Are YOU Leo's new girlfriend? (serious)

[Lyubov]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

So, after considering the situation, I've decided to retract my dating post because I see people getting resentful and this undermines the focus of my teachings, which is more important to me than dating. People will try to use this to demonize my teachings in the future, which I don't want to have to deal with as I get enough of that already.

For those who supported me, thanks and I appreciate your support. But I have to learn to be more careful with image issues and political correctness going forward because the pressures will become great to demonize my teachings as Actualized.org grows in size and naturally develops more enemies who will misconstrue everything I say in order to invalidate the work. This is something I have to think about more seriously going forward because really these teachings should be as little about me as possible. Ideally I want to take my personal self out of the teachings.

Sorry, my mistake. Party's over folks.

In the future I will be making further changes to my style and manner of delivery in order to make the teachings more selfless and tactful. The days where Actualized.org could be the wild west are coming to an end. As the size grows, image issues become more serious and important. This seems to be the nature of politics and public relations that I don't have much experience with. I am still learning to navigate these waters because my natural style is blunt and politically incorrect. I notice that I have to be much more careful and responsible as more people watch my content in ways that were not normal for me in the early days. I am looking forward to cleaning up my presentation so that it is more selfless and then you don't have worry so much about your friends saying that you are following a cult leader. Although of course that will be said no matter what due to the nature of the material we study.

I apologize for not being more forward-thinking about these issues.

One of the things I also plan to do in the future is clean up my language and stop dropping f-bombs. I've been thinking of doing that for some time now, and this situation will hasten that. I have been seeing for a while now that these changes will be necessary for what Actualized.org is to become in the future. My style needs to mature to reflect the gravity of the work. I will also hold myself to a higher standard as a role-model, because even though I don't particularly want to be one, people will treat me like one regardless and it is my responsibility to take that one as part of delivering these teachings. It just comes with the job.

Bruh I'm with you though. Tinder is so annoying it will drive anyone to look elsewhere for a date. 

[amenX]

@Leo Gura

Edited November 18, 2020 by amenX
Maybe some other time

[Recursoinominado]

35 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

I guess you'll have to find someone else to verbally abuse you. Or maybe just learn to learn without the abuse

[Anitachaquita]

I enjoy your site and teachings thank you.

[Leo Gura]

6 minutes ago, Etherial Cat said:

The truth is, I couldn't sustain any type of romantic love for a man who is

The truth is that your romantic love is utterly self-biased and designed to serve your ego's survival needs.

Please stop with the BS. You playing games.

[Username]

@amenX  You can guess what kind of person someone is (personality type, level of consciousness, intelligence) just by looking at someones photo. It's not just about attractiveness.

Edited November 18, 2020 by Username

[Leo Gura]

4 minutes ago, Etherial Cat said:

I do get nice results without any reality push back.

Lol

Well, as long as you got the results you want, what else matters, eh? You got one slippery ego-mind

You have no idea the depth of my female-male relationships. If you assume they are shallow, that's your mistake.

[PurpleTree]

13 minutes ago, Etherial Cat said:

because I've got 1000 saner and better fitting man knocking on my doors.

noiceee

i'm jealous, well i wish it was women knocking not men, but i'd take it

[somegirl]

God, I don't visit the site for 1 or two days and a whole show happens. 
I will be having FOMO for now on.

Edited November 18, 2020 by somegirl

[andyjohnsonman]

This is a moment where we can all look at the shadow side of us and see how hard it would be to do what Leo is doing here - It would be so easy to use the status for egoic gains but the fact that he has such a powerful vision for Actualized says it all. It makes me think about the controversy surrounding Mooji and whether or not he did exploit his position. PS i think what he was doing was not exploitative and if anything was a clever way of finding a mate.

Edited November 18, 2020 by andyjohnsonman

[Loving Radiance]

12 minutes ago, neutralempty said:

Best results achieved if there is unconditional expectations and no loss of self authenticity.

I'm curious. What does that look like? Care to elaborate?

 

@somegirl Some threads are fast food.

Edited November 18, 2020 by Loving Radiance

[electroBeam]

6 hours ago, Etherial Cat said:

I think what mandy meant here, is that it is scary to see looks matter so much, because there isn't anything you can do about it. If the guy is with you mostly for esthetics, you know he'll lose interest when you've changed.

In reality, men do stay with women when their looks change from old age. Its not like its common for 60 yr olds to break up due purely to age alone. Most men's sexual drive deteriorates by then so that you dont have to worry.

But besides if your looks do change earlier on, from bad habits like eating unhealthily, its just as painful for the guy to stay with you as it is for you to contemplate him leaving you. Just think about it, if you had 0 attraction to someone, how would it make you feel to be forced to be with them purely because society judges, humiliates you into thinking you're evil if you leave. Its a prison. Women arent objectively more genuine then men on this. They are just as survivalish/conditional, its just you cant see it because you're a woman. I could give you 100 ways all women are just as superficial to men, but because you're a woman, you just cant consider that possibility(as shown in this thread).

