WriterAlexis you could not be too old: after a certain age it’s impossible to keep someone in reluctant chastity like you: they will just refuse and sent to hell parents / relative to hell. I’m 30 and no force will put me in chastity if I don’t want to
Of course i want to obey, so in case I will be ordered it will be 100% willingly
Commitment to chastity
I appreciate your perspective and, yes, about three to five days has been about where I've been at over the past months. That being said, part of my commitment and why I write here is that I would like to extend this to the point where it is (more of) a sacrifice.
You're right about porn. I find the porn that is commonly available today is sensory overload, and that's by design. It is well known that much of it produces chemical and emotional responses that are highly addictive - lots of dopamine and adrenaline. When I do look at porn it is still images, and often not involving nudity. But yes, I would like to abstain. I also have a pretty good imagination! So I'm well able to rely on it; and sometimes still take my own good time! I love to make a story.
Oh dear… Haha!
Even by the standards of the bare, contemporary notions of love – Hallmark or Hollywood love – the concept of love crumbles when posited as a transaction. Such a “love” is more accurately described as occupying a place somewhere in the nexus between “desire”, “want”, and “need”. I doubt a Valentine card printed with “I love you because you look good on my arm, have witty repartee, and wealthy parents” would sell. As I consider even the contemporary rom-com, if this ethic is there it is as a sidebar, attendant to these qualities simply being popular in motion pictures. Nonetheless, Casablanca?
To go beyond this conception, Erich Fromm writes well on how the doctrine of self-interest and exchange has seeped in to “love” (in ‘The Art of Loving’), drawing on Georg Lukacs’ insights in History and Class Consciousness. Just because it is a widespread way of practicing “love” does not make it love. To be even more expansive, what would Aristotle say? Shakespeare? Jesus? Mohammed? Buddha? Confucius? To approach your definition, we might ask Barbara Cartland or Jilly Cooper, but even then, the protagonists (in my admittedly very limited knowledge) seem to be prepared to lose every material comfort for their love, so I might even be wrong about this.
The reason why Cartland and Cooper might be a little closer to “love as transaction” is because it is not the “human condition” but rather a tendency of human behaviour and emotional landscape in this iteration of human society, in which exchange is the central point. To approach this, we might ask what might the practice of love looks like in, say, the Persian Empire, among the tribes of the Amazon basin or the South Pacific before colonisation (whose economy was predicated by gift), or in Oldowan when humans first emerged. We might also take a critical perspective, for I am not proposing some sort of unalienated love in a nostalgia, what about in British feudal society, either among the peasant or lord class, or in the 18th century? What is the transaction in a mother’s love?
Nonetheless, I know that my love is not part of a transaction and I see love everywhere that is not transactional – of neighbours, parents, dog owners…. Socialists love people who they don’t even know and who they will never meet. Humanists too. Unselfish love is a pillar of all the major religious texts and of many of their practitioners.
Sartre says ‘to not choose is to choose’. It is worth exploring the idea that if we do not choose an active practice of an authentic love, worthy of the name, we choose to deny ourselves love. In exchange for ephemera; to have rather than to be. We only get one go round on this planet and I’m not prepared to abase myself like that.
I doubt a Valentine card printed with “I love you because you look good on my arm, have witty repartee, and wealthy parents” would sell.
And yet most behave in this way.
As I consider even the contemporary rom-com, if this ethic is there it is as a sidebar, attendant to these qualities simply being popular in motion pictures.
The primary function of Hollywood is to invest capital into a project that will result in maximalized box office and streaming sales, and possibly merchandising opportunities down the line. This process is often conducted at the expense and treatment of the majority of its laborers, hence the current SAG and WGA strikes. This has always been the case with Hollywood since its inception. (I recently got my paws on Babylon.) The only time Hollywood serves as a moral compass or effects positive social change are the production of various documentaries, where that is maybe a secondary objective, if that.
Nonetheless, Casablanca?
Jilted man (possibly more cynical than me) chucks his former flame onto a plane never to see her again.
Woman wanted by the authorities vacillates between professing love for two different male characters when the first can help her escape the Germans in Paris, and the second can help her escape the Germans in Morocco.
Just because it is a widespread way of practicing “love” does not make it love.
No true Scotsman fallacy. If we are discussing a theoretical form that is not practiced, is it really love either?
what would Aristotle say?
I would argue that the form of the thing that is actually practiced is more representative of the Aristoteliean formal cause which defines its categorization. Not a hypothetical alternative because you dislike it.
Shakespeare?
Macbeth and Lady Macbeth. Antony and Cleopatra. Albany and Goneril. Henry VIII and Katherine. Richard III and Anne. Possibly Arden and Alice.
Not a great track record.
Jesus?
While the man himself may have had an excellent admonition of how love should be, I cannot help but notice the level of corruption of his message regarding love in 100% of his followers I have ever encountered. (Again, no offense intended against forum members.) But they are at best clueless and empty pabble (I'm married to Christ!) or worse, malicious hypocrisy designed for self-enrichment or predation. Or at the very worst, militant calls to ethnically motivated violence. No, I think I've had several lifetimes worth of hearing about "Jesus's love." I'm good.
