Monday, 6 December 2010

Guest Post on Game

Today we have a guest post from "Alias Clio" a long-term reader who married one of her own readers this year. Knowing that she has written a lot on the subject, I asked her to write about Game.

Once upon a time, mothers and aunts and just about every woman older than you thought it was our job to warn you about men's wicked ways. Most older women don't seem to like doing that anymore; I, frankly, love it. I love men, but some are rats, just as some have always been rats. And it still boggles my mind how fluently and easily the rats lie about stuff no woman I know would ever lie about. And you know, there's something about a seminarian inviting you back to his room at 1 AM that adds a note of cynicism into a girl's cheery outlook on life.

Meanwhile, the goal of warnings is not to scare you to death, but just to encourage you to be observant and to remember that not all the men you meet are good men, no matter how cute they may be.

Without more ado here is Alias Clio on Game.

GAME by Alias Clio

What is Game?

Game, which goes by many names, is a strategy for increasing men's ability to communicate dominance in social settings. Its ultimate goal is to help men secure sexual partners or a mate by assuming the aura of untroubled ease possessed by self-confident "alpha" males. Although a skill some men possess intuitively ("naturals"), and others learn by imitation, it has become big business in the last 15 years. Those who have acquired the skill are often known as pick-up artists (PUAs).

Vanity is of the Devil

Seraphic has asked me to write about Game, and her wish is my command. But let me be clear about something: Few women suffered as much from Game-players as I did before I got married. Contemplating this truth over the years, I at last came to the conclusion that it was vanity, more than anything else, that put me in harm's way. It isn't that I or most Game victims are exceptionally sure of ourselves, as that we tend to suffer from a strange mixture of vanity and insecurity, the kind of vanity, I mean, that is always looking for outside validation. Without this combination, we would be much less vulnerable to the kind of Game which is intended to exploit these qualities and which is most likely to lead victims to misery or humiliation.

That said, do you really have to worry? After all, surely nice Catholic boys aren't going to have heard of Game, let alone try it out on nice Catholic girls? Well, first, stories of Game's success at attracting desirable women – young, pretty, and unspoilt – have spread around the world. Even the nicest Catholic boys are not immune to such rumours. Two, bear in mind that many men would like to marry a virgin and will seek them out in churches and similar venues. I wish to make it clear that I'm not hostile to Game as such: I think that, like The Rules, it can provide an essential boost to men's self-confidence, aside from the fact that it's more honest about female nature in general than society has taught young men to be. Still, some Game-players – not all – are quite indifferent to the happiness or well-being of their victims, and it's wise to be aware of their existence and their tactics.

Taxonomy of Game

I don't intend here to describe the details of Game techniques. There are many books on the subject (try The Mystery Method) for those who are curious about things like "negs", "wingmen", "social proof", and the like. What I want to do is describe the several unexpected avenues – or should I say the disguises - by which a cunning Game-player might approach a nice Catholic Girl in the hope of winning her over. These aren't so much descriptions of Game's tactics as of the way the tactics can be used to mislead or deceive. Game, as I observed at the start, is all about the display of social dominance. The types of dominance I describe below are largely in the moral realm, rather than financial or social , though I have included a short description of 2 types of intellectual game. I believe that these are all especially likely to be effective on [devout] Catholic women.

1. Intellectual Game:

Sizing you up, a Game-player will have deduced in advance that you aren't interested in the frivolities that move other women. He will make great capital out of this, subtly mocking the less intelligent and indicating the superiority of your shared tastes – all while never complimenting you directly. This is one of the less deadly forms of Game, as it tends to work only on would-be intellectuals who need a little boost in their confidence. But it is potent enough that it helps a few professors marry their students every year.

2. Complexity Game:

Some game-players, conscious that the above approach risks landing them the dullest and least attractive of the women available to them, will try a more complex version of Intellectual Game. They will take note of a woman's careful dressing, and the fact that she is carrying a copy of – for instance – Lolita, and recognise that she is not trying for a one-note image. In negging you, a wise Gamester might say something like, "Love the boots! But isn't Nabokov a little obvious?"

3. Heart Game:

A man will claim to have been so overwhelmed by your beauty/brains/personality that he can think of nothing else. How can you hurt him?

