The whole field of evolutionary psychology is in a replication crisis, and there are several newer studies that did not find any evidence for any changes in 'mate preference' across the ovulatory cycle.
This research is one of the important studies in my own understanding of the world. I think it's the type of thing people are cautious to talk about too much because it might drive a certain type of person crazy and lead them to overcompensate in weird/destructive ways.
I also remember there's a study on how hormonal birth control (which causes the body to perceive itself as pregnant) affects these preferences too. In some ways we really are "experimenting on production." I also think there's some hesitation to talk about that a lot and come-across as anti-choice.
But beliefs must come from the research, not vice-versa.
I love evolutionary psychology trivia but for me it's kind of hard to meaningfully fit 0.13 standard deviation shift in preferences into my world model.
In the end we’re just improvements on the worm/tube plan, and we run things based on chemical soup that is mostly inside our bodies these days, but whose composition has a significant influence on our behavior. Thats why it’s great to have a neocortex, so we con at least be marginally in control of our decisions if we maintain a consistent effort to do so.
But yeah, in my empirical experience, moon phases, ovolatory cycles, hormone manipulation therapies… all have a gigantic impact on our base physiological and psychological state. I live in a place where the insects operate on a lunar phase, and the plants proactively change their operations in that rhythm to match. You can taste and see the difference in tree sap here based on the lunar phase, it becomes thicker, darker, and more bitter days in advance of the insect hatching.
Why would we think we are somehow a special exception from the web of life that created us?
Women show a robust increase in attraction to cues of ancestral genetic quality (body masculinity, behavioral dominance) on high-fertility days, but only when evaluating men as short-term/unspecified sexual partners, not long-term partners.
What do you wonder exactly? Where is the confusion?
Do you not know what ovulation is?
Ovulation is the phase of the menstrual cycle when a mature egg is released from the ovary.
Do you not understand what people are?
People is an American weekly magazine that specializes in celebrity news and human-interest stories. Okay, I'm being cheeky here.
Or is it that you assume that people can't ovulate? I can assure you, they can. For example:
You literally got a research paper proving the contrary handed to you on a silver platter. We know what you were trying to say, the parent comment is calling you out
Oh, so because this one occurrence of disorder, we are now speaking “ovulating people” instead of “ovulating woman”. Not because of some people who don’t know what a woman is?
Which only supports my belief that with the proliferation of contraception tying sex and long-term partnership together is becoming a useless anachronism
Many behaviors are determined by hormones. Men are no exception. When calm, men tend to prefer intellectual women, but when they're impulsive after drinking in a bar, they prefer sexy women.
Endocrine and nervous system function take a dramatic shift when processing alcohol.
The aggressive drunks didn't get there overnight. They drink more heavily and regularly. Their nervous system is amped up even when "sober", but it takes months to years to fully recover from that state and there might even be permanent nerve damage. All this to say, they will just drink again to calm their nerves and are easily pissed off. That's alcoholism for you.
On the flip side, some of the most body aware and even keeled people I've ever known are recovered alcoholics. There's a reason alcohol has been a rite of passage for most of human history.
>but when they're impulsive after drinking in a bar
Is alcohol hormones?
What is an "intellectual women"?
What is a "sexy women"?
Also, where are you from? Getting a very thirdy worldy "ESL" vibe from your post. Europe? USA? Canada? Australia? No?
I can assure you, where I am in Sweden, there are plenty of women who are intellectual and sexy.
Also, I have never ever in my life been attracted to some kind of bimbo "sexy" woman as often stereotyped. Especially the Kim Kardashian type, I feel it is a very african american style of woman.
Just like how some women like skinny men and some like burly ones.
I am not scientist enough to judge this, so please someone enlighten me: most categories i've read through that find a shift do so with an increase of about 0.1-0.2 standard deviations. that does not sound significant to me. is that enough to make the claims this study makes?
Statistically significant does not necessarily mean practically significant. If you just increase your sample size sufficiently, you can measure a significant effect, despite having a small magnitude of the measured effect:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_(statistics)#:~:text=Sta...
considering this is a review aggregating a bunch of small n studies from before we acknowledged the replication crisis in psychology, I'm going with "no"
It probably feels a bit like before and after ejaculation for a man, just it happens way quicker for men. Pretty sure if you studied that you'd find mens preferences in women changes a lot as well.
It's 2026, and I still can't read a PDF on mobile.
I must be doing something wrong. I'm using FF Focus. Is that it? I tried Safari. Either they moved the reader button, or it's not present for PDFs. Help me Obi-Wan.
The whole field of evolutionary psychology is in a replication crisis, and there are several newer studies that did not find any evidence for any changes in 'mate preference' across the ovulatory cycle.
General sexual desire, but not desire for uncommitted sexual relationships, tracks changes in women's hormonal status https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29287282/
Meta-Analysis of Menstrual Cycle Effects on Women’s Mate Preferences https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/175407391452307...
"Replication crisis" is way too kind. The whole research field has the same credibility, as the "size does not matter" fact.
This research is one of the important studies in my own understanding of the world. I think it's the type of thing people are cautious to talk about too much because it might drive a certain type of person crazy and lead them to overcompensate in weird/destructive ways.
I also remember there's a study on how hormonal birth control (which causes the body to perceive itself as pregnant) affects these preferences too. In some ways we really are "experimenting on production." I also think there's some hesitation to talk about that a lot and come-across as anti-choice.
But beliefs must come from the research, not vice-versa.
