Again, I agree completely with kdag. After my ex attended Landmark our sexual relationship changed significantly. Sex seemed to become almost mechanical and/or animalistic as opposed to intimate from a loving base. Since our seperation only 2.5 months ago I know he has slept with fellow Landmark participants who also happen to be his subordinates at work. It is very very wrong.

cryst-oh,

What you may be lacking here is context. Married people go into LGATS, and often end up with their marriages falling apart.

There are many different types of love, and in most, a sexual relationship would be inappropriate. In the context of a life partner, a monogamous sexual relationship is healthy, expected and normal.

I don't care what people on the outside of my S.O. relationship do with their sex lives, as long as they keep their hands off MY partner, and those of others who are in comitted, monogamous relatioships.

If someone goes into a relationship with the agreement that there are no strings attached - fine! I don't care if they want to pile up as many people as they can get onto the bed.

It does get dicey when the wife just had a baby four months ago, based on her husband's vows to be faithful and forsake all others, only to have him come home from an LGAT and declare that he wants an open marriage. This was NOT what she has agreed to, or was promised. If she can't live with that, she is then left holding the bag for the next 20 years.

The cheating partner can also be the wife, but I am just giving this example, because I have seen an appalling number of young girls talked into having kids that they were not ready for, based on some guy's promise to always be there, and to be faithful. Then, in addition to the infidelity, the LGAT takes up more and more of his time.

To top it all off, the narcissism encouraged by LGATS can also inspire the newly cheating, abandoning spouse to not even attempt to be there as a co-parent, because they throw in the excuse, "I have too much of my own stuff to deal with, right now." They ignore the fact that their soon-to-be ex-spouse has their own stuff to deal with, as well, but still has to be there for the child. What single parent ever hasn't?!?

And these organizations are always on their respective soapboxes telling people to be in integrity, keep their promises and honor their commitments!
I think that should start at home!

Also, as pointed out by Throughmyeyes, to even hint that subordinates at work should have relations with a supervisor or boss is a glaring ethical violation. I would imagine that someone will eventually sue. Maybe that will help to bring more public exposure to the dark underbelly of these LGATS.

Okay, I'll just go ahead and paste these links. Sam Vaknin can be gross but informative.  This is basically what you'll get. They will withhold, and don't care how it was for you because  many prefer onanism over the real thing anyway.

[samvak.tripod.com]

[blogs.psychcentral.com]

Thanks kdag for adding context to my post. I forgot it wasn’t following my previous one.

Both those articles are very spot on.

And yes, if a fellow participant in Landmark is also a work subordinate the relationship is extremely unethical and dangerous for all involved.

Kdag in a seperate note, why do Landmark participants seem to have a perpetual state of happiness faciam expressions? It seems a little disconcerting. Or am I being pessimistic and they truly believe they are that happy?

Throughmyeyes,

I don't know the answer to that. I found myself doing that when I was there, as well, even if i was exhausted and didn't feel well, (or was bored). It didn't seem like a conscious decision, but felt automatic.

I think it might be part of our social upbringing - the staff smiles, so we smile back? It's almost as if society (inadvertently) programs us to smile back if someone smiles at us.

When I was a kid, (long ago) I also smiled non-stop if I was stoned on pot, even if I was decidedly unhappy, and i think that was a physiological reaction.

LGATS are known to trigger the body, with some of their tactics, (like sleep deprivation and sensory deprivation), so I don't know if LGATS trigger that particular physiological reaction, or if it is just our social programming.

Someone made this comment. It may be a foundation for creating selfishness.

[webcache.googleusercontent.com]

Quote

Anonymous said...
The Forum is a load of rubbish.

My dad went, and they encouraged him and a group of others to abuse each other verbally. And my dad had been so brainwashed by it all that he was encouraged to believe this was "funny". I felt so awkward when he told me what had been said and started laughing...it was so weird.

My stepbrother and stepmum were involved in it too. This is the sort of rubbish that landmark feeds people - I was asked by the three of them, "Vanilla or chocolate ice cream?". I answered chocolate. I was asked why. I said I prefer chocolate to vanilla, it tastes better. Apparently this is the wrong answer. They were all laughing at me as if I was missing some crucial and fundamental key to understanding something vital. Apparently I chose it, merely because....I chose it!! That's it. And this is supposed to be a breakthrough.

