PlaneShift
Fan Area => The Hydlaa Plaza => Topic started by: dying_inside on January 19, 2007, 03:24:12 pm
-
Right. SO long long ago some geezer thought his daughter was the person who wanted to go out and get laid, rather than the guys, and hell there probably where a few but come on. Mostly I'd be placing bets on the guys forcing themseleves onto girls, especially in those ages.
SO what did daddy do? He shoved a great iron pair of underwear on his little girl in an attempt to keep her "pure".
What this man didnt think of was several things:
One, that wearing a big pair of metal knickers would undoubtedly chafe like hell.
Secondly she cant actually go to the toilet now. I mean doing your stuff was kind of a tragic deal anyway, but still; how exactly where you supposed to go to the toilet in that?
Thirdly, she cant clean herself now..... Put up the banner folks, lets have a great big party called "I'm a great big target for any infection, disease and general nastiness". Every germ invited!
And so he gives his nice ten year old daughter to some guy who wants to keep her or somthing until she's comeof age. So several years go by and suddenly this guy realises that "Oh wow yey I have virgin! The height of purity!" blah blah blah. SO he nmarries her and that night unlocks her belt.
If this guy isnt blind, I'm gonna assume that the great gleeful expression he held before hand now turns to a look of horror as he realises whats happened to this girl over the course of many years....
It aint pretty ladies and gentlemen.
His fires all burned out and he know brandishes a religious symbol of some sort and backs away slowly muttering the words "Bloddy hell, I'm not going near that...."
So,
Did mpeople learn from this?
What was their lack of forsight aboiut anyway? Surly even with limited knowledge they shouldhave realised that somthing screwy would happen.
And whatever else you like in relation to chastity belts.
-
ok that is just sick... I guess it's some sick dumb ignorant parent who would do that -.-'.
Although I think that the girl should be taught some things and informed rather than forced with achasity belt. She should chose who she wants to lose her virginity to not her father :/.
-
ok that is just sick... I guess it's some sick dumb ignorant parent who would do that -.-'.
Although I think that the girl should be taught some things and informed rather than forced with achasity belt. She should chose who she wants to lose her virginity to not her father :/.
This was mostly done in the medevil period. But strill it is wrong. Even for their levels of macho ownership of women, and lack of knowledge about hygene and such, its not exactly hard to look at a begger on the street corner and see that putting your child in a state similar, if not worse, than that is going to result in somthing bad.
Logic and common sense dont need education. They just need a small amount of brains.
-
ok that is just sick... I guess it's some sick dumb ignorant parent who would do that -.-'.
Although I think that the girl should be taught some things and informed rather than forced with achasity belt. She should chose who she wants to lose her virginity to not her father :/.
This was mostly done in the medevil period. But strill it is wrong. Even for their levels of macho ownership of women, and lack of knowledge about hygene and such, its not exactly hard to look at a begger on the street corner and see that putting your child in a state similar, if not worse, than that is going to result in somthing bad.
Logic and common sense dont need education. They just need a small amount of brains.
There is no proof chastity belts were worn in medevil times, but they were used in the Renaissance period.
The period of the chastity belt's diffusion to Europe beyond Italy, and of its relatively most common use (though this was still quite rare), was the 16th century and the 17th century — so that the classical historical chastity belt can be more accurately described as a "Renaissance" phenomenon, rather than "Medieval".
The uses of male and female chastity belts were to prevent masterbation, extramarital sex and as a sexual enhancement aid. Men who were going to war would put one on their wife before they left, not only to prevent an affair but to prevent rape.
Belts are still used today more than you would ever have imagined, they are still given as wedding gifts in some cultures. ::|
In April, 2002, the Uwe Koetter Jewellers company of Cape Town, South Africa completed and delivered a spectacular diamond and pearl-encrusted chastity belt made of gold to a British customer. The belt cost reportedly cost R160,000 and was a wedding gift from a husband-to-be for his bride to wear at their wedding
There are web comunities based on the chastity belt http://www.lockmeup.com/
Strange but true.
-
Damn I'd heard somwhere that it was all dark ages medevil whatever.
Men going off too war oputting belts on their wives? I assume they took the keys with them?
I assume that if they get shot the wives are screwed? (Well... not literally...)
And not only is that a strange wedding present its also scary that there are web communities about this :'(
Heh.
-
You really expect someone to argue the virtues of chastity belts? :P
Besides, they're not these big massive iron yokes like in a Monty Python film. That's just comic exaggeration. They're more like little straight-jackets for your loins :D Probably more comfortable than some of the things women wear nowadays...
