Offense & Defense

I was just paging through Pure Manhood, a modern Catholic work on chastity and chivalry by Jason Evert. I came across it randomly and was intrigued to check out a different perspective on being a man.

The book starts off pretty good, with a passage that could almost be mistaken for a Manosphere blog post. It talks about how lost our culture is, with men and women using each other for sex, when they really both desire deeper love and connection.

Fair enough.


The book then takes a hard left and veers wildly off course, as Jason Evert (whose picture you should Google immediately) decides to give us his advice about the proper way to treat a lady.

It’s too long to quote directly, but I’ll paraphrase the important points he lists:

— Realize that the number one thing a woman wants in a man is honesty, so always tell her your feelings and never hide anything from her.

— Always become friends with a girl and meet her family before beginning to consider any romantic feelings or acts toward her.

— When you want to ask a girl out, do it clearly and directly. “This honors the girl, because it takes the burden of rejection off her and places it on you. If she’s not worth the pain of rejection, then you don’t desire her enough.”

— Open doors for her, give her the better seat at the restaurant (a cardinal sin of Game, in my opinion), never look at other women, let her order first, keep the conversation “pure” and avoid gossip, pay for the meal.

“If you’re getting the feeling that you’re becoming a servant, you’re getting the right idea.” Yes, he actually says this.


Anyway, what I really want to talk about was inspired by the section “How Far Is Too Far?”

In it, Evert asks how far you would want to go with a girl you brought home to your couch.

Then he throws a curveball and asks how far you would want it to go if your sister was in this position with a different guy.

This got me thinking, and I quickly realized why his argument holds no water.


Offense & Defense

Just as a sports team must play both offense and defense– often two completely different skill sets that are both required to reach the unified goal of winning– so too do we pursue reproductive strategies of both offense and defense.

Offense is a strategy mainly pursued by men, and involves seeking out as many sexual partners as possible, in order to spread their seed far and wide. Women can, at times, play offense as well; their version consists of sleeping with multiple men to incite a “sperm war” and gain greater biological fitness from the strongest man winning.

A significant part of a man’s offensive strategy will be to push for sex whenever possible. His part of the act is low-investment, so it’s a smart genetic strategy to fuck early and fuck often.

Overall, reproductive offense comes down to fulfilling your biological imperative through primarily sexual, rather than social, mechanisms. And mens’ biological imperative is to reproduce quickly, efficiently, and as much as possible. Jason Evert says “God made man to love one woman.” I respectfully disagree.


Reproductive defense is a fairly obvious concept where women are concerned. They must guard their eggs and be as selective as possible in choosing a man, because they will be investing enormous time, resources, and risk in a pregnancy.

Male defense revolves around protecting our sisters and daughters– carriers of our precious genetic code– from inadequate males who don’t come close enough to optimal fitness. They might have genetic shortcomings, or give off signs of minimal willingness to commit.

A man who won’t commit risks leaving your sister or daughter in a vulnerable situation as a single mother, which in turn might force you to devote resources to this child, rather than more of your own. Plus it risks the well-being of the child (by being raised without a father), another important carrier of your DNA.


So although Jason Evert (and countless others) try to draw false parallels and guilt men into chastity, we can see that this is a fallacy. In fact, both men and women rationally pursue their reproductive goals with varying strategies depending on the situation.

When a man attempts to get a girl to go “all the way,” he is testing his own sexual value and fitness, in order to maximize it. This is not only his right, but his biologically-imbued duty. Survival of the fittest demands this behavior, and it is written into his genetic programming.

When that same man acts protectively toward his sister or daughter, he is not a hypocrite, but a biological being, rationally attempting to maximize his genetic fitness.

There is no paradox here, and nothing for men to apologize for. The way each of us balances offense and defense can fluctuate based on some other cultural and genetic factors, but in its simplest form, this is honest, explainable, and rational male behavior.

  1. Dick Balzac

    Good post. Googled Evert’s pic and I can just feel the beta clawing at me through the computer monitor. Though kudos to him for snatching that wife of his, she’s decently attractive.

