Late last week I found a post on the page ‘A Voice for Men’ that I responded to. The post was regarding the shaming of men who view adult content and the grief and problems it causes in the forms of overwhelming guilt and depression. I’ve made it pretty clear on my blog how I feel about adult content and what the bible has to say about the issues of lust, so I won’t go into that in this post (feel free to ask about it in the comments or find my other post on this blog).
One of the responses to my response, however, was from a guy who is, apparently, part of the MGTOW movement. If your not familiar, the “Men Going Their Own Way’ is a movement of guys who have basically decided that marriage and women in general are a no win situation. Many of them have vowed to never marry (though they still try to get sex whenever they can) while others have determined to drop any and all sexual interaction with women – period.
The response from the person was pretty clear: “God understands MGTOW.”
So, let’s look. Does God understand MGTOW? Or, rather, does He approve of the MGTOW mindset of avoiding and ‘giving up’ on women altogether?
First things first, let us understand that God gave us, men and women, a sex drive. That sex drive is a biological demand to satisfy the desire for intercourse, whether with another or by self stimulation. The bible shows us that God forbids men from satisfying this desire with another man, forbids satisfying this desire with blood family members and forbids men or women from satisfying this desire with animals.
God gave us this desire to fulfill His commandment to us in Genesis:
Genesis 1:
28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
God gave mankind the commandment to ‘be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth’. In order to do this He gave us marriage and sex, marriage being the proper forum for the act. Now, some people do not believe that this is a commandment but rather a blessing, but I think the text (taken from the KJV) shows pretty plainly that there are two things going on here.
- God blessed them
- God said unto (told) them
Whether you think its a commandment or not, it is obvious that God wants man to multiply, and He provided the avenue for it to take place.
Because of this commandment I don’t see how God would condone the MGTOW movement. Now, Jesus does tell us that some are born without the desire for sex while some are made this way by men (ie: castration):
Matthew 19:
11 But He said to them, “All cannot accept this saying, but only those to whom it has been given: 12 For there are eunuchs who were born thus from their mother’s womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He who is able to accept it, let him accept it.”
Even still, there are others who are celibate for the kingdom of heaven’s sake, not for the sake of ditching out on women because they are angry with them. Paul himself appears to be one of these, as he states in one of his letters:
1 Corinthians 7:
Now concerning the things of which you wrote to me:
It is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2 Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband. 3 Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6 But I say this as a concession, not as a commandment. 7 For I wish that all men were even as I myself. But each one has his own gift from God, one in this manner and another in that.
8 But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they remain even as I am; 9 but if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.
The first thing to note is that Paul plainly says that his words with regards to it being good for a man not to touch a woman are HIS words and not a commandment from the Lord. He reinforces his feelings on this by saying that it is good for the unmarried and widows to remain as he is for this reason:
1 Corinthians 7:
32 But I want you to be without care. He who is unmarried cares for the things of the Lord—how he may please the Lord. 33 But he who is married cares about the things of the world—how he may please his wife. 34 There is[a] a difference between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman cares about the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit. But she who is married cares about the things of the world—how she may please her husband. 35 And this I say for your own profit, not that I may put a leash on you, but for what is proper, and that you may serve the Lord without distraction.
Notice that in v35 he reinforces the fact that his suggestions are not meant to make the married feel as though they did something wrong, but as merely advice for those who seek to serve the lord! Earlier in the chapter he reinforces his assertion that those who are married or seek to be married have committed no wrong in doing so:
1 Corinthians 7:
25 Now concerning virgins: I have no commandment from the Lord; yet I give judgment as one whom the Lord in His mercy has made trustworthy. 26 I suppose therefore that this is good because of the present distress—that it is good for a man to remain as he is: 27 Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be loosed. Are you loosed from a wife? Do not seek a wife. 28 But even if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. Nevertheless such will have trouble in the flesh, but I would spare you.
The important take away from all of this is that Paul’s recommendation to remain unmarried is for one purpose only: To better serve the lord, and not over being angry with women or the current situation in society.
