If the rules were to be followed, the question of how then? emerges in relation to the growth of the club. It is difficult to understand this section because there is no practical way of the club growing if there was no word out there about it. The rule and the actual situation fall into a conflict. Understanding this rule follows the reasoning that the club was meant to grow in another way apart from telling people vocally about it. The outer meaning of the phrase involves verbal speaking about the activities of the club that is strongly restricted. By focusing on the eventual growth of the underground fighting club, two possibilities emerge that help in understanding. It either the rule was broken or there was a different way of the club growing targeted by the founders. This difficult part of the story airs strong support for the theme of the story. The aims of not going out and bubbling about the presence of a fight club focused on the agenda by the writer to let the physical aspect of masculinity speak out loudly. The major theme of the story involves letting the masculinity part of individuals emerge though through actions, deemed to cause freedom, but at an expense-pain and personal comfort. According to the founders of the fight club, emancipation would be achieved by wreaking havoc and subjecting their bodies to the cause of difficulties to instill a sense of focus and discipline. Personal interpretation of this is that there is a possibility that the fight club remained in existence only after the fight commences and ends. That period is the fight club. Out of that period, there was no existence. However, if this was the case, gaining new members leaves a puzzle. It means that the rule could have been broken, further supporting the prevalent theme of rule disregard as supported by the violent acts of the members of the fight club.