This is a tactic to which "nice" girls are particularly vulnerable: the approach that is so over-the-top that, when combined with a little humour and a little skill in the making of compliments, it can overwhelm you into suspending your better judgment, and keep you hooked in the belief that he would be so hurt if you left him. Great skill is needed to pull this one off, or the man can appear to be wimpy, or a stalker. But even less skilled purveyors have used the "I will be so hurt if you leave me" suggestion to their advantage; it's just not as likely to work for them, since any hint of whininess tends to drive most women away.

4. White Liberal Guilt Game:

You may not be a liberal. You may not be white. But if you have had a standard education at a state school, the chances are you suffer from white liberal guilt, a quality that can make you a sitting duck for a clever Game-player (and for actual crooks, but that's another story). A Gamer might exploit it by emphasizing his race ("Here comes the white-bread chick!"); his relative financial deprivation ("Boy, must be nice to take the good things of life for granted...."); his working-class origins ("Aren't we posh!"); even his homosexual orientation. (Er, yes, that did actually happen to me. Don't ask.) He might also emphasize his "bad boy" qualities, and hint that you are mean or bitchy or prejudiced for rejecting him on such grounds. This is particularly clever, since many nice girls are drawn to bad boys in spite of themselves, and this approach guarantees that they can catch you coming or going. A really skilled Game-player can use guilt both to draw you in and push you away, and then draw you back in again.

5. Catholic Guilt Game:

Men who live and work in Catholic circles will adjust their Game to appeal to the kind of women they encounter there. The approach will probably vary depending on the level of education of both the Game-player and his victim, but some of the common themes will include references to children, your age, not leading men on, and the hint that you might just not be feminine enough to hold on to a man if you have not married by some arbitrary age. I haven't encountered this much myself, so it's possible that I may be unaware of its permutations and subtleties, but by all accounts, it's both vicious and effective. [Seraphic's Note: I have encountered this, and yes, it is certainly both vicious and effective.]

6. Other Women Game

Potentially effective on any woman of whatever status. Convince a woman she has many rivals but is somehow special to the Game-player and she may well linger in the face of flagrant infidelity. Even the most beautiful and sexually successful women can be won over by this approach (Diana Mosley, anyone?), so don't feel too stupid if it has momentarily captured you. Just walk away. Incidentally, this approach – allowing a woman to know about her rivals, even if they're not real – is known to Game-boys as providing oneself with "social proof". It is unfortunate that women are more likely to find a man attractive if he has been given a stamp of approval by other women.

Millions of men who attempt Game and would not consider using the particular tactics I outline here. They are likely to be working on women who are neither traditionally Catholic, nor sexually virtuous, and thus have an entirely different set of priorities. But the kind of man to whom a nice Catholic girl is likely to be vulnerable is probably not driving a Ferrari or boasting of the size of his income, so you don't have to worry about those fellows. The techniques I've described are the kind to which well-intentioned, self-consciously "nice" women, who nevertheless are unsure of themselves in some way, may fall victim.

Thank you very much, Clio!


dark but fair said...

Thanks so much Clio and Seraphic! This is a very good post.
There are a lot more Catholic gamers than one would think. But what I have noticed is that Catholic girls especially seem so insecure. I have met so many girls who wanting to become saints, tell themselves that they are not that smart, not that alluring, not that picturesque, not that fun and good-humored, and not that virtuous. They banged it into their heads or others had banged it into there heads for so long that their brains that they almost convinced themselves that they were alright with it. But in truth no woman, and especially no saint wants to be unattractive, uninteresting, unintelligent, and unvirtuous and they do not want to believe it about themselves.

So they are secretly looking around for somebody, anybody to tell them that it is not true. Abusive men, PUA's and players can sense this so well about these women that it is almost like they can smell it. They exploit it and take advantage of it.

Then they exploit her in a different way when she begins to sense that she is not happy when this man is taking advantage of her, or cheating on her, or married to her for long enough that the spell starts to fade.

They expolit the girl's false idea of gratitude, forgiveness, patience, peace and kindness.

Every one of these NCGs wants to be grateful and forgiving. They all love peace. Nobody wants to seem hard, cold and sour.

The trouble is, these girls equate passivity with peace, or lack of outward conflict or not making a fuss with peace. All the man has to say, after he has done something cold-blooded and she starts to complain, is, "Why are you being so bitchy about this? You are obviously looking for a fight. I just want to let this go..."

They NCG's associate perpetual pleasantness with kindness also. Which is not true either. Christ was never unkind for an instant of his life. When they occassion called for it, he drove somebody out of a temple with a whip, or screamed at a devil, or screamed at a pharisee. (I am not suggesting you should take a whip to the fellow.)