Because of Gods commandment for man to ‘be fruitful and multiply’, and Jesus’s assertion that few are those who have no sexual urges and Paul’s assertion that one should choose to remain unmarried only to concentrate on service to the Lord I don’t see how God would ‘understand’ or condone the MGTOW movement – from Christians! Naturally those who are not Christians are not held to Christian standards, and are free to do whatever they please, regardless of. As Christians we should do our best to adhere to the Lords commandments.
If ones sex drive is extremely low or nil then perhaps you are called to serve the Lord rather than marry, otherwise you may find it extremely difficult to suppress your natural sex drive, which could lead to sinful acts. This is why Paul suggests marriage instead of ‘burning’. Being married doesn’t mean you cannot serve the Lord, it simply means your priorities will be split between the Lord and your wife/family, which can lead to difficult times, but that never stopped those whom the Lord chose to use in the bible from fulfilling His purpose.
What do you think? Talk about it in the comments below!
(As an aside note, the AVFM page admin said that I was coming ‘dangerously close’ to being banned from their site for my comment, which was religious in nature. Though they allow SOME religious references, they do not allow preaching or proselytizing, which is fine and understandable, but my comment was relevant to the post, which pointed out the church as one of the entities shaming men for porn use. I don’t think I will be posting any other comments to their page.)
EDIT: I want to make clear that a low sex drive AFTER getting married doesn’t mean that God suddenly has decided that you should be serving the kingdom. If you are married your body belongs to your spouse, and if they want sex from it then they get it because you have committed yourself to be that avenue for satisfaction. Claiming a dwindling libido is caused by God wanting you to suddenly become a stronger Christian by denying your spouse sex is counter-intuitive and counter to Gods word, so I don’t recommend using it as an excuse.
Snapper's Domain 
I figure whenever I see anything like “comments must be respectful” and such, they’re not really interested in discourse — just interested in inane BS that already fits their own world view.
Well I have said the same thing on this blog many times, and I really do appreciate “respectful” comments. It just seemed odd that, at least in my eyes, my comment was relevant to the discussion, just from the POV of the religious. I even voluntarily backed off from going too deep down another rabbit trail BEFORE admins came in because I knew it wasn’t the time or place for another type of discussion (and I don’t like derailing the conversation). Even after that, at least two people told me I was close to being banned. No voice for this man, I guess.
People are threatened by anything, nowadays. It doesn’t have to be right, or wrong, or truth, or lies… it just has to be different, and they’re screaming their right to ignorance is being threatened.
Very much what I’ve been thinking as I’ve come across these MGTOW fellas. I am curious as to how well examined your take on 1 Corinthians 7:1 is. I’m still not decided myself, but I’ve come across the perspective that the statement “It is good for a man not to touch a woman” is what the Corinthians were writing to Paul about because of asceticism creeping in or something like that; I’m just going off my memory. All I know is that I take issue with some churches dogma that you literally can’t touch a woman because of this verse in a vacuum. Thoughts?
I think Paul’s reasoning for this opinion is justified in v32 and v34. Plainly put: The one who doesn’t have to worry about their husband or wife can concentrate, 100% on serving the Lord. Paul himself was one such person and, being as excited about the gospel as he was, he let that excitement spill over and was encouraging others to serve Christ as he did. However, he knows he is an exception and not a rule, thus he makes sure people understand that it is HIS opinion and not Gods commandment, and makes sure to let those who have already married or plan on getting married that there is nothing wrong with that.
I don’t know of any churches that teach literally “not to touch a woman”. In what manner are they teaching this? Man should not touch a woman he doesn’t know? A man should not touch his wife? I think plenty of scriptures that encourage plenty of touching between husbands and wives, but to teach that a man simply cannot touch a woman because of this verse is ridiculous.
I’ve heard it used to condemn any touching of a woman outside of marriage. From what I’ve experienced it was used to keep people from being tempted toward sexual sin or “lust”. I think it’s at least clear what he didn’t mean. It just seemed like a strange statement for him to make, even as just his opinion, when he could have only said what he said later and be even more clear. He could have left it out and we’d still come away with the same conclusions, no?
