Those who think Game is somehow limited to its initial, Straussian manifestation are confusing the seed with the hypothetical harvest. The conventional aspect of Game that is related to young men having more casual sex with more attractive women is merely its initial application; reducing Game to pick-up artistry is akin to claiming that a computer is a Facebook device.
This is why it is a category error to ask if Game is compatible with Christianity or if Game is applicable to the workplace. The question makes no more sense than asking if gravity is compatible with Buddhism or if thermodynamics is applicable to the home.
Now, I have always pointed out that I am not a critic of Roissy, but rather one of the many who respect him and have extended some of the concepts he first articulated. It is interesting to see that unlike many of his more enthusiastic acolytes, he, (or perhaps one of his co-writers), publicly recognizes that the utility of Game goes well beyond its effective use by pick-up artists. For, as he writes at the Chateau, Game is universal:
For those denialists of the human condition who completely misunderstand and fervently believe that game only works on bar sluts, behold its power to improve relationships with overbearing mothers.Of course, even this unconventional use of Game is still an inter-sexual one. But because Game is, at its heart, the conscious and articulated simulation of the attitudes and behavior of successful individuals in order to achieve better results than one has hitherto experienced, it can be used effectively in a very wide variety of situations, many of which have nothing at all to do with sex.