The NCG's falsely also think when they are dating that they should "not be picky" or that they should "forgive" him (which is not real forgiveness but a false excusing of something that should not be exonerated). So they marry him. Or they stay married to him instead of separating or seeking an annulment. Because how will THAT make them think of themselves. "Oh dear I am not being loyal and faithful to my husband". Yes, they also have the wrong idea of what loyalty and fidelity are as well.

It is very sad and strange.

Anonymous said...

I agree with dark but fair above, however I don't think it's limited to NCG. Many women want to be thought of as nice, and also to think of themselves as nice.

Many women are also very vulnerable and have low self esteem.

Silent Jen

theobromophile said...

Wonderful post, Clio. There's things in there that I could see myself being momentarily vulnerable to, and there's things that (having dated a sociopath) make me turn tail and run.

My generic advice is that women like to have things right, and, rather than just leaving a situation in which something is amiss, will work overly hard to fix it. Women deserve to be with a man who supports them and values them, but too often, women who aren't getting support and love from a man will change themselves to try (in vain) to get it. Women want to be the only one that a man has, so, rather than ditching a guy who is into other women, will turn themselves inside-out to please the guy and beat the competition. Et cetera.

If I may give a "I feel like an old lady" rant... too often, being "nice" to real jerks means that truly kind and loving people suffer. Your friends suffer when you cry on their shoulders. Your ability to trust kind men who adore you suffers. Your ability to give of yourself in friendship and family suffers. I'm not saying to be nasty to people, but the best way to be "nice" is to save it for the people who have earned it; to do otherwise is to be mean to decent people.

Once upon a time, mothers and aunts and just about every woman older than you thought it was our job to warn you about men's wicked ways. Most older women don't seem to like doing that anymore; I, frankly, love it.

If you don't mind an off-topic rant: well, look at the generation that the now-older women grew up in. Look at their ideals. Look at their sexual morality. Is it any surprise that the women who think that abortion is one of the greatest benefits to womankind, second only to birth control, adore no-fault divorce, and think that living with a man for several years is fine and dandy would want to, let alone be capable of, warning younger women about how some men can be really, really rotten?

I know it's a rant, but it continually irks me how MY generation pays for the older generation. Those women got the benefit of wise advice from ladies who came of age during WWII; they dated and married men who were raised by WWII vet fathers; they were raised in stable, two-parent homes; and then they act as if we are ungrateful because all the harm of their social experimentation has been heaped onto OUR heads.

Anonymous said...

theobromophile, it's not that simple. The mothers born in the Depression era that I knew growing up weren't nearly the fonts of conservative wisdom you might imagine.

I can't emphasize this enough: in 1960, the start of the decade when all Hell broke loose, the West had just fought a kind of civil war (WWII, I mean) in which it had nearly destroyed itself, in which one of the combatants had tried to wipe out Christ's people, in which the good guys had won by the skin of their teeth, and not without gravely compromising the "good" they had believed in.

This group, the "greatest generation", most of whom had postponed child-rearing while the war raged, looked around at these things and said to themselves, "Well, we won't bring up OUR children that way. Let's just teach them to be kind and enjoy life." That was the basic child-rearing philosophy of middle-class people from about 1950 to 1975 or so.

Those of us who were raised by these traumatized, or exhausted, or deprived (or all three) people, who pushed us towards the hedonism they had never been able to indulge, weren't necessarily "acting alone", as it were. We had advice and help and suggestions, all of them bad.


theobromophile said...

(Shrug) My grandparents were certainly not like that. My dad (and all of the kids) got the belt buckle when they misbehaved. My mom tells stories of being in high school, drinking at a party with her friends, and being woken up at some ungodly hour in the morning to vacuum or do yard work. They certainly both have their wild-child youth stories, but their parents certainly expected them to eventually grow out of it, as did everyone else's parents in their peer group.

Perhaps the Greatest Generation did permit A and B, but the reality is that my generation is told that not only are A and B acceptable when one is young, but that they are good things, and C, D, E, and F are all fine, too. Also, my grandparents' generation would tell their kids to enjoy their youth, but expected that "youth" ended around age 22 or 25, and then it's time to get a job in a bank or a law firm, settle down, get married, and start having kids. That's gone out the window.

