Thread 76408893

The Gym I'm considering joining has this notice on the wall. Should I be worried? does it mean it's a DYEL gym?

>>76408893 (OP)
It's for motivation.
Seeing buff men is arousing and raises your testosterone.
It's all in the lifters handbook.

>>76408893 (OP)
By the way, the notice means "Forbidden"

>>76408893 (OP)
The kind of people who frequent the gym do not matter at all. The only considerations to be taken into account are the range of available equipment (how many racks/machines/dumbbells), the cost, and the distance from your home.

>>76408893 (OP)
>>76408904
>Banning tank tops
Why?
I also only see guys on the sheet; are women also banned from tank tops?

>>76408943
It's so you don't make the DYELs feel bad.

Banning stingers but not slutwear lmao

>>76408961
Is that actually the reason or are you just making that up?

>>76408983
I'm making it up, but I can't think of any other reason.

>>76408943
>>76408983
>>76408993
ChatGPT agrees

>>76408893 (OP)
that gym probably has less serious lifters if they have a bullshit rule like that
so less guys hogging the good equipment

>>76408893 (OP)
>french
brown person

>>76409057
>less guys hogging the good equipment
that's a good point.

>>76408983
>>76408993
It's obviously the reason though. Have you learned nothing from planet fitness spelling out the gym profit formula for you?

>>76408893 (OP)
>gym cucks can't wear tank tops lmao
>meanwhile at my home gym I exercise naked and masturbate between sets to my hot neighbor 3 builds over with binoculars
ngmi

>>76409340
Bro I told you to knock it off with the binoculars.

Women wear skin tight bras and panties in the gym. How is a stringer not allowed?

>>76409677
Because sex sells and bodybuilders wear out the equipment and scare away chumps.

>>76408893 (OP)
Is 4chan literally nothing but spics these days?

>>76408893 (OP)
Banning just normal tank tops is crazy and I doubt they are running the AC at 68c or whatever you need to not sweat in the summer.

>>76408893 (OP)
Où?

>>76409004
Isnt it greater bodyshaming to tell people to cover up. Especially in the context in a place where it would be more practical to have less coverage.
Like I get the ban on going topless because at least you can argue the extra sweat getting over everything but this just reeks of insecurities.

>>76409797
Ah, ça doit être pour pas intimmider les anglos et autres hordes brunâtres qui visitent.

>>76408893 (OP)
There's no gym culture in the French Caliphate

>>76409820
Wrong continent.

>>76409805
No, it isn't. Egalitarianism is the foundation of the female mindset. The more you reveal something for what it truly is, and the less you figuratively or literally cover it up with socially enforced rules, the more obvious their natural worth is assessed and the easier it is to place everyone in a social hierarchy, which women hate for themselves but love doing to men.
To women, being superior without actually doing anything to anyone else but existing in their presence is "oppression". Their entire psyche is built on resentment and jealousy.

>>76409822
Québecois?

>>76409838
see >>76409797

>>76408893 (OP)
It might be ok if there is a sign right next to it banning those gym thot leggings that vacuum seal her pants to her pussy and anus but if not then run because that's a man hating gym and it's going to take you for a ride.

>>76408943
Some fat leftie on her powertrip. That's all.

>>76408893 (OP)
Red flags to look out for
>half or more of the dumbbells are missing from rack
>there is a wait for basic stations
>weights and equipment piled on the floor
>multiple machines out of order
>barbells are in poor condition
>gym staff doesn't check memberships (aka any fucker including homeless will just walk in)
>Gym PT's hog equipment and weights

LA Fitness, never again.

>>76408893 (OP)
pic quality
>>kys

>>76409830
I agree, but lets think of it like this, why is a social hierarchy important in the gym? Usually you have one to organize and streamline a function for a unified goal, but working out is usually a personal goal. If you need help, then the gym with provide the resources you need. Moreover, everyone pays the same amount of money to be there. Everyone needs to share equipment equally.

>>76409972
I had similar experiences with LA Fitness. Also some shithead literally broke into lockers, like literal doors hanging off the hinges.
I go to Equinox now to get away from all the trash.

>>76408943
>are women also banned from

>>76410006
Social hierarchy is one of the oldest functions of our cognition anon. I wish we could live in a blissfully ignorant world where we only set one up for societal purposes, but even something as basic as sexual attraction inevitably falls prey to hierarchy.
If you've ever been in a mixed-genders social environment with when a prettier, thinner, younger woman joins the group, the seethe from the other women is literally tangible. Same thing happens to men when a mogger shows up.
Since women are liberated now, this ranking instinct permeates every corner of society. And social media raising the next generation really doesn't help things in terms of superficial qualities of sexual attraction.
It's all about looks, because looks determine how sexy you are. Banning stringers is a misguided way of trying to stop this from happening, but it's pointless. It's too little, too late.

>>76410136
You didn't answer my question.

>>76410142
Because your question is stupid. Social hierarchy isn't more or less "important" in or out of the gym, it is simply an indelible facet of social life.
When you go to the gym, the strongest guy putting up the biggest numbers will be on top of one hierarchy, the biggest or best looking guy will be on top of another, etc. etc.
We naturally rank and compare others, that's simply a function of social life. Ascribing importance to it is meaningless, it simply exists whether you want it to or not.

>>76410454
>this is how it is, so this is how it should be
unironically the most low iq response you could have given

>>76410784
You'll notice that I didn't once make a prescription, just a description. I didn't derive an ought from an is. Or maybe, armed with your third grade level reading comprehension, you didn't notice it. Fucktard.

>>76409004
>preventing muscle culture
It's a... gym

>>76410810
>You'll notice that I didn't once make a prescription, just a description
I know. It's almost like you are incapable of thinking outside the box. Or maybe my question must've been too hard for you.

>>76410873
I know it sounds kinda retarded but, Gyms kinda bank on the fact people don't show up.

So any actual serious lifter is a net lose for them.

>>76411111
It is retarded, but I get what you mean. Consistent gym bros wear down everything, use the bathroom, etc.

>>76411111
While it's good for them if someone pays membership and never uses it, they don't want to actively encourage this by having a shitty gym.

>>76411111
Checked

>>76408893 (OP)
They should ban the disgusting devolved version of French you speak there

>>76410873
The paypigs that keep commercial gyms afloat have magical thinking about health and fitness. Basically, a gym is a temple and if they go a couple times a month and perform their rituals (20 min power walking on a treadmill, bent-back squats, dumbbell curls with the same weight they've used for a decade, etc.) then the iron gods will imbue them with health and fitness. The best paypigs treat a membership as a magical talisman that does the same thing.

>>76409677
not even a stringer lmao one of the examples is a normal sleeveless shirt. I wonder what they'd say if you wore a t-shirt but rolled up the sleeves

>>76411974
Studies show that just thinking about working out makes you fitter.

>>76411111
Checked
I’m lucky I have a gym owned and operated by an ex marine who likes to train boomers and always says what’s up to everybody. I’m actually really jealous

>>76410924
>Why is a social hierarchy needed at the gym
>It's not a question of need but of natural instinct
>You're dumb because you can't solve this non-existent problem
I seriously hope you're responding out of bad faith spite that I clearly intellectually outpace you in this discussion because if you're being genuine in your answers you may be one of the dumbest cunts I've ever had the displeasure of interlocuting with. Kill yourself.

>>76408893 (OP)
is this france or canada?

>>76408893 (OP)
I have this in my gym. I'm not against what it says, I'm just thinking what kind of brain dead idiot retard put a guy doing a high kick as judo?
In a country where judo is basically the national martial arts?

imagine lifting with sleeves
fucking awful. if I didn't get shit for it all the time I'd lift shirtless, but if I sleeveless shirts weren't allowed at all I would just use dumbells at home

>>76413246
see >>76409797

>>76409057
you got it backwards, it's the newfags doing memeshit exercises who hog the equipment for retarded shit indefinitely and then leave a mess
serious lifters don't get in the way nearly as much
in fact, it's a relief for me when there are serious lifters at the gym cause I know that in a worst case scenario we can share the equipment, whereas when stupid dyels are hogging it I just have to bully them out of the equipment if I don't want to wait all night

>>76411111
checked and this

My tuition pays for my uni gym membership, but obviously it'd be a trainwreck of a place if every student actually used it.

>>76413054
Except we're talking about a clear cut case of a rule that allows people to be more on equal footing. I asked a very simple question as to why you think this rule should or shouldn't be there, and you came up with "well uhhhhh... it's natural that way!"
>I clearly intellectually outpace you
You sound like a pseudo intellectual 14 year old lol. How's summer vacation going for you, kiddo?

>>76409004
was a few gym where I lived who also banned tank tops and used "hygiene" as the number 1 problem. but when I wear a tshirt while lifting in the summer I sweat 3 times more than if I am wearing a tank so that is such bullshit

>>76408893 (OP)
everyonce in a while it is a good idea to cover up while working out, so you don't see your pump yet, until you're done and then after you take it all off and BAM. Great boost of confidence, helps you not get fixated during the workout. But that sign is terrible.

