Milord So I have to be very careful in explaining to him the risks, so he can understand and protect himself, and stay sane and healthy. What is the alternative solution? Preventing him from having sex by caging him?
I agree that this is a much better solution. Considering physical restraints is bad enough, but using them without even having explored that option is just madness.
Milord A parent knows that this will never work this way. If values are not accepted, will be very soon discarded along with parents, and in any case, no religion accepts removing temptations. The current pope says "Without temptations, no one can be saved".
That is the nuanced but hostile view I had in mind. It is not the act that damns a person, it is the state of not even trying to avoid it. By outsourcing self-control to another person, you essentially give up. By coming in as another person and interfering, you are not given them the chance to be a better person.
But there are religious traditions that make the pope look like a hippie at Woodstock.
Milord Yes, but again, a parent should know and acknowledge that sibling happiness came before ours: I can think that being a lawyer will give more possibilities to my son, but if this will make him unhappy while being a kid teacher is his aspiration, I will have to do a step back. Again, putting the child first. Any parent should adhere to this to the best of his possibility. Also you can force your idea of what is best on a kid, or teen, but on a adult… if he doesn’t accept forcing him will just make him weaker (because he has to surrender to you) or alienate him (because he will not accept it). A parent loses in both cases.
A fairly modern view, but throughout history, the expectation that a son will learn his father's trade has been pretty common. People from a strongly authoritarian background will not easily accept that postulate, and while I consider their perspective worse than yours, you will need some arguments as to why a momentary surrender leads to lasting weakness. There are some that say that discipline is achieved by crushing a person and then building them up from scratch, so that the person who has been subjugated can grow stronger than the insubordinate person ever was. It is a lot harder to argue against that than it is to just postulate that a person grows stronger with affirmation.
Milord It should never be even considered an option.
I have already explained why it's deadly wrong.
In the next years, when children will grow and become adults, we will see. Even if I hope to be wrong, I'm pretty sure that a lot of belting parents will not be able to understand why, old and frail, their children will leave them alone and forgotten.
.
I do not think I know every situation a person may find themself in. So it is possible that there might be some remote fringe cases where there may be justification for physical restraint. But if it exists, it would be much more rare than anything we have seen in this forum. I do not believe that for anyone who posted here about being locked against their will, the situation has been so dire that non-consensual intervention would even be remotely close to appropriate. It feels like calling riot police on someone crossing the street illegally.
And even where it may be justified, forced chastity is unlikely to be much help in instilling values. It can only treat the symptoms, but unless the wearer decides by themself that the behavior that landed them in the device needs to stop, they will free themself and return to their old lifestyle as soon as they can get some independence from their parent, with the belt only serving to estrange them.