I think what keeps me on the fence about this is that this verse might be easy to still abuse within the interpretation you’ve presented. If I were to guess it’d be along the same lines of argument you use in the orginal post; There are two things going on here:
1. It is GOOD not to touch women.
2. And stay unmarried if you can.
This is even easier to do given there are 31 verses in this example vs it being in the same one. I do agree on your take of Genesis 1, but I’m not convinced quite yet of your take on Paul’s motivation. Perhaps verse 2-3 gives a hint at his motivation if you pair this with verse 1 being a premise the church in Corinth was holding to. Verse 2 especially seems to be more appropriately phrased, unless the Greek clarifies more, if it is telling them to let people express touching and more in marriage to avoid sexual immorality. Not even being able to touch a woman when you “burn” I think definitely brings temptation with it. Which gets further developed later in the passage as well. This depends also on if it can be shown to be false that the church in Corinth was struggling with asceticism.
I don’t have much issue with your take on this, but I think I’d need stronger reasons or there to be some decent defeaters to what I’ve presented in order to be tilted. Hopefully you can spot some holes I missed. If you are right I’d like to know. The more truth I uncover the more I know Yahweh. May we rejoice in our pursuit of truth!
be fruitful and multiply is an empowering fertility granting fiat to the existing organs, like let there be light and so forth, but while this is not a command that everyone reproduce the focus of sexuality as per Genesis chapter 2 verse 18 especially is the relationship that leads to sex which makes the two one flesh (I Cor. 6:16) and reproduction is an effect that is a side issue. Giving up on marriage if this means giving up on sex also because you can’t stand women instead of because you want to focus on God is not wrong in itself after all, if you can’t find any good ones then why settle for a bad one?
marriage is the death of love is the view of some and the reason is precisely all the fraud that goes on in getting into it, and the unnecessary change from a freewheeling loving relationship to a roles set up (which is an extreme form of the curse on Eve Gen. 3:15 and the roles ascribed to Paul is just pulling the teeth of abusive patriarchal male supremacist marriage, reversing the usual roles so the woman is not expendable and the man is nurturer instead of nurtured and tosses her for another or looks down on her).
one woman once said when asked why she never married “why do I need a husband? I already have a stove that smokes, a parrot that swears and a cat that stays out all night.”
Meanwhile, many MGTOWs are complaining of female unchastity and cheating, but are hypocrites because they will do sex and what I call parasexual acts (like oral sex) with women who belong, by marriage or by consorting, to another man. male unchastity is a problem MGTOW is ignoring yet without which most of their complaints wouldn’t exist – it takes an unchaste man to cheat with another man’s wife, or accept the invitations of a woman who is already consorted with another man.
and if women weren’t raised to marry with a view to being supported (contra Prov. 31 where early on we see the man is glad his wife provides such income from her activity that he is not tempted by “spoil” ( dubious means of making money)) then you wouldn’t have some take that view of life to its logical conclusion, skip the problems of marriage and go from well off to wealthier men.
I’m afraid I’m a bit lost on your writing style, but I will try to respond to your comment.
Reproduction is not a side issue of sex, it is one of the two main reasons God gave us the act. Reproduction as well as physical pleasure. Giving up sex to focus on God is honorable, and Paul tells us that he wishes we could ALL do this, like he has, but he also acknowledges that it is highly unlikely, as most humans have the burning desire for sex, and that sex is only permitted through the avenue of marriage.
Is marriage the death of love? If so then surely Christ no longer loves us, as marriage was designed to be a reflection of the relationship between Christ and the church! No, marriage is the embodiment of love, true love. Now, I don’t mean true love like the “love” you see in movies and television or read about in books (unless that book is the bible), but a love that is strong and weathers the storms. Marriage is not an “extreme form of the curse”, God placed Adam as Eve’s lord and master before the curse was placed! God gave Adam dominion over all the creatures and allowed him to name them, signifying his place as having rule over them, in the same manner He allowed Adam to name Eve, again signifying his rule over his wife. The curse which was place was that Eve would desire to control her husband, but that he would rule over her nonetheless! The curse was discord instead of unity! Eve acted in rebellion toward God, and that rebellion was amplified now towards her husband!