So
One - They wouldn't chafe much more than normal underwear
Two - You can usually go to the toilet out of them. If not, tell your daddy and he'll unlock you.
Three - Those hygiene products didn't exactly exist back then. And again, it's unlockable.
But that's not me arguing that it's a good idea, I'm just pointing that you suck... :P
Edit: This took me a while to post... turns out the server really doesn't like Monty P...
-
Chastity belts were nothing less than torture devices.
Metal underwear is anything but "more comfortable than some of the things women wear nowadays".
-
Chastity belts were nothing less than torture devices.
Metal underwear is anything but "more comfortable than some of the things women wear nowadays".
Such a black and white view from someone living today, with little perspective on life back then.
-
Chastity belts were nothing less than torture devices.
Metal underwear is anything but "more comfortable than some of the things women wear nowadays".
Such a black and white view from someone living today, with little perspective on life back then.
And yet I'm right.
-
Actually, chastity belts were neither too horrible nor too comfortable :P back then, they were quite common, and therefore no one took much notice... As for hygiene and such, i'm not sure they were worn unless the man went away somewhere :P
-
Actually, chastity belts were neither too horrible nor too comfortable :P back then, they were quite common, and therefore no one took much notice... As for hygiene and such, i'm not sure they were worn unless the man went away somewhere :P
Know what else was common back then? Burning people at the stake and mutilating any woman who showed an enjoyment of sex.
Being common doesn't make something right.
-
Know what else was common back then? Burning people at the stake and mutilating any woman who showed an enjoyment of sex.
Being common doesn't make something right.
Lol, being common is the very definition of what makes something right.
Back then, burning people at the stake was 'right'. In the classical period, pitting Christians against lions was 'right'. In the early 1900s, modestly covering your ankles was 'right'. In modern day, executing terrorists is 'right'.
'Right' is just a word people use when it's unanimously agreed that it should be done. What's 'right' is always changing; whether it be by the church, the government or the media.
And besides, these were like thongs with a padlock. Not all that bad.
But, I'm not addressing the immorality of using one, just the misconceptions.
-
Lol, being common is the very definition of what makes something right.
Back then, burning people at the stake was 'right'. In the classical period, pitting Christians against lions was 'right'. In the early 1900s, modestly covering your ankles was 'right'. In modern day, executing terrorists is 'right'.
'Right' is just a word people use when it's unanimously agreed that it should be done. What's 'right' is always changing; whether it be by the church, the government or the media.
Tell that to the victims. I'm sure they'll treat you "justly".
-
Lol, being common is the very definition of what makes something right.
Back then, burning people at the stake was 'right'. In the classical period, pitting Christians against lions was 'right'. In the early 1900s, modestly covering your ankles was 'right'. In modern day, executing terrorists is 'right'.
'Right' is just a word people use when it's unanimously agreed that it should be done. What's 'right' is always changing; whether it be by the church, the government or the media.
Tell that to the victims. I'm sure they'll treat you "justly".
I'm not saying that it's a good thing. I'm just saying it's how the world works. Our beliefs conform to whomever's in charge. You can fight it, but ultimately you'll spend your life doing so.
-
If someone is causing suffering to other human beings, then them being ok with it does not make it right. It's sadistic, and it's wrong, even during the period in history we're talking about, and I see no fault in saying so.
-
Destroying a town and all its population because of one man, isnt right, but people are still reading about it and saying to this day it is ok.
-
If someone is causing suffering to other human beings, then them being ok with it does not make it right. It's sadistic, and it's wrong, even during the period in history we're talking about, and I see no fault in saying so.
Yes, it's sadistic and wrong by today's standards. But my point is those 'standards' change with the times. Your mother or father or guardian teaches you right from wrong at an early age. As do their parents. Your perception of what is right is heavily influenced by your environment.
In fact, with the right drugs and behavioral conditioning, I could easily strip away your morals and shape you how I see fit...
-
If someone is causing suffering to other human beings, then them being ok with it does not make it right. It's sadistic, and it's wrong, even during the period in history we're talking about, and I see no fault in saying so.
Yes, it's sadistic and wrong by today's standards. But my point is those 'standards' change with the times. Your mother or father or guardian teaches you right from wrong at an early age. As do their parents. Your perception of what is right is heavily influenced by your environment.
In fact, with the right drugs and behavioral conditioning, I could easily strip away your morals and shape you how I see fit...
Yes, I'm sure all those women who were burned at the stake for being witches would agree with you whole heartedly. Everyone at the time thought that such activities were entirely moral.
Getting away from that point, I never said that there weren't people at the time who saw such activities as acceptable. Obviously some people thought it was acceptable because there were people doing such things.
-
Lol, being common is the very definition of what makes something right.
No, being common is what makes something right in the eyes of the majority. Quite unfortunate for the minority who, because of common opinion, now lose their birthright of deciding right and wrong for themselves.
That said, I take your point to be* that 'right' is subjective. My personal definition of 'right' may differ greatly from yours. Personal right becomes a wrong, in my opinion, when it's being forced upon others in any shape or form. That includes burning at the stake, and various other things done to people over the course of history.
So, while I might burn someone at the stake because I suppose them to be a witch, I believe that I am doing the right thing. Being that I'm forcing *my* right thing onto someone else, it is wrong.
Of course, if I were to burn myself at the stake because I was a witch and that was my right thing to do, that's right. However "wrong" it may be in other's eyes.
In other words, nothing wrong with consensual chastity belts. ^_^
* I in no way claim to actually know what your point is, this is just how I interpret it.
-
It was a different time and hygene wasn't exactly amazing back then, anyways.
I agree that it was wrong but what Emerald is getting at is that in hundreds of years things we do that we believe are right may look wrong in the eyes of future people.
Long live the modern chastity belt
(http://www.funnyhub.com/pictures/img/secure-panties.jpg)
-
Oh that is just awesome! :D
Where can I buy one? I can buy one, right?!
-
The password is luuuv.
-
It was a different time and hygene wasn't exactly amazing back then, anyways.
I agree that it was wrong but what Emerald is getting at is that in hundreds of years things we do that we believe are right may look wrong in the eyes of future people.
Exactly. And not only that, but if I pump you full of enough drugs, or tamper with your brain in the right way, I could make you think it was 'right' to kill your own mother.
Anyway, I would wear a chastity belt over a thong anyday...
-
Exactly. And not only that, but if I pump you full of enough drugs, or tamper with your brain in the right way, I could make you think it was 'right' to kill your own mother.
That doesn't make killing right, it makes killing right in the mind of the killer.
-
Exactly. And not only that, but if I pump you full of enough drugs, or tamper with your brain in the right way, I could make you think it was 'right' to kill your own mother.
Do you, emeraldfool, PERSONALLY BELIEVE that forcing women to wear chastity belts is ethical?
Do you, emeraldfool, PERSONALLY BELIEVE that it is ethical to cause suffering to others?
-
That's completely unrelated to what he is talking about, Zanzibar.
The question you should ask is:
Did people back then personally believe that ...
Because that is what Emerald is getting at. The concept of right is an ever changing one. Capital punishment is "right" in some places and "wrong" in others. Women being objects was "right" in the past.
What is "right" is dependant on culture. Many things that are done in the middle east and are believed to be "right" there are considered "wrong" here.
-
That's completely unrelated to what he is talking about, Zanzibar.
The question you should ask is:
Did people back then personally believe that ...
Because that is what Emerald is getting at. The concept of right is an ever changing one. Capital punishment is "right" in some places and "wrong" in others. Women being objects was "right" in the past.
What is "right" is dependant on culture. Many things that are done in the middle east and are believed to be "right" there are considered "wrong" here.
Ultimately, you can say that morals are entirely relative and have no physical basis of reality and therefore can't be prescribed by science; they are entirely social in nature.
However, don't misrepresent the facts. Black slaves didn't believe in slavery, even when it was widely accepted. Women didn't appreciate being burned at the stake as witches, even when it was widely accepted. Moderates don't wish to suffer the evils of fundamentalist governments, even in the cases where moderates are indeed the minority.
I would further argue that there is a certain common ground among all these different situations that connects them together to say that there is something universal that tells us that such victims are victims of injustice and immorality. But such isn't a materialist position and therefore it's open to criticism.
-
Exactly. And not only that, but if I pump you full of enough drugs, or tamper with your brain in the right way, I could make you think it was 'right' to kill your own mother.
That doesn't make killing right, it makes killing right in the mind of the killer.
True. I'm just showing how little morals really mean. Humans, as a species, were designed to hunt and mate. Morals, or what is 'right', is purely a result of society, culture, and your growth environment.
However, don't misrepresent the facts. Black slaves didn't believe in slavery, even when it was widely accepted. Women didn't appreciate being burned at the stake as witches, even when it was widely accepted. Moderates don't wish to suffer the evils of fundamentalist governments, even in the cases where moderates are indeed the minority.
