There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff – we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.
If everyone who saw this today donated $5, we would meet our goal for 2019.
| Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.|
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with !
| We're so glad you came|
|Reach around the subject|
The chastity belt has been popular in the public mind due to its apparent suppression of human sexuality and the dominant religious and patriarchal motives behind enforcing the chastity of the woman/men wearing it. They've occasionally been the butt of a few jokes, such as when Robin Hood had to call for a locksmith at the end of Men in Tights. However, there's little evidence to suggest that they were as popular in history as some fiction and romantic ideals may suggest, and even when they were used, it was mostly to prevent masturbation rather than intercourse, and even then only in Victorian Britain. People who have successfully completed a long stretch of time wearing a chastity belt are sometimes called fapstinents.
In fact, the device's medieval popularity is greatly exaggerated for modern BDSM sensibilities, or, like the flat earth myth, these exaggerations are intended to portray the church-dominated past as massively more idiotic or oppressive. There is no credible evidence that chastity belts existed before 1500. Even then, their use would have been very limited as the metalworking of the times would have made it difficult to fashion a belt safe for long-term wear. On the other hand, they are increasingly popular nowadays for use in powerplay sex games - indeed, they are far more popular now than they ever were for "real" use. Enjoy!
- Klein, Marty. "Skeptical of the porn skeptics: a response to Zimbardo & Wilson." Skeptic (Altadena, CA) 21.3 (2016): 27-31.