Chastity contract

pestulens

Spork I looked it up and it appears that so-called "human challenge studies" are more common than I realized, despite being controversial. Also, as I said, I don't know much about how Germany specifically would handle things. I am neither a lawyer nor German, let alone a German lawyer.

youdontknowme

I have taken a look at one British study done regarding Covid-19, and they had the following to say on quarantine:

7.1 What if I want to withdraw from the study?

You are free to withdraw from the study at any time you wish, however If you decide to withdraw your consent and “leave the study” during the quarantine phase, you will be very strongly encouraged to remain in the quarantine unit until you are no longer contagious. This is for both your safety and that of others whom you could infect as a contact. In this situation, we would continue to optionally offer you all procedures considered important for safety purposes by the study team but would stop any research procedures. This would include:

Regular vital signs

Medical review of any symptoms

Safety blood tests (but not research ones)

Rescue therapy (if being offered)

Remaining in the unit would therefore allow close follow-up by the study team and receipt of the rescue therapy. If you have to leave the quarantine unit before you have been formally discharged, you must self-isolate at home and avoid contact with anyone else until the discharge date (14 days after you were given the virus) as you will have been exposed to a strain of SARS-CoV-2 that is not widely circulating any more to avoid the possibility of causing an outbreak.

In the event that you decide to leave the unit early:

You will be strongly advised to self-isolate at home until you are no longer infectious and given advice about hand-washing and other infection control measures.

You should be collected from the quarantine unit in a private vehicle by a family member or friend so you do not expose the wider public to the virus. You should inform them of their risks of getting infected by you and we would recommend that you both wear a facemask for the journey home.

If you return home and there are other people in your household, they should be strongly advised to self-isolate for 14 days after you return home; this will be explained to you before you leave.

You may not be eligible to receive the rescue therapy (if being offered) if you leave quarantine before the planned date of treatment.

With your agreement, you will be contacted daily by the study staff (i.e. study doctor or nurse) via phone call to check on your health and to remind you of any self-isolation recommendations until the study doctors are satisfied that daily follow up can end. If possible, the study team may also visit you at home and perform swabs to check if you are still infectious.

The local health protection team may be informed of your return home and may contact you

Spork

youdontknowme The local health protection team may be informed of your return home and may contact you

That's the key bit, I think. That basically means they send the government goon squad around to lock you up.

youdontknowme

Spork Interesting way of phrasing it, but that is a very different legal justification from "contract said so". Also, situations in which people were forcibly and physically restrained to enforce government quarantine orders were not really seen at tgis stage of the pandemic in most places - only during the early outbreaks in China.

luhuixin

Avery you serve in your swimsuit?

Avery

luhuixin you serve in your swimsuit?

Yup.

luhuixin

Avery wow

Sasha

Spork I'm curious as to exactly what criminal law in what country you think it would be breaking

In US law a prosecutor would have a bunch of ways they could pursue this.
Battery, unwanted physical contact
Assault, an act causing injury. The possible chaffing and bruising from wearing a belt.
Sexual assault or battery, should be obvious.
Child abuse, intentionally causing emotional or physical harm to a minor.
Extortion, not likely but depending on the circumstances a person attempting to force a belts usage in exchange for something could be charged.
False imprisonment, intentionally restricting a person’s freedom of movement. This can be either criminal or tort depending on circumstances.
All of these would carry enhanced penalties where it involves a minor, or if the belts forced usage was motivated by factors protected under hate crime laws.
There are probably a few more I missed, but the tldr, don’t attempt to force a chastity belt onto an unwilling person

Spork

Sasha In US law a prosecutor would have a bunch of ways they could pursue this.

In many states in the US it's legal to pay someone to violently kidnap your children and take them off to forced labour camps where they punish kids with electric shocks.

Avery

Spork In many states in the US it's legal to pay someone to violently kidnap your children and take them off to forced labour camps where they punish kids with electric shocks.

This was shown in the very popular gangster series The Sopranos that was a fixture on US TV for years.

pestulens

Spork Those services mostly operate in a legal gray area. If a prosecutor wanted to bring charges against them they almost certainly could.

Spork

pestulens Those services mostly operate in a legal gray area. If a prosecutor wanted to bring charges against them they almost certainly could.

That's kind of my point. A lot of the posts in this thread are conflating morality and legality, and assuming that because something is immoral according to their viewpoint, it must be clearly and definitively illegal. As much as various people might not like it, pretty much every one of us here is atypically extreme in our views about consent and what parents are or are not allowed to do to children, and often that comes with an overly generous expectation of what the state will actually do about it when lines are crossed.

To give you an example, I was violently dragged to church every week until I was strong enough that my father felt he could no longer coerce me into doing it. One could argue that this is highly immoral, but also half the country would view it the other way: my parents would have been doing what is necessary to protect my immortal soul from damnation. One could also argue that it is illegal, but social services don't go after middle class families for that sort of thing until bones are broken. Realistically, forcing one's child into a chastity belt might get some increased attention because it might be considered to be a perverted sex act and would be the sort of thing the tabloids could write sordid articles about, but there's a big gap between "I consider this to be immoral" and "this is both illegal and going to be enforced".

pestulens

Spork Good point.

We usually don't make the semantic distinction between what the state can do and what it actually will when discussing this kind of thing and we really should.

youdontknowme

Spork I think there is a bigger difference between what the law says and what the law does than between what the law says and what we think the law should say. Especially when parents get away with pimping out their children, which is something every civilized country condemns.

