Chastity belt

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Chastity belt which used to be on display in a German museum.
We're so glad you came
Sexuality
Icon sex.svg
Reach around the subject
Female bisexuality symbol-colour.svg
Warning icon orange.svg This page contains too many unsourced statements and needs to be improved.

Chastity belt could use some help. Please research the article's assertions. Whatever is credible should be sourced, and what is not should be removed.

A chastity belt is a belt device designed to prevent sexual intercourse on the part of the woman/man wearing it.

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.[1]

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!

See also[edit]

External links[edit]

References[edit]

  1. Klein, Marty. "Skeptical of the porn skeptics: a response to Zimbardo & Wilson." Skeptic (Altadena, CA) 21.3 (2016): 27-31.