Avery I mean, in the parent-offspring case often discussed here, the most obvious limit to enforcability is the power imbalance between the parties (and, if that offspring is a minor, their lack of legal age). However, even in communities where chastity agreements are commonly made between consenting adults, it is still generally assumed that such contracts are unenforcable. Probably because they represent an invasion into bodily autonomy that is widely considered unnecessary, and thus it is considered unethical to restrict a person's bodily autonomy like that. Just like a person cannot consent to slavery or mutilation, it could be argued that being made to wear locking devices infringes on a person's unalienable rights.
Of course, making a statement that it is not enforcable is all an assumption until it is tested in court, but what we can say is that
- there is a significant chance such an agreement is not enforcable, and
- the value of such an agreement is not defined by its enforcability.