  2. OMG! I just googied for pics of Jason Evert. I hate the looks of him. I did not think that was possible, but I realize what a socially systemic danger his values are to me. I feel shame, not for having that feeling of repulsion, but for being a nice guy repulsive to women and not having a clue how they felt with good reason, but then the propaganda and the consistent heartfelt lying of virtually all adults since my formative years is that overwhelming, isn’t it?

    The vested interests of our individual evolutionary needs is not to be trifled with. Nevertheless, I see the point of sex only within marriage, though it is draconian. If sex drives are not harnessed for civilized purposes, there is no civilization. Marriage is a construct necessary to build civilized relationships in general, which is why the definition of marriage is relentlessly perverted and altered by the fiat money gods. The no-maam blog covers marriage vis-a-vis culture in detail, so I need not say more, except that we had a totally fair and wise way to regulate sex, by marrying sexually privilege with its reproductive responsibility within the individuals concerned, individual accountability being the essence of civilized discipline. It used to be that a bastard concieved out of marriage was the womans’ privilege and responsibility and that ligitamite children were the domain of the father/husband by legal right and cultural mandate (of the patriarchy that made civilization possible).

    Where nanny boy goes wrong is in the catholic assumption of vested interest and feasible togetherness. Might makes right and evolutionary might is mightiest, by making exploratory garbage and then culling it. Culture that does not cull waste and harness assets well enough to compete and hold a niche does not deserve to live, period.

  3. henrymarsau

    You’re kind of criticizing a religious guy for being religious, cause Catholics are supposed to believe that we should raise our morals above our natural(those explained by evopsych) tendencies.

    • Author Dagonet

      He can believe whatever he wants to believe, but I’m gonna to hold him to the standard of what I believe to be truth. Also known as reality, and it’s a helpful place to start if you want to give useful advice. How many guys is Evert setting up for unhaaaaappy marriages leading to eventual divorce?

      Some Catholic doctrines stick to useful aspects of male & female dynamics. I believe John Paul II wrote some good things on the topic; I’m going to read that soon out of curiosity as well (even though I’m a Jew. I’ll have to find some Jewish literature on the topic to compare after).

      The point is, it’s negligent to set boys up just to be white knight servants, even to nice religious girls. Because within a few years, the girls will be “bored” (their pussies screaming for alpha cock), and they will find any justification to leave the marriage. Not in every case, but enough to make this advice destructive.

      • henrymarsau

        Yeah, I commented here cause I agree with what you say in general, just surprised at the context that you chose: expounding the virtue of being a reality-oriented biological being while discussing a Catholic work on chastity and chivalry. It’s like preaching paleo diet to vegan flesh-mortifying ascetics in caves. Otherwise, yeah, I guess that following traditional religions’ viewpoint on chastity while living in the modern world is setting yourself up for failure.

  4. I cosign with the comment that it is a Catholic writer writing from a Catholic perspective, and presumably to other Catholics. I suppose he could have said “Fornication is a mortal sin that will damn your soul to hell,” but he decided to be more politic than that.

    I think A Guy Maligned gives a pretty good description of how women should play “defense” with men on the sexual front at What Women Never Hear.

  5. A Man For All Seasons

    I googled his picture too. The first pictures that come up show him as kind of a dough boy, with effeminate features. I couldn’t believe he had a wife as good looking as he does. However, I looked at more pictures, and there are some where his face has a leaner look, and at least one where his full body is visible, and he has a reasonably good V shape. That guy is good enough looking to get the pretty girl, especially if he’s in a public speaking kind of leadership role.
    It’s the classic case of turning beta after getting married, and gaining weight, and having your T levels plummet. It’s the low T levels that make his face look disturbingly soft. I hope for his sake his wife is actually devout and loyal, because otherwise he’s seriously at risk of her having an affair. He needs to get to the gym pronto.

  6. John

    I haven’t read the book in question. That being said, as a devout Catholic and fellow red-piller, I wanted to say something.

    You say that men should push to have sex quickly, and with as many women as possible, in order to maximize their reproductive potential and spread their genes far and wide.

    However, the “player” lifestyle that you champion doesn’t maximize men’s reproductive potential at all. The players don’t want pregnancies to result from these conquests, and most of them diligently use contraception.

    So who has maximized his reproductive potential: the player who sleeps with 50 different women and has no kids, or the devout Catholic man who gets married and has 12 kids with his wife?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>