Is lifting heavy things up and putting them down a good way to

Yes.
It will make you more invested in yourself and narcissistic (which isn't a bad thing sometimes), and you'll feel more confident about yourself.
It will also help you get a gf (eventually), but it shouldn't be your goal. The goal should never be a gf, because it will make your attitude unattractive.
You first. Bitches later.

Yes ,when you are happy with your own progress and hobbies..it wont matter.And when it doesnt matter that's when you will be unconsciously more attractive to potential gfs..

>>18506950
If no woman wanted me when I was a bright eyed 20 year old college student with hopes and ambitions certainly none will want me as a burned out 27 year old wagecuck. I want a hobby that I can obsess over to the point of not thinking about anything else.

>>18506965
men don't peak early 20's. they peak when they're successful.

>>18506965
>>18506946
maybe i'm projecting, but please read this and it'll help big time.
https://bookofpook.neocities.org/

>>18506983
I will never succeed and I don't want to anymore. I just want to mind my shit.

>>18506984
Isn't that some PUA shit? Fuck that.

>>18506984
>>18507045
Nigga, read it.
I just started from curiosity and it's less "pick up" as much as it's "RESPECT YOURSELF".
At least so far.

>>18507045
>I will never succeed and I don't want to anymore.
Nice attitude, I'm sure you'll reach your goals this way.

>Isn't that some PUA shit? Fuck that.
Nope, it's quite the opposite.

The guy who wrote all the stuff is actually against PUA stuff.
Hell, he even wrote a lengthy post about 'speed seduction' and why it's stupid

wanna have an example? (first two lines are a quote (from 'Jake'), third is his respone to it)
>>I'll take my example a bit further. I actually showed him this website, and you know what he did? He laughed his ass off.
>>He couldn't understand how guys like the guys here could devote so much time and energy into discussing women. He doesn't even THINK about what he does. He just does.
>THANK YOU JAKE! I have been saying this on and on and on.

>>18506946
its a good way to temporarily forget about it, and every minute you spend not ruminating about it is very healthy by comparison. going to the gym is about a thousand times better than drinking or doing dope or something, so it sounds like you've got the right idea here.

>>18507113
>>18507054
The guy who wrote this is the fucking guy who runs return of kings lmao

He is a self-declared PUA and has said things like "rape should be legalised" and "women are there to be consumed by men".

>>18507136
haha

that's a balanced opinion. what's the problem here?

>>18507136
He has some fucked up opinions and said some fucked up things, but it doesn't mean he's not right about A LOT of things.
You don't have to agree on EVERYTHING, just absorb the good stuff.

>>18506946
No, but walking a shit ton of miles a day and then moving onto jogging and then running will help you forget because your brain releases a ton of endorphins. Also, you get a lean body after a while and if you add even a small amount of lifting, pull up, crunches, and push ups then women start flirting with you constantly. Trust me, I was pretty fat at 200 pounds at 5'8 and over the year I worked out every day and got fit. Now girls give me looks wherever I go and I'm just average looking. Changing your life and health is in your hands OP.

>>18507143
>he said rape is okay, but

seek help

not really. for me it just makes me more horny after every workout. I've developed this new thing where as I walk up to my garage door I get like a flash of an imagined situation where there's a pretty gf excited to see me on the other side. or after I shower and I go to walk into my bedroom I get a flash of a pretty gf reading a book on the bed and going over and kissing from her thighs to her mouth and disrupting her reading or some shit like that.

working out does not help at all with nogf syndromefor me, in fact it's made it worse. that was never why I started working out anyways though.

>>18507187
Just because he's wrong about rape, doesn't mean he's wrong about other things.

>>18507227
right but if I said that the sky is orange and bunnies can talk to me, should you put more or less faith in my perspective?

maybe if you had some kind of bias and wanted to believe that bunnies could talk or something, then you would be suckered into such bullshit. maybe you have some sort of bias that makes you want to be sexist towards women and have power fantasies about controlling them when in fact you're just a normal-ass dude.

maybe this guy pads his bullshit by saying "this is advice for ordinary guys" but that's just an excuse for when his dumbass perspective is a completely ineffective egomaniacal plea for attention that doesn't really improve anyone's life more than placebo.

you don't know how to think entirely logically because you
a. lack any philosophy in your education, or just don't have much education of any kind
and
b. aren't talking to enough real people

>>18507136
any source on that? because from what i've read, the guy who wrote all the posts never revealed his identity and stopped posting at some point.
he also seems to have a degree in literature or history judging from his posts, contrary to the guy who runs the site (he apparently has a degree in microbiology and the style of writing is VERY different).

>>18507245
You said he is wrong about a SPECIFIC thing. Which is rape. We didn't talk about sexism or his treatment of women in general.

I'm an atheist, and I think believing in god is wrong. Does that mean that every person who believes in god is wrong about EVERYTHING?
Does it mean that everyone who doesn't share my perspective is wrong about EVERYTHING?

>>18507143
It's mostly garbage dude.

You want philosophy that hypes you up and makes you want to be better? Try Nietzsche. That's just shit that will make you jaded about women.

They're people too brah. You can't be reading shit that basically portrait them as biological robots that always do the same shit when you do X.

>>18507268
at least believing in god is understandable and potentially coming from a positive place.

it's not wise to just factor out people's character, especially it when it comes to them giving perspective and advice.

I would never say that this guy is just wrong about everything, but I can safely say that anyone who condones rape is too far into a land of distortion to give me some sort of expert tip on how to navigate socially.

>>18507304
>>18507337
And I don't agree women are robots or anything. I disagree with him on that, yet I recognize he has many truths as well as many wrongs. I never said "BELIEVE EVERYTHING HE SAID", I literally said "just absorb the good stuff".