In fact, there would be no transition from “freewheeling loving relationship” until the recent century, when “dating” became a thing. Prior to that a girls father would select her husband for her, or, perhaps, allow several men to court her in which she would have SOME input as to who she would like to be married to, but in the end the choice was her fathers. This change you speak of is not biblical, as dating and such is nowhere mentioned in the bible. In fact, if you know anything about the culture of the time you would remember that a young woman being alone with a young man was frowned upon!
A woman who never marries is likely a woman who has never made herself marriage material. Few are the women who are sweet, feminine and obedient who go through life without a man somewhere taking a fancy to her. If I look around my own life at the women who never married it is typically because they have either shunned every request for marriage, having set their standards far too high, making most men unacceptable in their eyes, or they are unfeminine hags and have been for many, many years. They shun men altogether because they dislike men. Nearly ANY woman, 99%, can get married if she chooses to do so, with only a moderate amount of work. In todays society, however, women are told they either don’t need to marry or that they should NEVER have to work to gain the attention of a man. They should be naturally gaining attention simply due to the fact that they are women, which only works for a small percentage of the female population.
Yes men are promiscuous just as women are, that is nothing new. Fornication and adultery are rampant in todays society because overall people a) don’t understand what marriage is or how it works or b) don’t really care. Marriage has been turned into a grant from the state, a piece of paper that says “we are married” rather than the joining of two into one flesh by God. An unbreakable bond! Instead we think that cutting up that piece of paper from the government means we aren’t married anymore, but nothing is further from the truth. We have also devalued sex to mean nothing. Rather than the act that joins a man and woman together as husband and wife it has been reduced to a fun pastime between strangers, a mere biological act. All of society suffers for this.
Women being raised with a view of being supported is not a problem, as husbands are called to support his family. That being said, women being raised with the view of never having to lift a finger in their marriage IS a problem. Modern woman is raised to believe that they either need to learn to support themselves in case they end up splitting from their husband, or that their husband should provide everything and they should never have to subject themselves to getting a job, even if the entire family is suffering financially. A man should be working 2, 3, 10 jobs and be happy about it, even if the wife taking on a single job would fix the issue. She is told not to submit to her husbands command for her to get a job because its “not her job to work” if she doesn’t want to. If she does work then that money is “her money” and her husband has no right to it.
For men OR women to shun marriage is counter to Gods commandment to be fruitful and multiply. Some might see it as an innocuous thing, but look at where it has gotten the West, and even the East! Birth rates are extremely low, so low that some even think that on the extreme end, places such as Japan, the entire peoples may die off! The disruption of Gods design, with man as head and woman as his obedient wife, is causing problems.
What can we expect for ignoring Gods design?
Great post. I’ve always considered Jesus Christ as a MGTOW. He was all about this mission and purpose and didn’t waste his time dealing with women.
But he DID deal with women, just not in a romantic way. He didn’t have a hatred for them, but he dealt with them the way they needed to be dealt with. With some he showed compassion, others he flat called them out, but he didn’t pedestalize them. Over the week for “women’s day” (I hate even jus typing that) I saw plenty of Christians posting stuff about how God GLORIFIES women…..no He doesn’t. He cares for them, sure, when they aren’t making idiots of themselves, just like He does men, but the word says that man is the glory of God, not woman. And if God doesn’t hold man up on a pedestal, He certainly wont hold woman there either. God knows the nature of women, and it isn’t pretty. Good thing He gives us the opportunity to alter our nature through His grace.
Ecclesiastes 7:
I don’t have any problem with MGTOW: it’s just a fancy name for the fact that men are realising that modern women expect everything and offer nothing, and that in the eyes of society, men are disposable, interchangeable wage slaves. The media hates these men, of course, and portrays them as monsters.
