It’s been 15 months since my ex-wife blew up our marriage because feelings. When it happened I wrote a few articles on the subject as a way of attempting to understand what was happening, but since those initial jottings I have resisted revisiting the subject. I needed time to reflect and contemplate what had happened. Time to slowly digest the lessons learned and to reorganise my own thoughts about it all.
One of the first pieces that I wrote as a response to the divorce was a revisit of an earlier article that I had written, You don’t need game in marriage. My immediate assumption was that I had been incorrect in my earlier assessment. This lead me to the conclusion that game was in fact essential, or at least some sort of game during the marriage. Here is what I said at the time:
My incorrect assumption was that once you have frame then you’ll always have frame. Not so, grasshopper. You can lose frame in a moment.
That is still correct, but the idea that game is how you keep up your frame has not sat well with me in the time since I wrote that. Dalrock wrote about my plight and gently chastised me for declaring that I had failed to keep my wife.
If it were true that husbands are responsible not only for upholding their own vows, but also for making sure their wives always wanted to uphold their vows, then marriage vows would be a profoundly foolish thing.
This caused me to reevaluate and my conclusion got me part way to the truth, but as I realised later it wasn’t all the way to the heart of it.
My wife accused me of breaking something in her. This really hurt me at the time. What had I broken, how had I done so, and even more importantly, why would I do such a thing? There were no answers available; the accusation was inherently nebulous. I was just bad.
The fact is that happiness is not our default state and self esteem is just another term for narcissism. If you can catch moments of happiness in your life then that’s wonderful. Acknowledge them and then let them go. But searching for happiness as a default state of being is simple lunacy. In affect you’re no better than a drug addict.
Yes, this was correct, but as I have already stated, it wasn’t the whole of it. And so I let it sit. Time passed, many months in fact. And in that time I went back to the Catholic Church after an absence of some 35 years. Initially I went back for personal survival. This was bigger than me and I had nowhere else to turn, which was just as well as it transpired. I am not a man who wears his religion on his sleeve. I have no trouble stating it but I don’t do so for its own sake. It just is what it is. This is particularly because it took me so long to go back myself, but I needed to go back of my own accord. Nobody could have convinced me to return, so why should I seek to convince anyone else?
But return I did. And it got me thinking. Other writers have also returned to the Church in the same time as I did, Roosh V being one of the more prominent. He walked back his 20 year push of game and not just in a philosophical sense, but in a material way by discontinuing most of his books on the subject and thus most of his income. A true example of someone with skin in the game.
As Roosh and others have correctly observed, game reduces you to a monkey performing for a woman’s amusement, and it is a performance that can never end if you want to continue the artificial attachment. This was always my objection to game; I am not the sort to perform for my supper as it were, and thus I must return to the very first article I quoted above and conclude that I was correct; you do not need game in marriage. In fact, game in marriage is a clear sign that you have married the wrong woman for the wrong reasons.
But it’s not the whole story. Because without game, then what? Or do you just leave a vacuum? That’s not going to work. It’s like playing a football game and declaring that you don’t need to make fancy plays to win. Yes, that’s true, but you do have to score goals. So what are the goals? What form do they take?
The answer was in Dalrock’s article, it just didn’t register with me at the time.
If a man doesn’t believe in biblical marriage, then not only does marriage have no moral meaning, but the very idea of marriage is downright absurd.
You can lead a man to water but you can’t make him drink. And it’s taken me 15 months to take a sip.
My ex-wife and I had a godless marriage, and a childless marriage into the bargain. In other words, we had nothing at all. In that sense, her ending the marriage was a mercy killing. We were amusements for each other, all good while things were going well and the arrangement suited us, but ultimately devoid of meaning and substance. That doesn’t mean that her behavior was acceptable, but I no longer view her with the contempt that I did previously.
I think that we did well to keep it going for 10 years, all things considered. For we never had a chance from the very start. As Dalrock correctly observed, a non-biblical marriage is entirely devoid of moral meaning, so why should I have been surprised when my then wife acted in an immoral manner? I invited the disaster upon myself.
The conclusion is thus clear, and I have no problem in pronouncing it. Game is the antithesis of a healthy, stable and moral relationship. And a non-biblical marriage is an arrogant attempt to court disaster. You might save it by having children, but the stats aren’t in your favor there either. Only a biblical marriage with many children and centered on biblical patriarchy has a reasonable chance of succeeding in this most dangerous of spiritual times.
I am content and grateful for where I now find myself. I may find someone else or I may die alone. But at least I am not living a life of self-deception. Being at peace with my own circumstances is a nice feeling. You wouldn’t be dead for quids.