I'm certainly willing to believe that a lot of the people who got married and had babies during the Eisenhower era, especially women, were more than happy to tell their daughters to not follow in that path. The Rosie the Riveters wanted their daughters to major in math or go to med school, and the women who all but went crazy after having ten children probably jumped for joy at the idea that their daughters could stop at three or four and have a career, too.

But it takes two generations for ideas to really play out and ruin people, and whatever the Greatest Generation encouraged or permitted, it bears NO relationship to the insanity that goes on today - insanity that my parents' generation often ignores or belittles.

Elspeth said...

Clio, when you hang out your shingle for hourly consultation on anti-game strategies, I want to be your first client.

Alisha said...

Yes, good post...I'd like a follow up - as in, specific lines you may have heard, and how to respond back.

@DBF - awesome comment.

I'm very glad that I'm not overly concerned with being nice :)

Anonymous said...

I am reluctant to write the following because so many "gamers" are evil cads, despicable people.

However, what I learned about game through the internet has been invaluable, even though I reject the hook-up culture PUAs rejoice in and disdain premarital sex. These PUAs have distilled, and are able to transmit how women act, theories of why women act the way they do, and how to respond to women's actions to best create attraction.

It would be an understatement to say I was treated poorly by women in the past. I myself was mostly to blame. So lonely and desperate for female attention I would ask not-Catholic girls on dates (because all NCGs I asked expressed disgust) until the inevitable chastity issue would come up. I finally found a girl I thought was a NCG but I was dramatically mistaken. Not having been on a real date until after 20 I had no clue women were not like my idealized idea of perfect angels. It wasn't until I was burned by a girl who liked to think of herself as a NCG did I understand women too are descendants of Adam.

If not for an introduction to game I would not be in a happy healthy relationship today with a wonderful fantastic NCG today.

No number of "you're a nice guy but I think we should just be friends" talks would have gotten me to the point where I was datable to a NCG. I now know NCGs did not like me because I was not presenting them with what they wanted. It was practitioners of game who let me know I needed to cut my hair differently and change my appearance. It was practitioners of game who told me I needed to work out more. It was practitioners of game who told me many women are not worth having, being more trouble than reward. It was practitioners of game who told me what a "shit-test" was and how to respond to it. It was them who told me how to set-up a date to where a woman is interested and not just text me back "maybe some other time." It was them who told me how to handle myself on a date, who told me to take a girl to a bar and dance hall rather than an expensive dinner. They may couch their words in nerdy video-game like lingo (from which the very term 'game' comes from) but they were able to communicate self-confidence, dominance, influence, and communicating leadership, that no number of chastity lectures have ever been able to. Yes, even nice Catholic girls respond to the basics of game (even though they hopefully will not respond to some of the seedier tactics) because at its core it is about basic human interaction: learning how to overcome approach anxiety, analyzing social situations, presenting yourself to your target, detecting and communicating body language (something many men are horrible at,) how to open up the set, and so on.

Anonymous said...


I shouldn't have had to go to such awful people but they were the only ones who told me how to reform, what to do, and I saw results immediately. Not an "I'm sure you will meet a girl some day" or "all in God's time." But cut your hair, groom better, shape up, and open up five sets a night. You said "QRS" you should have said "TUV" because "XYZ" you said was self-depreciating and girls react negatively to that.

The only people who gave me good advice were my parents, and of course at that age I didn't take them seriously since the advice wasn't direct and seemed of no immediate practical matter.

Ultimately in the end I did so many things not conductive to good game when I first met my NCG, but when I took her out and started dating her I would have been lost, if not destroyed all chance had it not been for some kind of instruction I had through my readings on game. There was just absolutely no direction from anywhere else.

So please, if you know of a good Catholic source that gives some direction to dating to men, that actually works in securing a Nice Catholic Girl let the young boys know. Without it they will stumble upon gamers and evil PUAs because it is the only voice out there.

To whom else can we go? Some of their tactics actually works, if only to meet more women and play the laws of large numbers. Please, young men need an alternative.

In another note women how many "nice guys" have you met that you really did not want to date? How many did you think were kind of cute but when they started talking you knew immediately you had no interest? (How much of that is because of the way they talked, the way their body language communicated timidity? The way they acted, the way they were unsure how to act around you?) What if every one of these "nice guys" knew how to make you laugh, how to engage in flirting banter like the last half of a Jane Austen novel? Its not your job to reform them ladies... yuck, why would you want to?

