My thoughts of Leo and actualize.org. What do you think?

[Aware Wolf]

6 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

@Serenity
 

I agree.  But you can't deny that people come to Vegas to party.  If you live there and you're practicing pick up there you know you're dealing with a bunch of tourists who are intoxicated with many things.  It's the perfect place to target women for one night stands.  I could see why someone who wants to practice pick up artistry would move to Vegas to take advantage of this unique situation.

 

There was a Stephen King book and series (more than one) where dualing forces setup in the US. The good force sets up in Boulder, Colorado. The bad force sets up in Las Vegas. 

 

 

[Aware Wolf]

3 minutes ago, Lester Retsel said:

Honestly.. sincere question, is he autistic?

 

I thought of Autism as a possibility too. I wrote this in my journal:

 

A friend  pointed out a video on Leo’s Blog, Adventures in Vegas 4, where he walks around a loud dance club, filming himself. He is smiling and nodding, but it’s weird not only because his nodding is not in time to the music – there’s a lack of any self-awareness of how hilarious he is. This is where I began to think Leo is on the Spectrum. 

 

See for yourself:

https://www.actualized.org/insights/adventures-in-vegas-part-4

 

 

It reminds me a bit of an SNL skit, with grandmaster level head nodding:

Jim Carrey head dance song SNL "What is love"

 

[WhiteOwl]

4 minutes ago, Lester Retsel said:

Honestly.. sincere question, is he autistic?

I think he could be. He seems to know no social behaviour. The videos you posted with him in the club were so sad. Looked like most of the people were laughing at him, and he seems to have no idea. Im not sure how he was before the 200+ trips in only a few years though. 

[Jonas Long]

44 minutes ago, Serenity said:

 

https://www.actualized.org/forum/topic/77869-do-you-ever-get-drunk-before-approaching-a-woman/?do=findComment&comment=1084060

 

I've pulled a few drunk girls when I first started game 10 years ago. They end up throwing up everywhere before sex can even happen. Waste of time. And gross too.

First girl I ever pulled threw up while I was trying to go down on her. It was so gross I lost my interest in having sex with her. Funny enough she came to visit me the next day sober. But I was too grossed out by her.

Never doing that again. Drunk girls are gross and a waste of time. High girls too. They seem easy but they are just a pain in the ass to wrangle. It's fool's gold.

The best kind of girl is one who is sober but really hot for you.

If you're smart you will not allow girls to drink too much. It's just part of good logistics game. The more they drink the worse it gets. 1-2 drinks is okay

 

If someone is vomiting while you are having sex with them, I think it qualifies as date rape, regardless of whether you drugged/got them wasted or not.  It's like taking advantage of someone with a disability.  When you're that wasted, you are "dis-abled"

....so yeah, I don't see my criticism of him as "going too far" whatsoever.

Edited April 10, 2022 by Lester Retsel

[Jonas Long]

1 minute ago, Joseph Maynor said:

This is the general rule of law regarding consent and intoxication.

https://www.dartmouth.edu/consent/sex_drugs_alcohol/index.html#:~:text=Yes%2C you can give consent,drugs%2C you cannot give consent.

That seems totally reasonable.  I think there is much more room for that when you know the person and have an existing relationship, when you just "pick up" a stranger, it's much harder to tell, like I say, some people can function perfectly fine in a total alcoholic blackout, you just can't necessarily tell, so unless youve been present with then the entire time they have been drinking and know how much they drank, you really can't tell.  It's shady no matter what....people have addictions and engage compulsively in behavior they don't really want to, only to regret it later, and yes, that is on them in a way, but you don't need to participate in someone's bad decisions.  The whole thing is just gross to me.  I've been involved in poly and non monogamous relationships, and generally people who I've known who do are very ethical, and very much look down on pua in this way.  Imo you really need to be MORE ethical if you are trying to have casual sex with multiple partners. 

[Jonas Long]

4 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

@Lester Retsel The way it works is if walk dangerously close to that line and someone comes after you for sexual assault, then you have to prove consent was given, and that depends entirely on circumstances or a question of fact.  If the jury finds that the intoxication level was too high considering all the admissible evidence, they can reject the defense of consent.   The defendant has to prove consent as a defense to the sexual assault charge or claim.  I would worry about anything that vitiates consent if I were engaging in sex with intoxicated strangers.

The main point is its obviously shady.  We can all see this right? Not only that, you are degrading yourself because you are basically saying "in order for me to get sex I must put myself in a place where people specifically go to release their inhibitions in the most extreme way" in other words, you aren't worthy of attracting someone who had their full judgement and faculties about them.  And yes, we're talking about someone who is supposedly "God realized".  It seems fairly absurd to me. 

