revolves around social interactions/perceptions. I have never found it to be influenced that much by cycles.

EXCEPT one plate, consistently was alot more cuddly right before her period.

[–]jacobman0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The problem is that you don't know what's going on in the heads of the girls you ware dating, and you don't know where in their cycle the girls that you're trying to pick up fresh are. Talking about girls that you've already formed a relationship with is hardly good anecdotal evidence.

[–]jacobman0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The problem that I see with the, "the magnitude is inconsequential" (not talking about when the sample size isn't large enough), argument is that the studies are almost always pretty specific. There is a lot that goes into attraction. Let's say that for each small study there is a 10% difference in what a woman is attracted to. If you go over many different aspects like, facial looks, muscularity, movement, smell, kissing taste, voice, height, ect., those can add up very quickly. Assuming each one of the specific things that I just mentioned had a 10% change during fertal times, because of the exponential nature of the compounding traits, you're looking at 100% change in attraction for the guys that are on the winning side of all of these. That assumes that it can't be broken down into more traits with 10% influence, and it only gets worse the more you can find.

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter