Why it is wrong for a parent to use chastity on offspring.

youdontknowme

curious There are plenty of possibilities for use between consenting adults with no risk of dependency abuse that are neither inherently fetishistic nor imbued with the same abuse potential as a parent with a personal interest in controlling their offspring's sex life. Warning about the dangers of such power imbalances is not the same as only accepting a narrow range of uses as valid, or, God forbid, sexualizing the non-erotic dynamics some members here have as kink play.

Kaja

youdontknowme Love

Joh

curious As a fetishist / BDSM interested part his whole perspective is alien to this forum and he simply does not belong here and his constant arguing in each and every thread against all non-BDSM use is tiresome and simply annoying especially considering, that the entire purpose of this forum is about exactly what he is against.

His point of view is not purely BDSM but is based on well-founded and conclusive arguments. And that makes them very much right in this forum.
On the other hand, I find your way of categorising any other view of things that do not correspond to yours as very narrow-minded or even presumptuous.

curious

Joh
His perspective to this forum is alien. As alien as that of an atheist would be in a church.
I might find the idea if a God wrong, not founded in any way by common sense and certainly not supported by any empiric science. But just because I am convinced that I am right and many others share my views, that does not give me the right to go to a place dedicated to exactly those views I object to (i.e. a church) and argue constantly there how wrong everyone is.

Technically speaking, of course the Internet is open to everyone. But so is a church.
If you cannot see why despite your right to free speech it is wrong to go to a church to proclaim atheism would be the only reasonable way, I am afraid your parents have skipped the lesson of tolerance.
And exactly the same applies here with this forum. By name this forum is about chastity before a wedding, so with few exceptions it is exactly about that dynamic between parents and offspring he (and obviously you too) are against.
Still, the fact that this forum is explicitely dedicated to this subject makes those who's only business to be here is to argue against this, trolls by definition.

Kaja

curious You can (even you have to) do it when somebody will use God (or gods) to defent some dangerous and evil ideas.

Joh

curious Our forum is not a church and so your comparison is obsolete.

The forum is for everyone who wants to discuss chastity, the wearing of chastity belts and related influences in daily life. This also includes opinions that are contrary to yours. You will have to live with that as I don't think you will find a majority who support you.

Angelina

curious

I don't agree with him on everything, but you have to remember that (even if he is a fetishist), he is still a father who can empathize with a parent/child dynamic. And he also addresses arguments that do not correspond to his opinion

curious By name this forum is about chastity before a wedding, so with few exceptions it is exactly about that dynamic between parents and offspring

that was the original idea. i think today i would choose a different name, a few things have changed for the worse, but that's not because of the critical voices.
But you made me laugh, now I imagine myself, as a convinced atheist, storming a church 😂

Milord

curious His perspective on this forum is alien. As alien as that of an atheist would be in a church.
I might find the idea if a God wrong, not founded in any way by common sense and certainly not supported by any empiric science. But just because I am convinced that I am right and many others share my views, that does not give me the right to go to a place dedicated to exactly those views I object to (i.e. a church) and argue constantly there how wrong everyone is.

Technically speaking, of course the Internet is open to everyone. But so is a church.
If you cannot see why despite your right to free speech it is wrong to go to a church to proclaim atheism would be the only reasonable way, I am afraid your parents have skipped the lesson of tolerance.
And exactly the same applies here with this forum. By name this forum is about chastity before a wedding, so with few exceptions it is exactly about that dynamic between parents and offspring he (and obviously you too) are against.
Still, the fact that this forum is explicitely dedicated to this subject makes those who's only business to be here is to argue against this, trolls by definition.

I forgot to answer this.
Church and forum that's easily disproved. A church is a place where the truth is revealed to people that listen to it and accept it as dogmatic
No discussion
No confrontation
No challenging the truth

This is a forum. Not a website, not even a blog. But a forum, and a public one. A forum is not a place for revealed truth, it's a place where ideas are challenged and discussed. Comparing it with a church is totally notwithstanding.

@curious and chastity since you continue to challenge my right to stay here, can you explain in which way you are tied to parenting chastity? Of course I will never think that this is not your place. I'm a guest here, it's not for me to decide who is welcome and who is not. But for someone that is so vocal in pointing out who is entitled to speak and who is not, it will be nice to share your situation.

Kaja

curious What you were you say it wery dangerous.

Milord

curious To those who read that, please don't follow his line of argument. You cannot conclude that everyone ageees just because people don't want to engage in a discussion with him.

You are right. I corrected the point from "everyone agree" to "noone challenged so far" that seem more appropriate.

WriterAlexis

Angelina

now I imagine myself, as a convinced atheist, storming a church

I operate as an insurgent.

youdontknowme

Angelina But you made me laugh, now I imagine myself, as a convinced atheist, storming a church 😂

WriterAlexis I operate as an insurgent.

Okay, here are some important notes.

Our enemies are the institution, not the general population nor the buildings that are part of our civilization's architectural and artistic heritage, so:

Do not attack civilians
Avoid substantial damage to the church's structure
Remember, bishops move diagonally. Knights can line up attacks however they can, but queens should only threaten rook moves. Do not rely on being defended, a queen is more valuable than a bishop. You are safe if your tile is a different color than the bishops.
They have some tricks up their sleeve though. Some have oriented the board such that they can move up and down the aisle quickly: https://bilderfahrzeuge.hypotheses.org/4031

Milord

Angelina I don't agree with him on everything, but you have to remember that (even if he is a fetishist), he is still a father who can empathize with a parent/child dynamic. And he also addresses arguments that do not correspond to his opinion

Thanks a lot @Angelina for pointing out. If I had to name what’s more important for me, being a father is the first thing. By far. And my thoughts are much more influenced by being a father. You are totally and completely right.
But just to know your opinion, I don’t know a single feticist that actively oppose the object of the fetish. Feticist normally push toward use of their fetish at all cost.