It is just game has helped me, even though I reject some of its gross evils its adherents pursue.

Julie said...

Ooh, I like a good women's history argument but I am all historied out for the day. Suffice to say, you're both sort of right.

I don't think I've ever encountered this Game stuff except online. I recognize the description of vanity and insecurity though, alas.

Kate P said...

If I may respond to Anonymous (and I'm speaking just for myself here, so if anyone wants to add her two cents and/or disagree, please feel free):

1. You say using some of the Game tactics "works"--does it, really? Do the people you end up going out with (if any) turn out to be long term relationships? If the goal is just to get women (most likely insecure ones or just plain really polite/nice ones) to respond to you, then that's all you're going to get. (And as the saying goes, if you do what you've always done, you'll get what you've always gotten.) Don't you want to connect on a deeper level than that?

2. I think some of those tactics work because they at the very least give the illusion that a man has confidence (well, aside from Clio's #3) which is quite attractive to a woman (at least this woman). So, may I politely suggest that you try OTHER things to work on your self-confidence, outside of the pick-up area, so you can be yourself--the very best version of yourself--and attract good people. You owe it to yourself and to those of us hoping to meet other good people.

Clare C said...

Kate P-
I think his point is that there are social rules and cues to dating that do not come naturally to some men. Game simply helped Anonymous learn some of these basic social graces and ways to seem attractive. Obviously none of that will help you develop a long term relationship, but I think Anonymous already had plenty of things going for him (intelligence, religiousness, etc) to make a long term relationship work. Indeed, he says he is in a healthy relationship with an NCG. Obviously he seeks to "connect on a deeper level" but simply "getting women to respond to you" IS to first hurdle to overcome in that search. Nor do I think we can dismiss this hurdle with "oh, only a superficial girl would judge you on that." I do not count myself superficial, but I do not generally have a great interest in men who are poorly groomed, spindly, run themselves down, or seem to nervous to be a conversational equal. However brilliant and worthy and competent, some men simply have NO idea how to interact with women; for these men certain aspects of Game impart very useful life skills.

Moreover, I think Anonymous several times repudiated the disgusting and manipulative aspects of Game. Just as the Rules at it's best is a way gaurd one's dignity and peace of mind rather than a way to manipulate men, Game at it's best can be a way for men to become attractive to women and develop *social* confidence (rather than a tool of manipulation and seduction).

I think it's interesting that the Rules are fundamentally about weeding out undesirables while Game is basically about successful pursuing. Seems to validate that fundamental dynamic of man chases, woman chooses.

I'm sorry this is such a lengthy post. I just think it awfully hard that, after so much Rules talk from the ladies, an obviously sincere, chaste, and religious man gets chastised for adapting certain aspects of the game into something similar.

theobromophile said...

Um... I don't think that Anonymous is engaging in "Game", at least not the way that Clio was talking about or that any woman (NCG or not) needs to worry about.

When a woman waits for a man to call her, she's not manipulating him; she's weeding out people who aren't interested in her so that she doesn't waste her time and his time. When she lies about her plans to make herself seem more desirable or to manipulate him, she's being evil.

At every stage, the question is always, "Why are you doing this?". If it's for the same reason that you bring a bottle of wine to a party (social graces) or learn to shake hands (not making a bad impression), that's fine. If it's to get laid, to get dates with girls for your self-confidence or ego or for any other reason than to determine if you want a relationship with her, that's bad.

Some of the reason that I vastly prefer "He's Just Not That Into You" to "The Rules" is because the latter have a heavy element of female Game in there. (That one of the authors wound up divorced should surprise no one.) HJNTIY is about facing reality head-on, rather than burying your head in the sand. And yes, there are absolutely some actions that can be done out of good will and bad will, but there are others - the Game that Clio describes - that are done exclusively out of bad will.

theobromophile said...

I agree with a lot of DBF's initial comment, but a few additions and thoughts:

Real men let you be angry. Abusive men either try to make you feel like garbage over it, or refuse to even acknowledge the plain reality in front of their faces - that you are furious.

Adding to that: real men (even slow ones, even socially awkward ones, even overly earnest ones) pick up on social cues, and, barring that, the plain English that comes out of your mouth. Abusers do not; they will blatantly ignore everything that does not fit into what they want from the world. (Perhaps "sociopath" is a better term for this, since it's about a deep-rooted failure to function as a normal member of society.)

