Tjc Freedom is an unalienable right almost everywhere in western, civilized places. But freedom has limits and consequences. If you have a 1 year rental contract, as you suggest, you are certainly "free" to leave after three months but you are legally responsible to pay the remainder of the rental or some sort of penalty for leaving the contract early. These provisions should be specified in the rental agreement before it starts.
Ultimately, most western civilizations have the idea that there are certain limits to contracts, rights that cannot just be traded away for payment. Monetary obligation is one thing, but being able to trade your personal liberty would lead to debt slavery and most societies our members live in have long come to the conclusion that "they agreed to it, so they deserve it" is not the appropriate response to that.
Now, sexual freedom, while recognized as a right either explicitly or implicitly in some countries, is rarely named as a right that is so very unalienable. However, a belt is about more than simply about not having sex. It is also about personal liberty and bodily autonomy, both rights that are more commonly held sacred, and sometimes about physical and mental health, which are considered an important right to defend pretty much everywhere.
The way I see it, there will probably be very few jurisdictions where any provision in any chastity contract would ever be legally enforcible - especially in a parent-offspring relationship, given the power imbalance involved. But you have a point that, as a mutual declaration of will, all participants should feel compelled by their honor to uphold such a contract to the best of their ability. Quitting because the wearer does not feel like wearing drastically lessens the merit of having a lock on the belt after all. However, to be conscionable, I would argue that any chastity arrangement, whether or not governed by a contract, should fulfill a few provisions based on the principle of consent:
- It needs to be freely entered by both sides with no coercion or manipulation (duh)
- There should be an exit clause that provides a way out within a reasonable timeframe, for example if the wearer's life situation has changed or their experience wearing the belt has been negative.
- If the belt causes obvious physical or emotional distress, it comes off immediately and the wearer and keyholder get together as soon as possible to discuss how to proceed safely.
The two last points are essentially a somewhat weakened form of the principle of revocable consent. No means no and stop means stop, but this modification can be a tool for wearers who do not trust themselves to not abuse the ability to revoke consent.