[Baller]

1 hour ago, Aware Wolf said:

We live in a world that indoctrinates. News, marketing, social media. It's ridiculous to single out universities. There's actually quite a bit of due process. There's often many levels of judicial boards. The due process may end with state universities with the Governor of the State. After that, people are free to try the courts. Universities can be criticized for many things, but a lack of due process isn't one of them.

 

Absolutely not true.  Kentucky has just passed a bipartisan due process law, as one example.

 

https://www.thefire.org/kentucky-governor-signs-historic-bipartisan-campus-due-process-bill-into-law/

 

So this is the state government stepping in and addressing the lack of due process on college campuses.

Quote

 

The procedural protections guaranteed by the bill include: 

the right to the active assistance of an attorney or advisor during all stages of the campus disciplinary process;

the right to cross-examination of adverse parties and witnesses;

timely written notice of charges, and specific details about the facts giving rise to them;

reasonable, continuous access to the administrative file and evidence in the institution’s possession; and

impartiality from the hearing panel, including a prohibition against an investigator also serving on the hearing panel.

 

 

1 hour ago, Aware Wolf said:

I think you're right in some cases Universities can indoctrinate. Maybe students become less racist, more open, reflective, and open to other points of view. In many cases, people have a good university experience and start to question long-held beliefs. I remember a few years ago, Texas wanted to outlaw "Critical Thinking" classes because they might teach students to question what their parents taught them and their beliefs. 

 

Oh please, don't give me that cant.  Go take a look at the FIRE website that I linked above and then tell me that attacks on free speech are somehow indicative of students becoming "more open to other points of view."  You're pretty much proving my point about indoctrination.  There is zero in that statement that a person who thinks for themselves would utter, it is so cut-and-paste.

 

 

[Aware Wolf]

20 minutes ago, Baller said:

 

Absolutely not true.  Kentucky has just passed a bipartisan due process law, as one example.

 

https://www.thefire.org/kentucky-governor-signs-historic-bipartisan-campus-due-process-bill-into-law/

 

So this is the state government stepping in and addressing the lack of due process on college campuses.

 

You didn't read what I wrote. Please read more carefully. 

This in no way addresses what I said. So a state government steps in and sets up guidelines. Many states already have this in place. I know in my state a student already had the right to bring in legal counsel. They already could ask questions and cross examine. 

But ya, sure. good for Kentucky.

 

Do police next. And military for sexual harrassment/rape problem. 

 

 

20 minutes ago, Baller said:

 

Oh please, don't give me that cant.  Go take a look at the FIRE website that I linked above and then tell me that attacks on free speech are somehow indicative of students becoming "more open to other points of view."  You're pretty much proving my point about indoctrination.  There is zero in that statement that a person who thinks for themselves would utter, it is so cut-and-paste.

 

 

 

Again, if you ask someone, who is more open to other points of view: 1) A college graduate or 2) Someone who thinks colleges are liberal indoctrination and brain washing students -- Most people would choose #1. 

 

It's such a Right Wing cliche, oh universities are BRAINWASHING our kids! lol, I think universities are one of the few areas left that aren't controlled by the Right wing. Local schools, check. Police, military, churches, -- check. It's too bad there's not much due process in Right Wing controlled organizations, huh? I don't see you crying crocodile tears about how Police investigate themselves on complaints and how a citizen who complains about police misconduct find the deck badly stacked against them. I don't see Kentucky rushing to pass any laws protecting a citizen's due process and right to not be beaten, killed, or harassed by police. 

 

It's funny how the right wing gets its panties in a wad over the due process rights of an accused sexual predator at universities -- but when it's military that has a huge issue with the due process rights of sexual assault victims in the military -- there's crickets. Or they say, well boys will be boys. Or Russia envy -- the Russian military doesn't do sexual harrassment seminars! 

 

 

 

Edited April 10, 2022 by Aware Wolf

[Kevin]

1 hour ago, Lester Retsel said:

The main point is its obviously shady.  We can all see this right? Not only that, you are degrading yourself because you are basically saying "in order for me to get sex I must put myself in a place where people specifically go to release their inhibitions in the most extreme way" in other words, you aren't worthy of attracting someone who had their full judgement and faculties about them.  And yes, we're talking about someone who is supposedly "God realized".  It seems fairly absurd to me. 

I agree that for Leo who paints himself as a guru and claims to be god realized the behavior he is exibiting is suspect. However, where you and others posting here have lost me is where you guys sound very anti nightlife. Also it seems that you are saying that having sex with girls who have had anything to drink is wrong.