Related to that: that is the reason why I fundamentally disagree with DBF and other women who blame women for getting tangled up with abusers and truly mentally ill and vicious men. It's comforting to think that you can avoid the abusers by being all psychologically intact and such, but the reality is far different. Yes, a woman may LOOK weak because she can't get a whack job out of her life, but it's not because she's not strong; it's because normal levels of assertiveness are grossly inadequate. For heaven's sake, the people who were on those planes that crashed into the Twin Towers weren't hothouse flowers or particularly dumb; they were responding to a situation in exactly the way that normal people respond and have been conditioned to respond. Yes, the utter bravery of the Flight 93 passengers is remarkable, but they initially responded just like everyone else - sit tight, don't make a fuss, don't antagonise anyone.

I know that's an odd analogy, but it's dead perfect on the idea of when acting as a strong, wise person should act means that your butt gets kicked. As one of my friends wisely says, "Whomever gets irrational first, wins."

Seraphic said...

Whew! I'm late to the party. I'm letting Anonymous's post stand (but pick a pseuedonym next time, Anonymous) because it was fascinating, well-written and a helpful guy's eye view. Kudos to Anonymous for wading in amongst the women.

You'll all note that Clio said in her preamble that Game can be used for good. It makes me wonder if it is always such a bad thing when men actually understand female psychology--or perhaps it is just human psychology: could game work on men? And certainly, it should help people to understand how their minds work. There is a philosophical term for this: Bernard Lonergan called it "self-appropriation."

I am going to read Anon's comment again. And since Anon can write well, my suggestion to him is that HE write a book called "Game Made Holy: How Christian Men Can Successfully Woo Women." He will sell umpteen hundred copies. In fact, Anon, email me, and I will give you some names to whom to pitch your book.

Anonymous said...

theobromophile, I was specifically concerned with Game that exploits women's weaknesses. Not all Game relies so heavily on "push-pull", which is a phrase used by PUAs to describe the mixture of neg + flattery that they use to establish dominance over some women.

I am also concerned that nice women who know to stay away from flashy frat boys in clubs might yet be fooled by less obvious Gamers who flatter them in ways not immediately connected with their looks, who woo without spending huge sums of money.

I'm sure you can't protect yourself from men who are true sociopaths. But is it not possible, and effective, to take precautions against those who work by using your own weaknesses to capture you?


Bernadette said...

I would like to submit an addition to the list of types of Game, namely the But I Might Want To Be A Priest Game, whereby the guy constantly withholds himself, keeps the girl off balance and both trying to earn the guy's love and torn over her Official Catholic Approval of any vocation discernment. While I know that some But I Might Want To Be A Priest Gamers may be only acting out their fear of commitment, there are some guys who deliberately use it on NCGs. I know one young man who, to his credit, is now a vowed member of a religious order, who at one point deliberately told young women about his discernment early on "because of the interesting reactions." Apparently there are some girls out there who find a sufficiently attractive discerner a challenge, and act accordingly. Sigh.

On another point, I have to kinda agree with Anonymous. The scary thing, when I read Mystery's book, was how well I could see it working. I mean, I know a lot of very nice young men who just aren't very interesting. A little extra Game could help some of them transition over from I'll Always Think Of You As A Brother to There Might Be Something There.

The danger, as with any system for understanding the opposite sex, is when it's used to manipulate and deceive. I remember one particularly repulsive part of the book where Mystery details how to "train" women to accept physical intimacy by using positive and negative feedback to reward or punish them for either accepting or rejecting the man's touch. Now that's just gross.

dark but fair said...


I just wanted to clarfiy that I never said that women who are exploited by abusive men or sociopaths because they are stupid or weak. Usually the women who survive them are remarkably strong. I have never met one that I thought unintelligent. What I did say, was that they did not know that they were these good things. Or did not know enough. Nowhere did I blame them for being abused or exploited, all I said was, they were taken advantage of. Finding a chink in the armor, by definition, means that even in a good suit of armor, there is a chink. Sometimes the chink is just one wrong idea. We none of us are perfect. That is all I meant. Please note, also, I am speaking merely my humble opinion from my experience such as it is, with these matters.

Kate P said...

Just to clarify, Clare C--I was trying to offer support for coming off The Game, not chastising Anonymous.

Christine said...

@Anonymous - Please write that book. I'll secretly buy & read it. Please do some heavy marketing in the NY metropolitan area, as it would be great if men there learned some "holy game". ;-)