I love evolutionary psychology trivia but for me it's kind of hard to meaningfully fit 0.13 standard deviation shift in preferences into my world model.
I stubbed my toe. I don’t feel like ice cream today.
There are a lot of things it is worrisome to feel like.
In the end we’re just improvements on the worm/tube plan, and we run things based on chemical soup that is mostly inside our bodies these days, but whose composition has a significant influence on our behavior. Thats why it’s great to have a neocortex, so we con at least be marginally in control of our decisions if we maintain a consistent effort to do so.
But yeah, in my empirical experience, moon phases, ovolatory cycles, hormone manipulation therapies… all have a gigantic impact on our base physiological and psychological state. I live in a place where the insects operate on a lunar phase, and the plants proactively change their operations in that rhythm to match. You can taste and see the difference in tree sap here based on the lunar phase, it becomes thicker, darker, and more bitter days in advance of the insect hatching.
Why would we think we are somehow a special exception from the web of life that created us?
Findings of TFA: Yes.
Women show a robust increase in attraction to cues of ancestral genetic quality (body masculinity, behavioral dominance) on high-fertility days, but only when evaluating men as short-term/unspecified sexual partners, not long-term partners.
Can we summarize this as "people get horny sometimes" and "ovulating people get horny"? Or is that too reductive?
I am guessing they are trying to make a distinction from mental horny vs physical horny
It is probably safer. Summarize it as sociology during the replication crisis
[flagged]
What do you wonder exactly? Where is the confusion?
Do you not know what ovulation is? Ovulation is the phase of the menstrual cycle when a mature egg is released from the ovary.
Do you not understand what people are? People is an American weekly magazine that specializes in celebrity news and human-interest stories. Okay, I'm being cheeky here.
Or is it that you assume that people can't ovulate? I can assure you, they can. For example:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7200380/
In human spieces only woman is able to ovulate.
You literally got a research paper proving the contrary handed to you on a silver platter. We know what you were trying to say, the parent comment is calling you out
Oh, so because this one occurrence of disorder, we are now speaking “ovulating people” instead of “ovulating woman”. Not because of some people who don’t know what a woman is?
[dead]
Which only supports my belief that with the proliferation of contraception tying sex and long-term partnership together is becoming a useless anachronism
Are you kidding? Sexless long-term partnerships are nothing new; they've been around for ages - that's just called marriage!
Many behaviors are determined by hormones. Men are no exception. When calm, men tend to prefer intellectual women, but when they're impulsive after drinking in a bar, they prefer sexy women.
It is OK! Don't forget we are animals first. Obviously we need that neocortex to keep decisions in check!
Women with higher testosterone levels prefer more risks.
For example: when women are starting dating and fell in love: their testosterone level go up for 2 months
In my experience it’s usually the other way around
It is a curious thing how drinking affects people in different ways. Some people get reflective, others belligerent.
Endocrine and nervous system function take a dramatic shift when processing alcohol.
The aggressive drunks didn't get there overnight. They drink more heavily and regularly. Their nervous system is amped up even when "sober", but it takes months to years to fully recover from that state and there might even be permanent nerve damage. All this to say, they will just drink again to calm their nerves and are easily pissed off. That's alcoholism for you.
On the flip side, some of the most body aware and even keeled people I've ever known are recovered alcoholics. There's a reason alcohol has been a rite of passage for most of human history.
[flagged]
Nope
[flagged]
[flagged]
[flagged]
>determined by hormones
>but when they're impulsive after drinking in a bar
Is alcohol hormones?
What is an "intellectual women"?
What is a "sexy women"?
Also, where are you from? Getting a very thirdy worldy "ESL" vibe from your post. Europe? USA? Canada? Australia? No?
I can assure you, where I am in Sweden, there are plenty of women who are intellectual and sexy.
Also, I have never ever in my life been attracted to some kind of bimbo "sexy" woman as often stereotyped. Especially the Kim Kardashian type, I feel it is a very african american style of woman.
Just like how some women like skinny men and some like burly ones.
I am not scientist enough to judge this, so please someone enlighten me: most categories i've read through that find a shift do so with an increase of about 0.1-0.2 standard deviations. that does not sound significant to me. is that enough to make the claims this study makes?
Statistically significant does not necessarily mean practically significant. If you just increase your sample size sufficiently, you can measure a significant effect, despite having a small magnitude of the measured effect: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_(statistics)#:~:text=Sta...
considering this is a review aggregating a bunch of small n studies from before we acknowledged the replication crisis in psychology, I'm going with "no"
Do women keep changing their settings in that Gnome 2 fork over the course of their ovulatory cycle?
Oh, that kind of mate.
I was hoping for chess moves, myself.
The ovulatory cycle where a peasant becomes a queen.
I don't know what an ovulatory cycle feels like; but, I trust Lindsay Doe's account [0] of how she feels across a given period.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLXxxHVOeec 11 minutes
It probably feels a bit like before and after ejaculation for a man, just it happens way quicker for men. Pretty sure if you studied that you'd find mens preferences in women changes a lot as well.
It's 2026, and I still can't read a PDF on mobile.
I must be doing something wrong. I'm using FF Focus. Is that it? I tried Safari. Either they moved the reader button, or it's not present for PDFs. Help me Obi-Wan.
PDFs are generally meant for printed paper, it's not you - it's the medium.
Under Firefox Focus I can read it if I manually zoom and scroll. Not ideal.
Yes, it does from follicular to ovulation...
[dead]