 

just want to reiterate, I’m fully on board with the criticism of Leo. However I think that being drunk does not stop anyone from consenting. I believe if someone is very drunk then yes it stops them from consenting. But if someone is aware of what’s going on they can still decide to have sex or not. I think a lot of people, both men and women, want to have sex.

 

Earlier in the thread someone called these drunk women “bar hags” which I think is very harsh. I think people want to come together. They want to go out and meet people. And if they like a person they want to have sex. I think it’s very harsh to paint the men who do this as predators and the women who do this as bar hags and sluts.

 

I’ve gone out to bars in my college days in California and I’ve been out in Vegas and the people that go out are normal people that just want to connect. For the most part they aren’t predators and sluts.

 

Basically I agree with the criticism of Leo because he paints himself as an enlightened guru but i think a lot of people in this thread are being very critical of regular people wanting to go out and have fun and I don’t think being a little bit drunk stops you from consenting.

[Annie]

My thoughts on Leo are that he is immature, but is coming across as matured, maybe farther along than he is, because his forum posts don't sound like he's cool.  I never payed much attention to his stuff/him tbh so I never really paid a whole lot of attention to his behaviour either; but it rubs off on people there, I think, or perhaps people got too comfortable with one another or perhaps it was just the crowd but I got disillusioned one day with the whole thing.

And I was tired of the comments made towards women, it fed insecurities for sure...
...But I also grew a lot there and it did serve its purpose for what it had.  I needed a starting point to see myself accurately so I could know how I wanted to proceed in public.  For this forum, I want to be focused on creativity and helping others from an animist/shamanic pov.

 

I'm just not into doing the kind of drugs they are and I don't understand or believe in solipsism and everyone was starting to talk the same.
A lot of trolls joined, too, over the years and I had my mental break while on that site and I'm relatively better and want a fresh start somewhere new.

The era of Actualized is over for me, I simply grew in a different direction, perhaps that's all that needs to be said.

 

I wish everyone on the other side of the fence good luck and don't let anyone decide which forum you can and can't use, that's not fair.  You are your own authority. 😛 

[Jonas Long]

40 minutes ago, Kevin said:

Basically I agree with the criticism of Leo because he paints himself as an enlightened guru but i think a lot of people in this thread are being very critical of regular people wanting to go out and have fun and I don’t think being a little bit drunk stops you from consenting.

No, I'm not anti these things, there is a huuuuge difference between what leo and the puas do and responsible, normal nightlife interactions.  The puas are predators because they go out with the very specific intent to hookup with any girl at any cost, they even refer to women as "targets" this is vastly different from someone who goes out because they enjoy it and if they should happen to get on with someone and hookup, great, but it's not their sole motive.  A lot of these pickup guys, leo especially, are socially clueless and going out to prey on the intoxicated ONLY because they are easy targets, they don't enjoy or even understand the social enjoyment of simply going out, drinking, dancing, whatever....I mean just look at leo trying to "dance", it just doesn't even compute with him, and he is completely out of synch socially with his surroundings.  And yes, of course a person who has had a bit to drink can consent, but you need a level of discretion that leo clearly doesn't have, or even care to have.  

Edited April 11, 2022 by Lester Retsel

[Kevin]

14 minutes ago, Lester Retsel said:

No, I'm not anti these things, there is a huuuuge difference between what leo and the puas do and responsible, normal nightlife interactions.  The puas are predators because they go out with the very specific intent to hookup with any girl at any cost, they even refer to women as "targets" this is vastly different from someone who goes out because they enjoy it and if they should happen to get on with someone and hookup, great, but it's not their sole motive.  A lot of these pickup guys, leo especially, are socially clueless and going out to prey on the intoxicated ONLY because they are easy targets, they don't enjoy or even understand the social enjoyment of simply going out, drinking, dancing, whatever....I mean just look at leo trying to "dance", it just doesn't even compute with him, and he is completely out of synch socially with his surroundings. 

Awesome I appreciate the response. I was probably reading too much into the short video you posted because I’m in agreement with what you posted here.

[Jonas Long]

On 4/9/2022 at 1:27 PM, Iesu said:

Lester really pointed out a few points about Leo I had some concerns about in a few videos. 

Party with God am I right? lol  

I just went back in this thread and saw this, I'm actually really touched by it, and I'm flattered to have been brought into this discussion at all.  I strive to be as clear as possible in what I say publicly, I take full responsibility for all my words, if I ever realize an error I will cop to it immediately, I'm very new to doing this, and I hope to keep growing.  So, thank you, I'm humbled truly to have reached anyone, I intend to remain humble and curious along with y'all.  Cheers. 