>>76413797
I already implied that the rule was meaningless and that it did nothing to demean the gravitas of biology-based social hierarchies in my first (1) answer. You then proceeded to not understand what I wrote and kept asking if a natural feature of human cognition should or should not be "allowed", as if this was ever in question. You are a fucking mongoloid mate.
There is no "equal footing", fucktard. A genetically superior (height/face/frame) male will always mog and attract more female selection, regardless of what clothing or environment you allow. Do you understand or do you need me to explain basic biology to you?
>seethe
I clearly struck a nerve and it bothered you otherwise you wouldn't have responded, dipshit. Don't bother replying.

>>76414386
>I already implied that the rule was meaningless and that it did nothing to demean the gravitas of biology-based social hierarchies in my first (1) answer.
The rule is not meaningless. You even acknowledged that in your first post I agreed with when you said that women like to cover it up.
>There is no "equal footing", fucktard. A genetically superior (height/face/frame) male will always mog and attract more female selection, regardless of what clothing or environment you allow.
There obviously is? If people's faces are unequal then put a mask on. If their frames are unequal then make them wear bulky clothes. If height is unequal then make them wear lifts, etc. etc. Making people not wear wife beaters is much more grounded than those, but it still has an effect.
>I clearly struck a nerve and it bothered you otherwise you wouldn't have responded
This is obvious projection, dude. You're the one getting worked up. I'm just trying to help you come to terms with the fact that you wrote a bad answer and I want you to do better.

>>76414436
What I meant by meaningless was useless. It is not effective in promoting the stated goal of egalitarianism. Women like to hide things they don't like, such as inequality, but they secretly profit from and employ ranking systems all the time themselves. It's a half-hearted hypocritical attempt at getting rid of top-down competition while still maintaining social status. Obviously.
>>76414436
>If people's faces are unequal then put a mask on. If their frames are unequal then make them wear bulky clothes. If height is unequal then make them wear lifts
Good bait. Nobody is this retarded. Not even worth responding to this - it's beyond ostensible that seeking to address every micro-inequality generated by nature is a neurosis so deep it borders on pathological. Nobody actually wants that and it cannot be done, and your argument is bad faith.
>>76414436
>I'm just trying to help you come to terms with the fact that you wrote a bad answer and I want you to do better.
Not gonna bite, sorry anon. Is there anything else you were curious about, or are you done trying to get under my skin with very conspicuous and badly written bait?

>>76414639
come on dude, you know he's just stringing you along. Why waste the words?

>>76414639
>It is not effective in promoting the stated goal of egalitarianism
It is. If wife beaters weren't effective then no one would wear them, and this thread wouldn't exist.
>Women like to hide things they don't like, such as inequality, but they secretly profit from and employ ranking systems all the time themselves
And now we return to my original question. Who is profiting from a hierarchy in the gym? How are they profiting? Is this profit necessary?
>micro-inequality generated by nature
This is like the third time in a row you've relied on "it's unnatural!". I feel betrayed because your first post was pretty good, but I see you're unable to dive deeper on the topic even after this little back and forth. Seriously, you sound like Goatis.

>>76414683
Free (You)'s
>>76414763
No, it isn't effective. Social equality can never be reached, especially not when we talk about physicality. A tall, good-looking and built guy with a wide frame will mog a shorter, uglier DYEL wearing a wife-beater or tank top or stringer any day.
>>76414763
>Who is profiting from a hierarchy in the gym? How are they profiting? Is this profit necessary?
Those who profit from any kind of hierarchy are the ones at the top of said hierarchy. To apply a uniform handicap does not change the nature of the hierarchy whatsoever - only an asymmetrical handicap could even remotely attempt to do that.
The "profit" generated by sexual attraction, aka sexual success, is not any different than in any other social space. To ask these questions betrays a fundamental inability to grasp the basic concepts being discussed here.
For example - women will come to the gym scantily clad to harvest male attention, as that is one of the most dopaminergic activities they can engage in and can assist them in mate selection by giving them a wider selection. Forbidding that kind of outfit for women actually would somewhat address that problem.
The issue is not the same for men, at all.
I didn't say it was unnatural. I said trying to "fix" something that is naturally produced is useless and not even desirable in the first place. I don't know what you would want to happen - do you want women to be attracted to shorter, uglier guys? If so I'm sorry for you but that's simply not possible.

could be a gay gym. Monkeypox transmission by using a bench would be awful.

>>76408893 (OP)
wait whatt xD a tank top is not allowed but girls can put the tightest leggings and thats ok??

>>76409805
You should be able to go topless if you're carrying a towel as most gyms ask you to. But meh, in my country they banned going topless (men) near the beach, you can only be without shirt IN the beach. Fuck off