>I would never say that this guy is just wrong about everything, but I can safely say that anyone who condones rape is too far into a land of distortion to give me some sort of expert tip on how to navigate socially.

Now this is a valid point that should be taken in consideration.

>>18507344
Then the natural thing to do is to change the topic to "what points do you agree with?"

I think the very core of it is kind of acceptable (improve yourself, don't beg to women) but it all gets mudded up in so much contempt for women. It is never "improve yourself because you have to live for yourself and loving yourself is the first step to have someone else love you", it's "improve yourself because women are dumb and do not deserve any more effort than a pet would".

>>18507344
>this is a valid point
no shit

brb gonna rape and stab some niggas. i moved to this really cool place where that's considered permissible. it's 110 degrees and there's hardly any food but im getting used to it.

>>18507362
>>18507357
>>18507344
>>18507337
>>18507304
>>18507268
>>18507245
>>18507227
>>18507187
>>18507143
>>18507136

Now, who are you guys even talking about? That PUA guy who runs >muh masculinity site or the guy who wrote https://bookofpook.neocities.org/ ?
They're two different people. VERY different. I don't know about the pick up guy (but judging from your posts, he doesn't seem such a great guy). 'Pook', in contrast, and aside from being a little over-the-edge at times, seems to have a very healthy view on the world.

I mean, would some PUA write something like this?
>Some people think women are weak and stupid. I disagree strongly and, you know what, so do you. The reason why there is a forum is precisely because women were stronger than we thought.
..
>I think that was when my Big Change came was when I realized that I was the problem, not the women. That's why I rage against the 'focus on women/controlling women/tactics' posts (or rather, when they rage at me). The solution to your problems is not in the woman but in yourself

I only posted >>18506984 because>>18506958 and >>18506950 are the right answers for the wrong reasons.
If OP started lifting today, I can almost guarantee that it will make him bitter in the end:
First, he will see progress, will have a great body and all. then he will start to think why he still can't get a girl despite having a great body. Why everbody else but him?
It's a question of mindset and THAT's where that link can help.

>>18507424
No, but a PUA would certainly say things like:

>Do you think she is wearing what she does for herself? No, she is wearing it for you! Women are not ornaments to be admired. They are there to be consumed. You know it. They know it.

>“Women,” he said, “are entirely sexual creatures. They do not respond to your intellectualism. They do not respond to your genius. They only respond to sexuality.”

>Women would rather share a successful man than be attached to a faithful loser.

>Woman’s sole mission is union, either for pleasure or the fruits of children. She cares nothing for your philosophy and all except to either use it to catch interest in a guy or to enthrone herself.

>Women, in sex, desire to be treated as an object and relish it.

I can go on and on since the "book" is FILLED to the brim with stuff like this.

At the end of the day I don't know if it's actually the same guy but it falls onto the exact same stuff all PUA shit falls. Treat her badly, make her fear you can leave her anytime, flirt with other girls in front of her, assume she is completely unintelligent and that you are the only thinking person in the relationship.

If you think that is a healthy way to look at the world considering we're talking about half the human population here then I don't really know what else to tell you.

>>18507579
>At the end of the day I don't know if it's actually the same guy but it falls onto the exact same stuff all PUA shit falls.
I don't know too much PUA stuff, so I can't judge that.

>Treat her badly, make her fear you can leave her anytime, flirt with other girls in front of her
But that's wrong.
Let me quote:
>The Nice Guy is drunk with his feelings. The Player keeps thinking of CONTROL and POWER over the chick's feelings. The Don Juan gives off feelings, unconsiocusly; he is a sexual light in the world the women flock to.
..
>Those that seek only POWER over the opposite sex will never achieve love.
(That Don Juan stuff sounds really cheesy, though)
The short version would be "Don't be clingy and don't be a manipulative asshole either".
I think that PUAs would be players in his opinion (The stuff was written before there were 'pick up artists') and he writes lengthy passages about what these players are doing wrong.

>assume she is completely unintelligent and that you are the only thinking person in the relationship.
That's literally not there. He reduces - both - men and women to their sexuality, because that's the topic he is talking about all the time.
I don't think he sees women as inferior (just different from men), but one can say that he is being absolutely sexist.
I also don't want to defend all the stuff written there and I don't agree with everything, but I think the big difference between this and PUA is the aim: PUA want to seduce, while he wants to understand.

>>18507789
I am quoting from the link directly. I am going to address what you've said about him reducing both men and women to their sexuality:

>>“Women,” he said, “are entirely sexual creatures. They do not respond to your intellectualism. They do not respond to your genius. They only respond to sexuality.”
Not only is this statement a wild generalization over 3500 million human beings, it also betrays what he thinks. Men are capable of intellectualism and their mistake with women comes from trying to apply intellectualism to them. Women are NOT intellectual, they're merely sexual beings with sex and reproduction in mind. He is basically denying them from being able to have higher thoughts than mere mating.
This other quote repeats it:
>Woman’s sole mission is union, either for pleasure or the fruits of children. She cares nothing for your philosophy and all except to either use it to catch interest in a guy or to enthrone herself.
Again, man can enjoy philosophy, women can only pretend to enjoy philosophy to catch a male.

The "positive" parts you're quoting speak of women as you would speak of a dog or a pet. It speaks of women as something to not me mistreated, but always from contempt and superiority. In no moment are women considered on the same level as men.

And it does talk about walking away and the woman's fear. Would you, as a male, enjoy a relationship with a girl that could walk out on you at any moment? Would you find it charming and exciting, or stressful and depressing?

The human mind is an incredibly complex thing. Anybody who suddenly came out with a model of the entire workings and motivations of an entire group of peoples would be laughed at in psychology, yet these PÚA types are respected for some reason.

It will give you something to concentrate on at least