Oh the folly of chastity belts.

[dying_inside]

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.

[Peacer]

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 :/.

[dying_inside]

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.

[LARAGORN]

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.

[dying_inside]

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.

[emeraldfool]

You really expect someone to argue the virtues of chastity belts?

 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 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...



Edit: This took me a while to post... turns out the server really doesn't like Monty P...

[zanzibar]

Chastity belts were nothing less than torture devices.

Metal underwear is anything but "more comfortable than some of the things women wear nowadays".

[LARAGORN]

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.

[zanzibar]

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.

[Farren Kutter]

Actually, chastity belts were neither too horrible nor too comfortable 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

[zanzibar]

Actually, chastity belts were neither too horrible nor too comfortable 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

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.

[emeraldfool]

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.

[zanzibar]

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".

[emeraldfool]

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.

[zanzibar]

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.