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.
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.