WriterAlexis

youdontknowme

I have been required to meet with the bishop before.

He's a shrewd man. I cannot theologically debate him toe-to-toe.

Angelina

youdontknowme Okay, here are some important notes.

I hope you understand that I was joking and not actually storming a church 😂

Milord Feticist normally push toward use of their fetish at all cost.

right, but in the way you want, if I had a fetish for living room tables, then any other type of use than that which sexually arouses me would be completely out of the question and boring

Milord My position is aligned with the forum. Discussions arise about what is considered “enforcing”.

Mine agrees with the one in the forum too and yet there are a lot of discussions, I think you're right, what does enforcing mean? what do we mean by that?

youdontknowme

WriterAlexis I mean, that is kind of the point of a bishop, is it not? I would not expect someone with a (literal) layperson's experience in theology to be invested as a bishop.

KarimM

Milord I have no right to reply to your annoying nonsense.

Milord

KarimM of course you don’t have to reply. But you write here, expressing your opinion on my ideas. Some are good, some are wrong for you. Most are wrong. Asking which one is wrong and why is pretty legitimate.
Anymore, since it’s nonsense, it should be pretty easy to disprove them.

Milord

curious As others and I have said before:
As a fetishist / BDSM interested part his whole perspective is alien to this forum and he simply does not belong here his constant arguing in every thread against all non-BDSM use is tiresome and simply annoying, especially considering, that the entire purpose of this forum is about exactly what he is against.
It is simply a 'don't feed the troll' approach not to enter into a discussion with the likes of him.

Me and BDSM. I had a false idea on this forum when I started. I apologized profusely for mistaking this for a kinky forum. An error in good faith, but since then, acknowledging that it is a different thing entirely, I never talked again of kinky stuff. I’m much more interested in parental relationships, being a father, and chastity as a life choice, which I find fascinating.
You claim that I’m against every bdsm use. This is a lie: I’m perfectly fine with every consensual chastity use; I’m only against parental use of chastity enforced on their offspring. I still find it unhealthy to belt a daughter (or son) even if willingly, but besides pointing it out, I’m perfectly fine with this too, as you can see in various interactions I have.

Forum purposes: the purpose of this forum afaik is to talk about serious, nonkinky, chastity. But minors and unwilling uses are not welcome: from Ines's post:

https://unwedchastity.org/d/846-useful-links-in-case-of-abuse

@Ines “No one has the right to enforce to wearing of a chastity belt to another person.  If you are in that position, you are the victim of abuse. Ask for help”

My position is aligned with the forum. Discussions arise about what is considered “enforcing”. As a father, I have a pretty precise idea, and we discuss where the line is. For some, it’s a very clear one. For me is blurred, and reluctant wearer should be not be belted. But so far discussions have been mostly constructive. Except when you jump in with your false accusations. And besides this, who gives you the right to speak in the name of the forum? You have been appointed admin? Moderator?

Trolling: seems to me that a lot of well-established users honor me with their answers.
This topic has more or less 180 posts. You and another user publicly you want to share nothing with me. You continue to jump on my posts to offend me whitout adding to the discussion. Who is the troll?

youdontknowme

Milord Forum purposes: the purpose of this forum afaik is to talk about serious, nonkinky, chastity. But minors and unwilling uses are not welcome: from Ines's post: @ines No one has the right to enforce to wearing of a chastity belt to another person.  If you are in that position, you are the victim of abuse. Ask for help.

That link got lost at some point during copy/paste apparently. Would be nice if you marked the quote in another way or added the link back in.

But yeah, there have been several times where our moderators have made it clear that this forum does not support non-consensual use or allow content regarding the sexuality of minors.

Milord Discussions arise about what is considered “enforcing”.

I would distinguish between "enforcing" and "forcing". Enforcing means making sure previously agreed-upon rules are adhered to, which is pretty much the purpose of putting a lock on the belt in the first place. Forcing means rules were decided by one side and the other side was not given a choice whether or not to accept them.

Kaja

Milord Love

Milord

youdontknowme I would distinguish between "enforcing" and "forcing". Enforcing means making sure previously agreed-upon rules are adhered to, which is pretty much the purpose of putting a lock on the belt in the first place

“Enforcing” is the term used in the post from @Ines, but you are right. Of course of I'm against forcing, not against enforcing freely negotiated rules

Tjc

youdontknowme I would distinguish between "enforcing" and "forcing". Enforcing means making sure previously agreed-upon rules are adhered to, which is pretty much the purpose of putting a lock on the belt in the first place. Forcing means rules were decided by one side and the other side was not given a choice whether or not to accept them.

I think this is a important distinction. Forcing implies one-sided decision making and enforcing suggests one person holding another person accountable (perhaps physically with a locked belt) for something they decided on together. The person wants to do something (remain chaste, not masturbate, do well in school) but needs help provided by the "enforcer".

I understand (and agree with) what @Ines meant in the linked post but I think that the actual wording and choice of "No one has right to enforce to wear a chastity belt to another person." is a result of translation. I interpret this to be "No one has the right to force a chastity belt on another person" or "No one has the right to force another person to wear a chastity belt". I hope @Ines will correct me if I am wrong.

« Previous Page Next Page »