Mohammed? Buddha? Confucius?
I do not have as much background on these to comment on specifics. Hopefully I will get a chance to study the texts more thoroughly in the future.
The reason why Cartland and Cooper might be a little closer to “love as transaction” is because it is not the “human condition” but rather a tendency of human behaviour and emotional landscape in this iteration of human society, in which exchange is the central point.
All human interaction is fundamentally an expression of the class struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, who at present hold all of society's wealth and means of production.
among the tribes of the Amazon basin or the South Pacific before colonisation (whose economy was predicated by gift)
Their economies were predicated on basic survival. Primitive hunting/gathering and fishing is a brutal, difficult existence. It is characterized by food insecurity, disease, and the forces of nature besetting you. Your continued support by you family/tribal unit is dependent on your utility to that unit. If you think it is easy to get by in such conditions, try watching Alone sometime.
or in Oldowan when humans first emerged.
Oldowan has left us stone tools, but we have no human artwork dating to that period. It is wildly inappropriate to support assumptions about love or other expressions without any archeological evidence. There has recently been some fantastical claims about the funerary practices of Homo naledi that have entered popular culture and clickbait headlines, but academia has thoroughly denounced them as being completely unsupported.
what about in British feudal society, either among the peasant or lord class, or in the 18th century?
Possibly the height of transactionality. Land, livestock, title, issue, dowry. Women bought and sold as property and used to ensure a male lineage. Regarding the peasant classes (this class struggle sure ain't new, is it?) I haven't come across any texts describing the emotional motivations of common law marriages, but if anyone knows of any, please send them my way.
What is the transaction in a mother’s love?
Biological imperative. You are the vehicle of genes, and those genes have been naturally selected to promote behaviors that will selectively benefit their replication and continuity. Any Richard Dawkins book can tell you that.
Nonetheless, I know that my love is not part of a transaction
I'm happy for you.
I see love everywhere that is not transactional
I see a dog eat dog world where everyone's flexing.
Socialists love people who they don’t even know and who they will never meet.
I'm tryin' my best over here, chief.
It is worth exploring the idea that if we do not choose an active practice of an authentic love, worthy of the name, we choose to deny ourselves love.
Deny ourselves? Probably. Hell, it can be more extreme than that. Some of us even hate ourselves most of all. Could possibly be unworthy of love. Now there's a deep hole to reflect into.
We only get one go round on this planet and I’m not prepared to abase myself like that.
The planet goes round whether we abase ourselves or not. I just choose to do it with both eyes open, unblinded by superstition or fairy tale. The forces of heaven and earth may conspire to silence my witness, but I remain compelled to share it regardless.
Simon Perhaps you might have insights on physical discomfort, sexual frustration, key arrangements, and - very much - anything else that I have not considered but which you feel are important.
I think no device will ever be comfortable.
Frustration comes, you will have many urges, but after a while it will be better.
Important is nothing to do or see, what can you do horny.
My key is in some thermoplastic, so it's not easy or fast to get it free.
Only open it for a shower if it's necessary, and you feel no urges.
Simon These periods have been short because the biological quirk of being male is that I produce semen continually and this tells my body to release it, by messages of sexual frustration and the attendant physical changes. I hold the key to my device myself, as I don't wish to put that burden on a friend, nor to disclose this very personal part of my life to them. So, of course, when these two characteristics that are attendant to chastity grow, then it is relatively simple to allow temptation to take the lead.
I always laugh when a guy says he's a male and males must release. Always thought that was an excuse to get in my pants. Or somebody's pants.
Sorry about that. I have some serious suggestions. I too hold my key and have, with a few fails, been chaste for a little over two years. Some things I can recommend that I have done.
I don't go to bars and don't drink any alcohol. Both things weaken my resistance.
I no longer dress sexily. The idea of putting on pink thong panties and not wearing a bra just make me think sex.
I often sit at the back of a classroom away from boys. It helps keep them out of my head.
I shower in public whenever I can. This means at a communal shower facility at the gym. Thus I keep my hands off myself.
I don't sleep in my belt but I keep it handy under my bed. If my hands begin to stray to the wrong body parts while I'm lying there I get the belt and put it on.
I don't go near porn.
I'll post anything else I can't think of now but I found I needed to change my habits. We've talked here about how Muslims remain chaste. One answer is their whole society (in Muslim countries) is set up to help people resist sexual urges. I found I had to change my little world in the same manner.
And, seriously, this time. Put the idea that I'm a man and I have to have it out of your mind. I could fuck half the guys on campus just by asking. But I don't.
Avery I always laugh when a guy says he's a male and males must release. Always thought that was an excuse to get in my pants. Or somebody's pants.
Or their own pants. Any such perceived need is most efficiently taken care of by masturbation. Not exactly in line with the teachings of many churches, but neither is having sex with someone who is not a monogamous partner.
But yeah, that stuff will release itself through things like wet dreams eventually (leakage is not the same fluid). And most of it gets reabsorbed by the body anyway. Personally, I prefer semi-regular masturbation over random wet dreams (due to ease of cleaning up), but anyone who thinks their bollocks will burst if they do not orgasm for a while is talking... just that.
