No I meant that one could reasonably argue with me that "it was only two days a month". I fully agree with you that other methods may be less effective and less convenient. Maybe. Depending on the people. Yes. That's a point.

HOWEVER a woman who wanted things she wasn't getting socially might consider such a tradeoff worth it. Some life changes are worth a lot of effort. No one who has been to the hairdresser can deny that. It is easy to drop a hundred bucks at a hairdresser. Why not. They change lives.

Yes, such a woman would have to be quite careful. But she might find such a change constructive and useful, and worth it.

Ovulating matters. Or can. Saying "It's nothing, ovulating is an unimportant event" isn't science either. It's not nothing. That is really known and understood. Google it.

So what I am saying is: normal ovulation could be very important for some, but not all people.

Not you, but people here seem confused by a possibility that may work some of the time being a reality.

Take smoking.

We all know smoking can give you lung cancer. It's fairly quite likely to. But there are people who smoke all their lives - I knew three of them - who died very old of other causes.

There can be relevance without an absolute correlation.

I repeat that nobody with senses would say "ovulate and I guarantee you will be married in a year, or at least engaged." No. It's not the hard and fast. There might be something to it, in PROBLEM CASES. SOMETIMES.

As my own acquaintance proves, you can't even say "smoke for years and I guarantee you will get lung cancer." No. I knew three cases who didn't. But there is still a valid correlation.

I still think that for PROBLEM CASES where everything else has failed and a woman isn't getting what she wants even though she looks great and is well liked, this might be something to consider.