Natescage Custodial rights are not carte blanche to do whatever you want. That is why CPS exist. Human rights violations or crimes against your own children are still illegal if you are their legal guardian. But again, to get free, those kids would need to get contact to the outside world and find an adult in authority who believes them what kind of awfulness is going on there. So even though there are laws against child abuse, good luck making sure they are enforced.
Chastity belt law
youdontknowme this
Many "state inspections" are done by people who live in the area and don't want to anger to locals by shutting a facility down that provides money and jobs.
Angelina and yeah I mentioned it partly because some girls feel chastity belt is so awful haha. But the cult that started this in the us, syannon, has a branch still active in Germany.
Natescage Many "state inspections" are done by people who live in the area and don't want to anger to locals by shutting a facility down that provides money and jobs.
And I would also believe that many authority figures in areas where those camps operate may also honestly believe that the abuse is better than the alternative, like gay kids being able to live as themselves.
Natescage and yeah I mentioned it partly because some girls feel chastity belt is so awful haha. But the cult that started this in the us, syannon, has a branch still active in Germany.
well, our laws against this are very good, almost too good. what my father is doing is not really legal either and i think if such things were to happen in germany, there would be a huge scandal.
Max9 I'm pretty sure they're not.
unfortunately i think so too, that's why i wrote that the psychological wounds will probably never heal completely. 
HHelen How about divorced or a single mom?
Mom thinks they should treated as never married.
Christine Mom thinks they should treated as never married.
somehow i don't like this statement. i mean your marriage failed, but you had a reason why you got married. i don't think that divorced women should be considered like unmarried women because they have already had the experience of marriage.
Angelina also because when someone is belted for preventing sex before marriage it doesn't actually make sense... because ... you already had been married and you already have had sex... that means you are not a virgin anymore and there's no virginity to protect. It only makes sense if you consider sexual activity out of a marriage to be wrong. But why shall it be wrong? Ok, maybe as a prove that you are a person who doesn't whore around, but ... idk ...
To me, the actual problem with it is that you get divorced in the first place. Marriages are a holy bound in front of god, a pact for life and that lass forever, even when life is over. Ok, when you have given each other the promise but one person did act to be different in order to make cash, then you gave the promise to a non-existing person and the promise is obsolete. But when you're just like .... oh, he doesn't bring home anymore as much money as before or like oh, he got a bit lazy or fat or idk and I met a better one ... that's just ...
i agree with you completely on the first part. on the second part you seem to be getting a bit worked up. you can't control love, it's there or it's not. not everyone makes the promise to god (i won't) and for me marriage doesn't mean love until death, but the promise to try everything to make the marriage last until the end of life, but no one should be unhappily married.
Angelina Depends on whether your objective is to preserve virginity or to prevent unmarried sex. If the objective is the latter, then it only matters whether the person is married now, not whether they have been in the past. Same with widows.
Angelina yes, but then it can happen that a woman stays in the belt until she dies, scary idea or marries a man by force in order not to die as a virgin.
Right,it would not be very good in such cases...
As it would be a dystopie,I guess it would mean back in the chastity belt.
It was meant about the wearing of chastity devices.
youdontknowme Depends on whether your objective is to preserve virginity or to prevent unmarried sex. If the objective is the latter, then it only matters whether the person is married now, not whether they have been in the past.
Right.
i agree with you, but my answer was not really related to the goal of the belt, but only my opinion on the mother's statement.
Vanessa It was meant about the wearing of chastity devices.
I know I took the sentence out of context, but that was my intention, because this sentence is simply wrong (my opinion).