You can still love someone with 0 attraction. Its called a friendship, and almost no guy would have a problem with a friendship. Its your biases and survival needs of needing that guy to be sexually exclusive to you which ruins that possibility. Women should pretty much be self sufficient in developed countries to not have any other problems with this anyway.

As Leo said, men dont choose to be attracted to you or not. Its something that they have to put up with. You can say men are selfish, but they didnt choose their needs.

Leo does try to protect you from getting hurt by the fact that looks are 60-80% of what makes up attraction for a male, regardless of how conscious they are, by telling it to you blatantly. You can call a relationship survival, but thats not the real issue here, as calling relationships survival muddles the water between healthy and unhealthy relationships, whats actually going on here is relationships are conditional and finite. They end. If they dont end in your life, they'll end when the body mind dies. And any rejection of that aspect(like fear of men leaving you from looks) is rejecting the truth that this shit is finite. That rejection is ego and survival. There's no way around it, you must go back to formlessness rather than attached to form as part of this journey, and guys leaving you for looks is part of that process. If guys were attracted to you forever, you'd never go back to formlessness.

 

[Hello from Russia]

45 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

The truth is that your romantic love is utterly self-biased and designed to serve your ego's survival needs.

Please stop with the BS. You playing games.

@Leo Gura  Would you say that any type of romantic love is survival-based? Like, we fall in love with people who would benefit our survival agenda in some way and don't care at all about those who don't or don't do it well enough?  Queen/Princess craving to date some simpletone can be explained very easily by this logic, cause she might crave some more simple or more adventurous/non-formal lifestyle (Which she can't have as a queen/princess). 

---------------

It's a shame these guys shamed you into putting your advertisement out . You probably had a nice chance finding a sexy witch off of your followership  (Especially that witchcraft is gaining more and more popularity here) 

[Axiomatic]

8 minutes ago, electroBeam said:

In reality, men do stay with women when their looks change from old age. Its not like its common for 60 yr olds to break up due purely to age alone. Most men's sexual drive deteriorates by then so that you dont have to worry.

But besides if your looks do change earlier on, from bad habits like eating unhealthily, its just as painful for the guy to stay with you as it is for you to contemplate him leaving you. Just think about it, if you had 0 attraction to someone, how would it make you feel to be forced to be with them purely because society judges, humiliates you into thinking you're evil if you leave. Its a prison. Women arent objectively more genuine then men on this. They are just as survivalish/conditional, its just you cant see it because you're a woman. I could give you 100 ways all women are just as superficial to men, but because you're a woman, you just cant consider that possibility(as shown in this thread).

You can still love someone with 0 attraction. Its called a friendship, and almost no guy would have a problem with a friendship. Its your biases and survival needs of needing that guy to be sexually exclusive to you which ruins that possibility. Women should pretty much be self sufficient in developed countries to not have any other problems with this anyway.

As Leo said, men dont choose to be attracted to you or not. Its something that they have to put up with. You can say men are selfish, but they didnt choose their needs.

Leo does try to protect you from getting hurt by the fact that looks are 60-80% of what makes up attraction for a male, regardless of how conscious they are, by telling it to you blatantly. You can call a relationship survival, but thats not the real issue here, as calling relationships survival muddles the water between healthy and unhealthy relationships, whats actually going on here is relationships are conditional and finite. They end. If they dont end in your life, they'll end when the body mind dies. And any rejection of that aspect(like fear of men leaving you from looks) is rejecting the truth that this shit is finite. That rejection is ego and survival. There's no way around it, you must go back to formlessness rather than attached to form as part of this journey, and guys leaving you for looks is part of that process. If guys were attracted to you forever, you'd never go back to formlessness.

 

Preach brother! I know plenty of dudes who's ladies let themselves go and are incredibly unhealthy and they stay because they are afraid to leave and/or its comfortable. It isn't good for either of them.

 

p.s. yall need to quit hatin on my boy Leo! 

Edited November 18, 2020 by Axiomatic

[Lyubov]

7 minutes ago, andyjohnsonman said:

This is a moment where we can all look at the shadow side of us and see how hard it would be to do what Leo is doing here - It would be so easy to use the status for egoic gains but the fact that he has such a powerful vision for Actualized says it all. It makes me think about the controversy surrounding Mooji and whether or not he did exploit his position. PS i think what he was doing was not exploitative and if anything was a clever way of finding a mate.

Mooji took it to another level of taking advantage of his status. The guy apparently has a harem and “enforcers” that pick out women for him to sleep with that come to stay at his commune. I don’t know the details.

