Open question
MissBlossom How?
What's a problem if she lives in the same area?
- Edited
Renita
I would guess that for an involuntary wearer, the belt itself would be the problem, but I don't really understand.
I saw in the survey about whether you should wear a belt since you were single again, several involuntary wearers chose the most strict option, which also puzzled me. I would have expected them to dislike chastity, having had it forced on them, and to vote against it. I think only Christine voted as I would have expected.
People can be so surprising sometimes, but I learn so much from the surprises!
MissBlossom the belt itself would be the problem
Why location would make a difference?
Renita
If you live with someone, they can threaten to kick you out, or say "as long as you're living under my roof ..."
If you don't, they can't.
MissBlossom I saw in the survey about whether you should wear a belt since you were single again, several involuntary wearers chose the most strict option, which also puzzled me. I would have expected them to dislike chastity, having had it forced on them, and to vote against it. I think only Christine voted as I would have expected.
May I ask which survey you are referring to?
of course it was not meant for all singles, only for @Renita and at that time it was meant more as a joke (nobody knew that she would soon really wear a belt again). 
MissBlossom Then you are asking how could you insist someone wear a chastity belt if they live separately.
Renita
Yes, and it sounds like part of the answer is that she would risk being ostracized by her whole family.
MissBlossom I. Laura case, or in general? I think she is in a relatively unique situation where such a threat is possible.
Laura I guess it depends on the family. I know if my brother or sister asked us to ostraciz one of their kids over something like that, the rest of us would look at them like they grew s second head.
pestulens
Ah, family 
Now if you only could rely on family being always honest.
They might tell you to ostracize them for completely different reasons, that will sound very reasonable to you.
And potentially hard to verify reasons.
Family has the big drawback, from my experience:
- you do not get to pick them.
- they might share your last name with you. (Depending upon how distinctive your family name is, that means you get associated with say a black sheep, if you are unlucky, and said black sheep gains public notoriety.)
Nowhere in this list I see anything that would make family more honest than any random person 
Laura The family won't hurt you at least intentionally
George's point is that this may be true of many families, but certainly not of all of them. As he said, you do not get to pick them.
youdontknowme I can say so about mine
George All true, but you do know them. If you have a family member who is untrustworthy, you would know that about them in advance whereas with a random stranger, you don't.