Angelina

Spork What would the courts enforce?

it would depend on whether it was medically ethically correct. the comparison to a private chastity belt contract, however, is very far-fetched in my opinion

Spork That's kind of my point. A lot of the posts in this thread are conflating morality and legality, and assuming that because something is immoral according to their viewpoint, it must be clearly and definitively illegal.

do we agree that it is illegal to put someone in a chastity belt against their will? If so, then the contract would automatically be illegal from the point at which a court has to deal with the review of the contract at all, because at that point the person is definitely wearing the belt against his/her will

youdontknowme Might be the high role that freedom of speech plays in your version of human and civil rights that makes it difficult to legislate (and enforce laws) against verbal threats,

which is also reasonable, an opinion is not a crime

Spork in that it is legal to escape prison there.

of course it's legal, it's just almost impossible to do it without committing other crimes 😂

Sasha

youdontknowme That is a big part of the discussion.
The laws pretty clear in it’s wording, its application is still up to humans who are influenced by bias among other factors

Spork

Sasha The laws pretty clear in it’s wording

I've still not seen anyone post a specific example of a law that has clear wording.

Sasha

Spork I posted the literal definition on some of those. Battery for example, unwanted touching is battery. Most laws are pretty clear, at least it’s clear to me anyway, maybe it isn’t to most? Not sure

Jenna

I wanted to add my thoughts on this topic. I do have "contracts" with both @Susan and @Kate2 . We know that these are not to be considered legal binding contracts per se, but they are more like written agreements between us that spell out the duties and obligations for both keyholder and wearer alike.

Both of the girls know that I take the wearing of these belts seriously, and they know I appreciate the sacrifices each have made to wear them. Our agreements, which have been amended more than a few times, include everything from

The number of times out to the belt per week (varies, but monitored)
The amount of "me time" per month (1 hour)
Supervision when belt is removed
The process for exiting the belt permanently (2 week cooling off period to reconsider)
Emergency situations when the belt must come off immediately

These agreements are kept in my safe with the keys. We do review them and will make changes when necessary. Both of us must agree, sign and date.

In order for this to be a success, rules must be followed by both sides. I believe written agreements are the best way to do so.

youdontknowme

Sasha I mean, there are environments where corporal punishment is deemed acceptable and laws against assault and battery would not be enforced in such an environment unless taken to an excessive degree - maybe even with written exemptions.

Now, the use of chastity belts is such an unheard-of thing that I doubt there is any jurisdiction where you would find them specifically named in either legal code or court rulings, but that does not change the fact that use of the belt could violate certain other laws - which would however leave room for interpretation if such a thing ever came to court.

Finally, I find it rather interesting how often Americans draw the boundary between general hostility and crime at "touching". Might be the high role that freedom of speech plays in your version of human and civil rights that makes it difficult to legislate (and enforce laws) against verbal threats, while simultaneously needing a transgression that is less than bodily harm.

Spork

Sasha I posted the literal definition on some of those. Battery for example, unwanted touching is battery. Most laws are pretty clear, at least it’s clear to me anyway, maybe it isn’t to most? Not sure

You have not posted what an actual law says. You've said that battery is defined as either "unwanted touching" or "unlawful touching". Clearly it is not battery to accidentally touch someone once on the shoulder whilst on a busy train, even if that person does not want it. And if you mean "unlawful" as you said earlier in the thread, that just raises the question of what "lawful" means. So, things are not that simple.

The last time I did jury duty, someone was being charged with (amongst other things) carrying an offensive weapon, on the basis that, when attacked by a drunkard, they were alleged to have wielded a box cutter that they had been using as part of their job. A large part of the disagreement between the prosecution and the defence reading carefully into the detailed points of law regarding what counts as carrying an offensive weapon, including what counts as "carrying" and what counts as an "offensive weapon". The judge read the exact text of the relevant law out as part of the jury instructions, and spoke for over half an hour on how to interpret this and what case law had previously determined, and we still had to work out for ourselves whether or not the law would have been broken if we agreed with the prosecution's presentation of the facts.

Sasha

youdontknowme Typically how the law is applied is to make acts like grabbing someone’s arm or spitting on them punishable.
But as I said it’s up to the cops to determine if it’s meets the criteria, and a prosecutor agrees, and ultimately a judge or jury.
Laws are what they are, it’s the potentially biased human enforcing it that makes things complicated.

pestulens

Spork Part of the problem is that we have not been talking about the law in any particular jurisdiction, but in general. If you want the exact text of the law, you need to specify exactly where (and when but we can just assume 'right now')

Sasha

Spork You were debating the merits of the charge, against the circumstances and relevant case law, which is where it gets confusing and complicated.
This is why lawyers get paid so much and go to school so long. Because someone has to understand it.
There were a few times I got involved in things where a weapon came into play, and they had to work out possession among other things. Never went forward with that stuff though

Spork

pestulens Part of the problem is that we have not been talking about the law in any particular jurisdiction, but in general. If you want the exact text of the law, you need to specify exactly where (and when but we can just assume 'right now')

This is my point. As much as "unlawful" and "illegal" are being thrown around in this thread, nobody has provided the text of an actual law in any jurisdiction which says that putting a minor in a chastity belt is illegal.

« Previous Page Next Page »