That's true. But that's not what we're talking about. Nobody wants to be a slave, or be burned at the stake; just like nowadays, nobody wants to be hung for being a terrorist or a serial killer.
Are you saying that terrorism and serial murders are a good thing?
No, because currently, in our society, terrorism and serial-killing is defined as 'wrong'. Just like witches were in the earlier days.
This is what we're trying to tell you; everything you believe as 'right' has been taught to you by your parents of this century. You could never understand what it was like to live in that time.
-
That's completely unrelated to what he is talking about, Zanzibar.
The question you should ask is:
Did people back then personally believe that ...
Because that is what Emerald is getting at. The concept of right is an ever changing one. Capital punishment is "right" in some places and "wrong" in others. Women being objects was "right" in the past.
What is "right" is dependant on culture. Many things that are done in the middle east and are believed to be "right" there are considered "wrong" here.
Ultimately, you can say that morals are entirely relative and have no physical basis of reality and therefore can't be prescribed by science; they are entirely social in nature.
However, don't misrepresent the facts. Black slaves didn't believe in slavery, even when it was widely accepted. Women didn't appreciate being burned at the stake as witches, even when it was widely accepted. Moderates don't wish to suffer the evils of fundamentalist governments, even in the cases where moderates are indeed the minority.
I would further argue that there is a certain common ground among all these different situations that connects them together to say that there is something universal that tells us that such victims are victims of injustice and immorality. But such isn't a materialist position and therefore it's open to criticism.
However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way. (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl's owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)
Aperantly slavery is ok ???
-
Back when the bible was written, yes. That's actually a pretty good example of what I'm talking about. The Good Book...
-
Ah, yes. Th moral Zeitgeist. Its quite a strange thing. Just to think that one hundred years ago we would look at someone who thought themselves equal to another race the same way we look at a racist today. Crazy stuff! Well anyway, the bible. I'm not trying to ruffle any more feathers but the bible is no source of morals. Its filled with horrible stories and the very fact that we can tell the good from the bad in the bible means that we all have the criteria to decide whats right an wrong without religion. Pascal had it right when he sad good people will always do good and bad people will always do evil but religion is the only thing that can make a good man do evil.
-
Um... not to digress, but doesn't anyone else think 'sexual fetish' when they hear about chastity belts?
Or am I just horribly perverse...?
-
thats not the frist thing that comes into my head when I hear about them altough some people do use it for that purpose.
-
thats not the frist thing that comes into my head when I hear about them altough some people do use it for that purpose.
Right. It's either that, or that 'Robin Hood and his Merry Men' movie with the huge iron chest locked onto the woman's... area.
-
/me votes for Robin Hood: Men in Tights.
-
This is what we're trying to tell you; everything you believe as 'right' has been taught to you by your parents of this century. You could never understand what it was like to live in that time.
Prove it. Prove an absolutist negative. I dare you.
Aperantly slavery is ok ???
I don't believe in the bible.
Back when the bible was written, yes. That's actually a pretty good example of what I'm talking about. The Good Book...
There were people back then who were both for and against slavery. There were people 200 years ago who were both for and against slavery. There are people today who are both for and against slavery. In fact, there are more slaves alive in the world today than ever lived during the 300 years African peoples were enslaved in the Americas.
Does that make slavery ok? No.
-
/me votes for Robin Hood: Men in Tights.
That's the one...
This is what we're trying to tell you; everything you believe as 'right' has been taught to you by your parents of this century. You could never understand what it was like to live in that time.
Prove it. Prove an absolutist negative. I dare you.
Wait... I'm not sure what an 'absolutist negative' is, but are you saying you do understand what it was like to live in that time, or that you're not sure and need proof of what century you're from...?
S'far as I can see, everything we know about the past is gotten from bones, broken pottery, biased manuscripts and ruined buildings. How're we supposed to be sure of anything?
-
Wait... I'm not sure what an 'absolutist negative' is, but are you saying you do understand what it was like to live in that time, or that you're not sure and need proof of what century you're from...?
S'far as I can see, everything we know about the past is gotten from bones, broken pottery, biased manuscripts and ruined buildings. How're we supposed to be sure of anything?
I'm saying that emerald can't really prove all his claims, even though he's essentially correct. We can't really know what it was like without having lived it ourselves. That said, life wasn't the same for everyone back then, and it would be silly to think that everyone agreed with eachother on everything.