[Jonas Long]

11 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

It’s like a guy who says I’m better than you so frequently that you actually start to believe it.

Words have power, whether we fully realize it or not. 

[Adeptus Psychonautica]

11 hours ago, Lester Retsel said:

Words have power, whether we fully realize it or not. 

 

I totally agree, and this is where I think you undermine some of your own points, which are completely valid, by saying some other stuff which is factually incorrect.

 

Here is an example "The thing is, the things he talks about and films himself doing in his Vegas videos legally qualify as sexually predatory"

This is simply not true. Now I would completely agree that Leo's behaviour is creepy, cringeworthy, and just outright repulsive on many levels, but it does not legally qualify him as ANYTHING - that's you overreaching. If it did indeed legally qualify him as someone who has committed criminal activity then it is your moral duty to go and file an immediate complaint with the police.

As I said in my previous post I think there is enough valid criticism that there is no need to make the guy into Satan, especially when these accusations play loosely with the truth around what is or isn't legal. I'm sure most people here are pissed off with the Actualized crew playing fast and loose with the truth . don't we want to be better than them? Aren't we the rational ones who escaped that nonsense?

"If someone is vomiting while you are having sex with them, I think it qualifies as date rape" - It doesn't. Again I'm not defending Leo but you should stop making these statements that X = criminal act, this particularly one borders on absurd as there is no legal text which states sex + vomit = date rape.

Call him out on his bullshit, point out his unsavoury behaviour...whatever, but to make these statements regarding legality as though you know for a fact that a crime has been committed just looks like hysteria to me. 

@Joseph Maynor I'm English mate, not Scottish 🙂

Edited April 11, 2022 by Adeptus Psychonautica

[Jonas Long]

39 minutes ago, Adeptus Psychonautica said:

 

I totally agree, and this is where I think you undermine some of your own points, which are completely valid, by saying some other stuff which is factually incorrect.

 

Here is an example "The thing is, the things he talks about and films himself doing in his Vegas videos legally qualify as sexually predatory"

This is simply not true. Now I would completely agree that Leo's behaviour is creepy, cringeworthy, and just outright repulsive on many levels, but it does not legally qualify him as ANYTHING - that's you overreaching. If it did indeed legally qualify him as someone who has committed criminal activity then it is your moral duty to go and file an immediate complaint with the police.

As I said in my previous post I think there is enough valid criticism that there is no need to make the guy into Satan, especially when these accusations play loosely with the truth around what is or isn't legal. I'm sure most people here are pissed off with the Actualized crew playing fast and loose with the truth . don't we want to be better than them? Aren't we the rational ones who escaped that nonsense?

"If someone is vomiting while you are having sex with them, I think it qualifies as date rape" - It doesn't. Again I'm not defending Leo but you should stop making these statements that X = criminal act, this particularly one borders on absurd as there is no legal text which states sex + vomit = date rape.

Call him out on his bullshit, point out his unsavoury behaviour...whatever, but to make these statements regarding legality as though you know for a fact that a crime has been committed just looks like hysteria to me. 

@Joseph Maynor I'm English mate, not Scottish 🙂

Mmmkay...I was wrong on the particulars of the legal system...the other quote did include "I think" so it was my own opinion.... I didn't say he was Satan, I'd never give him that much credit....I absolutely stand by the statement that he is a predator.  And the having sex with a vomiting stranger seems as though it could very well fall into the category of illegal since someone that wasted could easily be past the point of informed consent.  

[Jonas Long]

46 minutes ago, Adeptus Psychonautica said:

 

Call him out on his bullshit, point out his unsavoury behaviour...whatever, but to make these statements regarding legality as though you know for a fact that a crime has been committed just looks like hysteria to me. 

@Joseph Maynor 

There are indeed examples of puas who have gone to jail for doing the type of thing leo advocates, just because he lives in a state with loose laws on consent doesn't mean people in other states following his advice aren't subject to legal ramifications.  Looking at the link Joseph Maynor shared, it does show that stuff leo advocates can very well violate consent laws.  And many of his followers don't strike me as bright enough to know where to draw that line, neither does he obviously, maybe that's why he chooses to live in Nevada.  I still don't see my criticism as going too far.

[Indisguise]

@Lester Retsel Off topic question, but: under one of your videos (can't find it rn) you commented "he killed my father" as an answer to  a comment asking why you don't like Leo... what did you mean by that? 

[Indisguise]

Oh nevermind I just found the comment and your reply to it... what the hell?

[Jonas Long]

5 minutes ago, Indisguise said:

Oh nevermind I just found the comment and your reply to it... what the hell?

Yeah...that is a joke.  I made a joke.