- Edited
Hello!
I would make sure you clearly define your chastity goal. A virtue is a living thing, an ornament for your soul that you keep forever. I’d say as a virtue it’s also a spiritual gift, I have to ask God to grant it to me and be willing to work for it. Avoiding porn (and anything close to porn), masturbation and sex outside of marriage are the fencing. The chastity cage is a tool to help enforce the fencing. There are a bunch of benefits to chastity, it’s a step in the direction of love. You might be addicted to your sexual behavior, so take the attitude of never giving up on chastity because It may take years of work to make significant progress.
I don’t wear the cage often but I would say that for me the testicle pain is minimized when the diameter of the base ring is as small as it can be without cutting off blood flow. It stays secure if it is snug.
- Edited
Simon weighs a lot. So it will pull down as I move around during the day, w
There are straps you can buy on amazon. I got one myself, they are really useful. They are especially made to ease cage-wearing for men.
I personally prefer to date in communities of the same interrest as mine is. So, for example, if you have a hobby, try to find a group of like-minded people and get to kbow women there. Or go to a church community of an averange age close to yours.
Then you get to know people there - and when you find someone you're interrested in, just get to know her better and better 
Dating apps are senseless. You spend a lot of time with one person exclusively, one afer another, just to find out it's not the right one - whereas you could get to know many women at the same time. And when you figure out someone is not an option for more you have some aditional friends
9 days later
Hi everyone and thanks for your earnest comments, some of which had good insights, some of which prompted me to put my device in a drawer.
I have found myself well able to live chastely without it - more able in fact.
So I guess the takeaway is to not take too seriously the views and opinions of people who need to lock themselves away from their own genitals.
- Edited
Simon I have found myself well able to live chastely without it - more able in fact.
May I congratulate you. I had great difficulty managing it.
Simon So I guess the takeaway is to not take too seriously the views and opinions of people who need to lock themselves away from their own genitals.
It's not the people that lock away their own genitals that are troublesome, but those who lock away their children's genitals.
Joh I am convinced that if you really want it you can active IT almost anything.
If you have trouble to be chaste it May be Not the right goal for you.
I went looking for your age and couldn't find it. My opinion is you underestimate the sex urge in a 21-year-old girl who's used to getting it. And I'm used to pushing myself and denying myself through the running business. Plus I believe I'm correct in saying even @Ines has said she couldn't manage without a belt (though she has a partner and that makes it much more difficult). So that convinces me of the difficulty.
Milord It's different for each of us. at 50 it will be very difficult for me, and impossible at your age. But there are people that go without sex or orgasms for months. even years
And I wonder about their circumstances and how they manage the sex urge. If they are prevented from having sex and/or orgasms, that's one thing. If they are not prevented then I want to learn more about how they manage.
- Edited
Avery Sex urges are different in each of us. For some sex is very central, for others is a secondary thing. There are people who are asexual and have no sexual urges at all. I think that this is what @joh implied before: If you have such a strong sexual push, maybe removing entirely is unhealthy. At least I suppose is his idea.
Sex is very very different, and it's a very important manifestation of human nature. If I understand well your ideas (and of course feel free to correct me) it's a specific kind of sex (promiscuous, aromantic) that disturbs you, but this is only a way. Not trying to convince you of course! just raising a different point of view. My point is that you should do what makes you feel the best, trying to avoid bias (difficult even for me).
Milord I think that this is what @joh implied before: If you have such a strong sexual push, maybe removing entirely is unhealthy. At least I suppose is it's idea.
Sex is very very different, and it's a very important manifestation of human nature. If I understand well your ideas (and of course feel free to correct me) it's a specific kind of sex (promiscuous, aromantic) that disturbs you,
I understand what @Joh was saying and yes, it's the hook-up type culture I was trying to escape. I think in retrospect I should have allowed myself to masturbate. It would be hard to articulate now why I didn't. If there's a next time I will (do myself, that is).
Avery My opinion is you underestimate the sex urge in a 21-year-old girl who's used to getting it.
Sure I may underestimate your urge because I am a men and can't compare it. What I have learnt in the course of my life from women about their sexual urge is that it is less pronounced than in men. But that could also be because they show it off less. Furthermore, I live in Germany and you live in the USA. Culturally, there also seems to be a difference when I look at the reports here. But I know very well my sex urge when I was in your age.
Ultimately, only you can say what it is like for you and how you will deal with it in the future if you find yourself in the same situation again.
Avery If they are not prevented then I want to learn more about how they manage.
Open your thread and I will share my information about it.
Avery I think in retrospect I should have allowed myself to masturbate. It would be hard to articulate now why I didn't. If there's a next time I will (do myself, that is).
This will be a good way to get your urge down and minimise the hook-up risk.
Avery I think in retrospect I should have allowed myself to masturbate.
My perspective is obviously not yours; as a male I have refractory periods and all that stuff to deal with and sexual attraction towards people is a relatively alien concept to me. But I feel like avoiding masturbation would make it so much harder to abstain from penetrative sex, asin addition to desire you also have to fight the urge for physical pleasure; and unfulfilled arousal would only make a person more interested in sex.