I’ve come across many Christians who identify as MGTOW, and they seem to know Scripture better than most pew-warmers.
Despite what the traditionalists say, there really is no mandate in the New Testament to “go forth and multiply” — indeed, Scripturally the highest calling is to stay celibate and to devote one’s life to serving God.
But God gives us the option: if we marry, we have not sinned. …But neither have we sinned if we choose to stay single.
I don’t have issue with men choosing to go MGTOW, but for christian men its not a solution. Men crave sex and the only biblical solution is still marriage. I suppose a sex doll would be a good temporary solution, but it will never be the full solution.
I don’t think the highest calling is to remain celibate and devote ones life to God, I think either way, married or not, the highest calling is merely to serve Christ. Even Paul said,
“I wish you could be as me”, but he never indicated that his way was the best way or the higher way. Yes, not having to split your attention between Christ and a wife is probably a lot nicer, but most men cannot contain their sex drive, and they aren’t meant to, they are just meant to redirect it to the proper place.
I don’t think the highest calling is to remain celibate and devote ones life to God, I think either way, married or not, the highest calling is merely to serve Christ. Even Paul said, “I wish you could be as me”, but he never indicated that his way was the best way or the higher way.
Actually, yes, he did.
He said so very plainly in 1 Corinthians 7.
“I want you to be free from concern. The unmarried man is concerned about the work of the Lord, how he can please the Lord. But the married man is concerned about the affairs of this world, how he can please his wife, and his interests are divided.
BTW, why doesn’t BLOCKQUOTE work on your site? It’s awkward trying to delineate quotes from plain text.
He also says plainly in v25 that these words are his and not from God.
“25 Now concerning virgins I have no commandment of the Lord: yet I give my judgment, as one that hath obtained mercy of the Lord to be faithful.”
These are his personal feelings as a minister of Christ, that men and women not be hindered in service to the gospel by marriage, but God himself gave no such indication that married or unmarried is one higher calling than another. PAUL says he thinks it is better to remain unmarried, but God calls us to be married. If a man has a sex drive then he is called to marriage, imo, because a man can very rarely control his sex drive to the point that he can relinquish himself of it altogether or satisfy it on his own. Some men have been given the gift of not having a sex drive, as Jesus says when speaking to the Pharisees and his disciples in Matthew:
“12 For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.”
But overall if a man has the need for sex he should be seeking to get married lest sin overtake him. Married or not, neither is indicated to be a higher calling or station, from what I can gather.
Do you mean blockquote in comments? If so I have no clue, I thought you could always use formatting in comments, though I thought it only works if you comment on the page and not in the comments of your dashboard.
“He also says plainly in v25 that these words are his and not from God.”
Yes — I wasn’t arguing otherwise.
But Paul himself nevertheless sees celibacy to be the higher calling, since, as he says, celibates are more concerned with pleasing God than are those who marry.
One can argue that it was just his opinion and that he was wrong (at one’s peril!), but that is nonetheless what Paul said.
I’ve actually found this in churches myself — I’ve known people who’ve chosen celibacy, and they are far less concerned with worldly affairs and are far more devout than those who are either married or seeking a spouse.
And yes, of course, if a man cannot bridle his sex drive and is determined to have sex, then marriage (to a virgin or a widow) is his only permissible option. And since, as you correctly point out, most men cannot cope with living a celibate life, marriage is clearly the answer for them. …Assuming of course, that they can find an eligible wife.
“Do you mean blockquote in comments? If so I have no clue, I thought you could always use formatting in comments, though I thought it only works if you comment on the page and not in the comments of your dashboard.”
For some reason the BLOCKQUOTE tags do not alter the formatting of the text enclosed by them: it appears the WordPress theme used on this site doesn’t implement them in comments. You can see it for yourself, by trying to quote something in a comment. (It could be a CSS-issue). Instead one has to try to make text stand out using italics and putting quote marks around it instead (which doesn’t work very well).