Now, it might seem silly and harmless, but it's actually really really dangerous. Think about it - this little exercise is basically teaching people that they don't have to justify their actions. It teaches them to be selfish. To not take responsibility for their own choices.

Quote

16 NOVEMBER 2011 AT 00:20
Anonymous said...
Ten years ago I worked as a law clerk for a law firm that was deep into Landmark. New hires were persuaded or bullied into attending the Landmark Forum seminars - at their own expense. I held out (couldn't afford it!) but my boss had a Forum woman who had free run of the office and used to try to talk to me and get me to have a "breakthrough" at least four times a week. She would get right up in my face and yell, spittle flying and that would go on for a couple of hours in the conference room before I would just say casually, "Yes, I've had a breakthrough."
Of course no such thing happened. I became the black sheep at that firm - I was told I was "damaging the space" by these sick brainwashed attorneys but no one could adequately define this for me. My boss asked me into his office where he slid a pager across the desk to me. He told me he would page me several times a week and I was to give him a blow job whenever he required, since I refused to take the Landmark Forum seminar. I laughed because I couldn't believe it, then I quit.

I got in touch with the author of "Cults in Our Midst" and she pointed out that Landmark Education is often used as a way to bully employees which is what happened at that law firm. When business was down all of us from attorneys down to the file clerks had to listen to a lecture on how if we just apply ourselves, the phones will start ringing.

(Corboy note: The author of Cults in Our Midst was Dr. Margaret Singer. See footnote at bottom of this entry)

I remember a nice older lady who had just started working there and went to LF and came back a new person with a wide grin and crazy eyes spouting off about how wonderful it was. She seemed completely brainwashed! It was very disturbing. I don't know how long her Landmark 'high' lasted because I left.

Ten years later that nine month experience working for those crazies still really bothers me. I'm working on getting it out of my system by putting it on video. I think it will be a comedy. Btw, that attorney was disbarred 2 yrs after I quit because he stole money from clients. Now he has his license back and is screwing people again in Tucson, AZ (now he's doing bankruptcies). Landmark Forum and the sick people it attracts needs to be revealed as the cynical scam it really is. And I'm working on that.

Footnote:

Dr. MargaretSinger was sued by Landmark because she'd referred to LEC when describing Large Group Awareness Trainings in the first, 1995 edition of Cults in Our Midst)

For additional information, read here:

[alandmarkeducation.wordpress.com]

This from The Rip Off Report

[www.ripoffreport.com]

There is no shortage of people giving positive testimonies about Werner Erhard's products -- est, The Forum, Landmark Education.

This person has given an excellent rebuttal

[webcache.googleusercontent.com]

Quote

posted by Darlingbri at 2:10 PM on May 19, 2011


Regardless of how you feel about the content of the courses, Landmark is an organisation you should not give your money to because they use that money to litigate their critics into bankruptcy in order to silence them. Notably, the very valuable Cult Awareness Network went bankrupt while being sued by Landmark, who then went after Rick Ross. Other groups that indulge in this notably include Scientology, just for your reference.

Here is a history of the litigation they have been involved in.

[www.culteducation.com]

It includes the suit they filed against Ross, one of the most vocal and credible anti-cult activists currently working. Here is the introduction to that law suit written by my dad, who with the backing of his firm, spent years of his life defending Rick Ross against Landmark, pro bono, so that he would not be silenced.

[www.google.com]

Here is the Wikipedia article about that case. (Corboy note: Wikipedia entries are subject to change, so use with caution)

[en.wikipedia.org]

People generally don't like it when you point to something they feel positively about and call it a cult, so I'm not even touching that question or giving my opinion on that. As an alternative strategy, I am suggesting you ask how a moral person could knowingly give money to an organisation that spends millions of those dollars to violate their critics' first amendment rights. Landmark may well be good for him, but it is horrific beyond measure for others. They destroy the lives of the people they sue unless those people are very lucky with their representation indeed.

Should your partner get more involved in this, protect yourself and protect your finances. Feel free to memail me.

Corboy: What follows is clever distraction from a fake reasonable Landmarkian.

