According to my profile, I have been posting to this form since December 1st of last year. During that time, I have learned more than a few interesting facts, about subjects both familiar and unfamiliar. I have formed many opinions about subjects discussed here but have only shared a few. The subject of reluctant/unwilling wearing of chastity devices, however, has disturbed me profoundly. This is because being a willing wearer, I am very familiar with chastity devices but I do not want anyone to think that I approve or condone the idea of anyone being pressured into something they do not want. But equally, I do not want to offend others who are being forced by circumstances, to make unpalatable decisions.

Though I have no wish to offend however, I would encourage others to think about the ethics surrounding the reluctant/unwilling wearing of devices that cannot be removed by the wearer without access to keys etc. It doesn’t matter what these devices are. Ethically, it is about how the wearer is being pressured into being locked into something that decreases their quality of life and that they can no longer remove.

The issue is clearer for people who are above the age of consent; traditionally those over the age of twenty-one (or in some countries eighteen). Above such age, people in Western society are free to go out in the world and make their living. Though there are laws to limit exactly what a person can do to earn a living generally, providing that their actions do not cause harm to others or their property, they are free to do what they want. It thus makes sense that a person of such age is free to accept payment of some kind to have someone else lock something on their body even though they may not enjoy the sensation. Provided the contract is freely entered into, I have no issues with it.

The situation is far more difficult for people below the age of consent who may be judged too young or mentally unqualified to make such decisions. And once a person is incapable of surviving on their own without a support structure around them, their freedom of action is limited. Making such a person choose between having something locked on their person that limits their enjoyment of life, versus withdrawing the support structure that maintains their life, is for me utterly abhorrent.

From my perspective, adults that bring children into the world are ethically responsible to provide for them until the child can take care of themselves. This includes providing them with shelter, sustenance, and education to the point where they can become self-sufficient. In my view, this does not mean that the parent (or guardian) is free to structure their child’s life in a fashion that might harm the physical, mental or emotional development of the child. More specifically they cannot insist on their children conforming to a lifestyle that is outside of societal norms. Thus, to threaten to withhold shelter, sustenance and education to persuade a child to conform to a way of life outside of societal norms, is reprehensible, morally outrageous and probably against the law.

There are of course many areas where it is not so black and white. A parent has both a right and a moral duty to educate their child to a standard that can best help them survive when they “leave the nest” and enter society at large. But this “education” can easily take the form of undue persuasion to follow in the same footsteps as the parents – religion being an obvious example. But it also applies to moral outlook and politics etc. These can fall across a huge spectrum; from the extreme left to extreme right; liberal to conservative, atheism to extreme religiosity etc.

I believe that a better model of education is not to “indoctrinate” one view or another. Instead encourage the child to think for themselves, by asking them questions and demonstrating by example. It is a personal preference that I believe children should be educated to think. They need to learn how society functions and be familiar with the many philosophies that society as a whole espouses and also be made aware of the dangers of following those philosophies. They need to be cautioned against forming strong opinions until they have all the data needed to choose their lifestyle and become fully contributing members of society. The Socratic model of teaching has been an excellent teaching method for millennia and having the child choose their path based on learning is much more likely to produce a happy, informed and well-adjusted adult.

Sadly, I have never been a parent. My partner and I missed out on that. My views are thus not based on experience as such and I realise that being a parent is probably the most difficult job in the world. It is a job for which there is little or no training, and we generally only get to do it once and are never able to use the experience gained to be better at it next time.

Suffice to say, I am profoundly disturbed by many of the things I read on this site, particularly when parents are using threats to withdraw their sustenance and support. My only hope is that I can stir some readers here, into thinking about the ethics and morality of what they write here and only hope that this doesn’t devolve into the usual half or one sentence replies of trivial chat.

If the moderators think that this thread has no place on an unwed chastity forum, then I don’t mind if they delete it. At least I got to vent - smiles