As far as knowing stuff about the past... we have more than just bones and pots. We have art, literature, historical accounts... lots of stuff.
-
Wait... I'm not sure what an 'absolutist negative' is, but are you saying you do understand what it was like to live in that time, or that you're not sure and need proof of what century you're from...?
S'far as I can see, everything we know about the past is gotten from bones, broken pottery, biased manuscripts and ruined buildings. How're we supposed to be sure of anything?
I'm saying that emerald can't really prove all his claims, even though he's essentially correct. We can't really know what it was like without having lived it ourselves. That said, life wasn't the same for everyone back then, and it would be silly to think that everyone agreed with eachother on everything.
As far as knowing stuff about the past... we have more than just bones and pots. We have art, literature, historical accounts... lots of stuff.
Well yeah, I guess, but then by your logic everything is right, because for every thing, there's always someone somewhere who's believes it's right. So, thusly, it would be 'wrong' to discriminate against the sicko who likes to cut off innocent people's heads and do a voodoo dance around it, because who are we to say that's not right?
I understand where you're coming from; everyone has their own beliefs - but there will always be a sole set of beliefs underneath it all - passed down from your parents, like Mr. Fool said - that will make you not wanna kill folks, and help people, etc.
Beliefs inherent in our society - just like burning witches was in the past. Presumably. Otherwise it wouldn't have been such a wide practice...
-
Well yeah, I guess, but then by your logic everything is right, because for every thing, there's always someone somewhere who's believes it's right. So, thusly, it would be 'wrong' to discriminate against the sicko who likes to cut off innocent people's heads and do a voodoo dance around it, because who are we to say that's not right?
I understand where you're coming from; everyone has their own beliefs - but there will always be a sole set of beliefs underneath it all - passed down from your parents, like Mr. Fool said - that will make you not wanna kill folks, and help people, etc.
Beliefs inherent in our society - just like burning witches was in the past. Presumably. Otherwise it wouldn't have been such a wide practice...
Moral relativism doesn't really say that "everything is right"... it's more of a statement that right and wrong are values which are "audience dependant".
Personally, I view witch burning as a practice used by a group of people with power designed to subjegate and eliminate anyone who dared think outside the box. But yeah, there were people who believed in it back then, I'm not debating that. I just don't see what the point of discussing it is because the fact that some people aproved of it doesn't make it seem any better in the eyes of people who see it as reprehensible.
-
The way you identify whats right and wrong is different to the way people in the past have and people in the future will. Thats the moral Zeitgeist. There is no steadfast right and wrong. Just what the people of that time in history percieve as right and wrong. Naturally there are exceptions and not everyone is under the spell of the moral Zeitgeist like the people that are victem to supposed good eg. witches. Were it not for the exceptions it would be stagnant.
-
The way you identify whats right and wrong is different to the way people in the past have and people in the future will. Thats the moral Zeitgeist. There is no steadfast right and wrong. Just what the people of that time in history percieve as right and wrong. Naturally there are exceptions and not everyone is under the spell of the moral Zeitgeist like the people that are victem to supposed good eg. witches. Were it not for the exceptions it would be stagnant.
See, Z; 4 against 1 - you lose. You've amounted to nothing as a human and your opinions are worthless. Fall to your knees and weep!
(I'm joking, naturally :P)
-
I wasn't disagreeing with him :P
Just explaining my views on morals in relation to time.
-
I wasn't disagreeing with him :P
Just explaining my views on morals in relation to time.
Aww... c'mon. Come to my side... for me? *batts eyelashes*
-
Depends on whats in it for me :P
Wait no. I'd have to read the whole thing then. No.
-
Parallo is a bard and thus has immunity +2 to enchantment.
-
How did you know I was a bard? Did the music give it away?
/me resists enchantment.
-
How did you know I was a bard? Did the music give it away?
/me resists enchantment.
How quickly we forget...
I know all.
:sorcerer:
-
Psch, I thought it was the bard's calling to "Quest for coin and cleavage" :P
(God I love that game...)
-
Um... not to digress, but doesn't anyone else think 'sexual fetish' when they hear about chastity belts?
Or am I just horribly perverse...?
Oh hell yes. Why do you think I clicked this topic? :P
-
How quickly we forget...
I know all.
:sorcerer:
...
Stop doing that :P
Um... not to digress, but doesn't anyone else think 'sexual fetish' when they hear about chastity belts?
Or am I just horribly perverse...?
Oh hell yes. Why do you think I clicked this topic? :P
I certainly got an eyeful when I checked the wikipaedia entry...