Lana If you want to stop abuses against women, you punish those who do that severely and send them to jail.
We already do that, and it is not effective against people who only think about consequences after the act, who believe themselves invulnerable until they are caught. The use of chastity devices would in this case be similar to how certain states (and most European countries) restrict who can sell firearms and to whom, or the fact that you need a licence to drive a car - you need to demonstrate that you can responsibly use a tool before you are allowed to handle it. I also believe that crime prevention is about the only justifiable reason why the government should be interested in promoting the involuntary use of such devices.
Lana Most women wear or is made to wear is because they want to be protected.
Protected from what, exactly? Also, if it is in the wearer's own interest to wear the belt, why would the government force people to wear them with no release? I guess there are precedents for that in seat belt law, but blaming any case of unwanted sex on a woman inadequately protecting herself (which is a baggage your gender-unequal law proposal would carry with it whether you intend for that or not) is quite dangerous.
Lana Few loose women are just as perverted as men who lock themselves in a cage, they are called as whores.
So women with a higher sex drive are automatically less of a woman because of it? And prostitutes are no real women either? Because to me, that is what your post sounds like to me.
[unknown] When I say control,I don't mean domestic violence. I mean every decision or change we make should be approved by our parents when we are young or approved by our partners when we are married. That's just how life works for the majority of women.
That can still be abuse even if no physical violence is involved. Obviously parents have some justified influence on how their children live their lives while those children are minors, but for married adults, unless the "approved by partner" thing goes both ways (or both sides willingly consented to a more one-sided approach), it may be an is, but it is definitely not a should.