I think Leo’s post was kinda goofy cause this site is mostly guys and it just looked silly. It’s just us clowns reading his blog. Probably have more luck finding a girl on Reddit  I don’t think it’s a good way to go about finding a date just with how it appears. Looked a little like a job application. No romance to it. Women want romance and to feel loved, not to apply for a job.

Leo, I think you should buy a nice car or some new cool clothes. Like a cool leather jacket, something to peacock with a little and just take some good photos and try tinder again. Face it, this is just an element to dating especially in the lives of people in their 20s-40s. It’s possible to make it work without playing games but you still have to always partake just a little if you want decent chances at finding someone or else you’re gonna be waiting a long time. This mechanical approach may attract some women but it cuts way down on potential matches. 

[Axiomatic]

3 minutes ago, Lyubov said:

Mooji took it to another level of taking advantage of his status. The guy apparently has a harem and “enforcers” that pick out women for him to sleep with that come to stay at his commune. I don’t know the details.

I think Leo’s post was kinda goofy cause this site is mostly guys and it just looked silly. It’s just us clowns reading his blog. Probably have more luck finding a girl on Reddit  I don’t think it’s a good way to go about finding a date just with how it appears. Looked a little like a job application. No romance to it. Women want romance and to feel loved, not to apply for a job.

Leo, I think you should buy a nice car or some new cool clothes. Like a cool leather jacket, something to peacock with a little and just take some good photos and try tinder again. Face it, this is just an element to dating especially in the lives of people in their 20s-40s. It’s possible to make it work without playing games but you still have to always partake just a little if you want decent chances at finding someone or else you’re gonna be waiting a long time. This mechanical approach may attract some women but it cuts way down on potential matches. 

except tinder sucks. So does bumble. 

[Axiomatic]

2 minutes ago, Etherial Cat said:

Guess I'll just close my eyes and open by legs to the highest bidder while hiding my tears then.

 Isn't this the best option I'm given and what survival commends?

what exactly is the response you are seeking to your post? 

Edited November 18, 2020 by Axiomatic

[electroBeam]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

The truth is that your romantic love is utterly self-biased and designed to serve your ego's survival needs.

Please stop with the BS. You playing games.

You're right but i think labelling relationships as just completely and utterly a big, swirling survival game sort of muddles the water between conscious vs unconscious, healthy vs unhealthy, decent vs indecent relationships. It gives you a free pass to be a dick and view women red pillish. Because hey its all a big toxic ego game anyway right? Being a dick is just survival! And this mindset isnt good for you, let alone the woman.

I think a better way to frame it is relationships are a mix of conditionals and egoic deception. You can lower the ego deception, but you ain't changing its conditional/finiteness. You can have completely healthy, minimal ego type relationships, but the conditional requirements and needs of both parties still apply regardless. Which means you can have really loving, decent relationships, ones where you do help each other grow, evolve spiritually, stick up for each other, and other high conscious behaviour, but its gotta work ewith and be built on that conditional/requirements/exchange framework. You gotta make both happen. Denying the need of that framework like what some of the women are doing here is just idiocy. But on the other hand labelling the entire game as just one big survival game is just as idiotic because it misses that healthy possibility.

[Axiomatic]

3 minutes ago, Etherial Cat said:

I don't know. I'm not interested in any reaction. I'm just stating what going 100% for survival would cost me. 

I don't think it's as shallow as you are depicting Leo's (or whoever's) words. I just think a lot of women expect to be accepted unconditionally in romantic relationships, when they themselves know deep down they could never do the same.

Edited November 18, 2020 by Axiomatic

[electroBeam]

5 minutes ago, Etherial Cat said:

Guess I'll just close my eyes and open by legs to the highest bidder while hiding my tears then.

 Isn't this the best option I'm given and what survival commends?

Is strawmaning my take on the issue really something that a wise, non egoic women like yourself would do? No ego going on here right, too above that stuff i see? I guess thats the only way to treat a lesser species like the male one.

You're sort of getting maslow's hierarchy of needs and chopping off the lower parts because you think it aint spiritual enough for your selfless, magnificently evolved ego. You need both for a male. You can have deeply profound intimacy and love in a relationship, but it has to be built off a solid foundation of physical attraction(for a male). 

And again if you dont like that, whose to blame but you? What perfect life are you aiming for? A life were men don't care about looks at all? Whats That really gonna givr you even if you teleported to that world? You really think the world would be a better place if thats the case? Would that really fulfill you? C'mon you've been on this site for how long, watch rumi vids and still cant see that this is a loosing strategy in contrast with the absolute?

Maybe that ideal that men have to be blabla(not care about looks) is the very thing thats the problem and gotta be dropped here. Maybe thats why god made us as physically attuned as we are now, because he put you in that parallel universe and you got too crazy with the men and forgot about yourself