The author claims not to have been familiar with the lawsuits mentioned by Darlingbri.

Instead, the Landmarkian describes knowing people who did Landmark and never heard of anyone being taken for a ride financially.

Then asks Darlingbri if he or she can supply references to Landmark participants being taken advantage of financially.

All this ignores what Darlingbri has already told us - and supported with references.

That Landmark has a long and well documented history of suing anyone who has published information about its harmful and exploitative practices.

Using lawsuits to scare people into going silent about allegations of harm
incurred while involved with Landmark is designed to keep such information
hidden.

So that Landmarkians can continue to claim they have have not heard of anyone being harmed or financially taken advantage of.

Landmark uses your money to keep people who feel harmed by LEC from speaking up.

When Rick Ross created a moderated message board and scores of former Landmark subjects gathered, described what they'd been put through, Landmark sued Rick Ross.


Anyone sued by Landmark to silence them has been financially taken for a ride.

Quote

Reading through these responses, it strikes me that many of them fall into these two categories:
My friend/roommate/spouse/ex did the Landmark Forum. Omigod, cult cult cult! Get out your crucifix and garlic!
I did the Landmark Forum. It was a mixed bag/good/great. I learned some valuable things, but the organization certainly has some issues.
It's striking how different the perceptions are between those who have actually done the workshops and those who haven't.

Should your partner get more involved in this, protect yourself and protect your finances.

I can't speak to the lawsuits that DarlingBri references. I'm not familiar with them. On the other hand, I knew many people who were deeply involved in Landmark in the 1990s, taking one or course or another pretty much all the time for a couple of years. I didn't know anyone or ever hear of anyone getting taken for a ride financially.

At that time their classes cost what classes typically cost, or even on the low end: $150 for a seminar that ran once a week for three months; maybe $500 for a three-day weekend program or $1,500 for something that ran a couple of weekends. We're not talking drain-the-college-savings-account-and-take-out-a-second-mortage numbers.

DarlingBri, do you have references on Landmark participants being taken advantage of financially?
posted by alms at 5:36 PM on May 19, 2011 [1 favorite]

Corboy: Darlingbri already supplied references. This Landmarkian has ignored
them and has shifted the discussion to an entirely different topic.

The Landmarkians says he or she cannot speak to the lawsuits because he or she has not heard of any.

This is just a way to dodge main topic of DarlingBri's argument. Instead, the Landmarkian shifts the topic to something else entirely, claiming never to have heard reports of anyone in Landmark being taken for a ride financially, then niggling that the fees for Landamrk courses are no where near taking out mortgages.

That's just more distraction and minimization.

Anyone sued into silence by Landmark, as DarlingBri has documented, has been 'taken for a ride' financially AND emotionally.

Plus, with Landmarks track record of filing lawsuits against persons giving harm reports on Landmark, its inability to tolerate anything less than glowing
testimonials, this shows Landmark wants freedom of speech only for itself, and cannot tolerate candid criticisms from those who disliked participating in Landmark -- and dislike lECs impact on friends and loved ones.

As to the "Chocolate or Vanilla" choice, it was presented somewhat differently in my forum.

In the first round, the participant chooses between the two flavors, and the reason he gives is allowed to stand.

In the second round, the flavor of preference is taken away, and the participant is offered only the flavor they like the least, and again told to choose. They are then asked again about their reason, and no actual reason is accepted.

The point was supposedly to get the participant to answer in a way that did not communicate resignation, ("it's the only flavor available"), but, to me it seemed more as if they were trying to get people to smilingly accept whatever was handed to them, no matter how they dislike it.

L.E. tries to get people to drop their preferences and aversions, and in this example, it's an easy thing to do. It's a minor "choice" of no consequence.

Of course, anyone can do that with ice cream, but after the demonstration, we had to divide up and talk about distressing situations in our own lives, and declare to our partner that we chose them.

I had a problem with their insistence that it was actually a choice. The participant is not given the option of declining, (I did ask), so it's actually an illusion of choice, as opposed to a "take it or leave it" Hobson's choice.

I did not get that I don't have to justify my choices. It felt more to me that I was being asked to "own" having made a choice when there was no actual choice involved.