Talk:Chastity belt/Archive 1

Cleanup of External Links and criteria for external links
Okay, I've seen that someone has added an external link to a site with femdom chastity stories, and before we get into another edit war, it's time for us to establish the criteria that external links must meet in order to be posted here.

I propose the following: External links are considered reference sources and must have factual information. The factual content in an external link must be both original and authoritative enough to be used as a reference in any scholarly work dealing with this subject. zabadoh 09:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * By these criteria, I'm thinking that yourkeys.sufferware.com, locknkeep.com, lockmeup.com, chastitylifestyle.com, and femdomale.com should be removed. Now, I'm a big fan of most of the above sites, particularly of their forums, but they're just not authoritative enough for academic use. -- zabadoh 09:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * At the least, I would say that links should be informative (whether or not the site can be considered "authoritative") - so stories shouldn't be there.


 * As to sites which offer information but are perhaps not authoritative, I guess the question is, can we find more authoritative sources for the information in this article?


 * Also see External links. I don't think an external link necessarily has to be authoritative - I think that's only the case if it's being used as a reference(?). Mdwh 21:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I removed (in this edit: []) the statement that chastity belts used to enforce fidelity are "common practice in such countries as India" along with the single citation used as evidence. The citation was a press release from AHRC stating that chastity belts are common in the single Indian state of Rajasthan based on an anecdote that did not contain names, dates, places, specific incident reports or references to authoritative press sources (the AHRC is not based in India and without an incidence report this was clearly not a first-hand account from them); this was followed by several generic statements. The single reference I was able to find of a chastity belt used in Rajasthan was in a book (google books result: []) "Countering Gender Violence: Initiatives Towards Collective Action in Rajasthan" by Kanchan Mathur, page 190. Sage Publications Pvt. Ltd; 1 edition (November 2004). There is a single case cited there, and it is clear from reading it that this was a case of exceptional spousal abuse in a small village by one man of his wife, and the case was treated as such by the families and local communities (the village ostracised the entire community of the abusive husband). -Rishab, 08:00, 11 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.14.159.210 (talk)

Ad?
Is it just me, or does Choosing a chastity belt and Purchasing and wearing a chastity belt sound like an ad? --142.177.125.126 18:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * They both used to be under a section called "Precautions" which sounded even sillier. I think those sections document the concensus amongst the small, but dedicated, chastity belt wearing community.  If it's not neutral enough for you, then feel free to come up with something else.  zabadoh 19:38, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

External link wars
There seems to be continual reverting over the external links section of this article.

The main disputes seem to be:

1. Some prefer to exclude all links to commercial manufacturers' sites; others wish to keep them in. AnonMoos 00:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd personally prefer to see links to current manufacturer's websites included, but GraemeL brought up a good point on my own talk page in that once we start including links to manufacturers' websites, everyone who makes one chastity belt will want a link on this page. And Wikipedia is not a yellow pages for advertising, so I completely understand where GraemeL is coming from.  zabadoh 20:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

2. IP 66.27.70.252 wishes to put in a link to chastityweb.net, while everybody else who has expressed an opinion on the matter wants to keep it out.

Maybe we could develop some kind of consensus on this issue of what external links are worthy, instead of people continually coming along and undoing what past editors have done. AnonMoos 00:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The main objections I have to chastityweb.net is that it does not have any original information on chastity belts, personal testimony, or any other information that might add to the reader's understanding and knowledge of chastity belts. I feel like adding my criticisms of the website itself, but those aren't relevant to this discussion.  Zabadoh 7/31/2006

66.27.70.252
Now 66.27.70.252 seems to be insisting that if her(?) site doesn't get in, none of the others should get in. AnonMoos 04:02, 30 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Now, 66.27.70.252 is getting puerile. Thanks for starting this discussion BTW AnonMoos.  Zabadoh 7/31/2006

Old discussions
Linking to external sites that are designed to appeal to prurient interests is not a very good idea since such sites frequently harvest the identities of viewers of their material and then sell their internet identities to spammers.


 * It's a service, though. How many people with no prurient interest are going to look at entries where this is a problem, anyway? :) --Calieber

Well, if you like spam, try checking out a dozen sites on reproductive health... ;-)

Patrick0Moran 22:24, 25 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * The first possible evidence of chastity belts can be found in medieval writings,

Is this referring to the 1180 poem? If so, it is very weak evidence; it doesn't actually mention chastity belts at all. The lady in the poem knots a chemise around her loins as a symbol of fidelity. Calling this evidence of the early existence of chastity belts is desperation. The other possibility is the occasional medieval reference to cingulum castitatis, but some researchers claim to have demonstrated that all such references are metaphorical.
 *  but most evidence for practical designs dates to the 16th century and later.

Some references to this evidence would be nice. All the other discussions I have seen offer just two pre-nineteenth century references, both of them dubious. These are the sketch in Bellifortis from 1405 (unknown if it represents a real device), and the anecdote from Pierre de Bourdeilles sometime in the mid-sixteenth century. De Bourdeilles is a story teller, not an historian, and his tale is humorous and somewhat unlikely. (It claims that a cunning smith made up chastity belts to put husbands off their guard, while he secretly kept skeleton keys and had his way with their wives.) Securiger 15:50, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Chastity belts and similar antisexual devices were used to prevent premarital sex in girls and young women and extramarital sex in married women.

This is unlikely (especially a prematital sex part), because chastity belt from iron cannot be weared for a long time, and stainless steel was invented only in 20th century. Also, I couldn't find any evidence for this claim. Neither I could find any evidence for involuntary usage of chastity belts before victorian times.

--62.219.175.34 02:25, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

64.12.117.6 made a very long addition yesterday; I'm moving it in here because it looked as if he/she intended it for discussion instead. --83.216.199.98


 * If I'm adding to this page all is well. This is my first time here.
 * A growing segment of the population engage in the wearing of chastity belts for recreational purposes. Even if the Man "wears the pants in the family" he might well wear one for two reasons, he might like it, and he will like the experience when he is finally released and has sex. It's then like eating something, a delicacy, something you don't get every day.
 * Male chastity belts are more common, indications are the about 80% are sold for Men. Their Woman is usually the "keyholder" and the recipient of quite a bit of pleasure. The Man usually derives some of his pleasure specifically because he has been released from the temporary (hopefully) deprivation of any stimulation, including masturbation. This is not gender specific, Women can get a similar highening of effect through deprivation just as easily, it's just that less of them choose to do so.
 * Viable, secure and comfortable chastity belts are available from Tollyboy and Neosteel and a few other companies. There might be aboout a dozen companies doing business worldwide. (2005)
 * Most wearers derive some pleasure, or maybe comfort from wearing, and it is indeed illegal to put a chastity belt on someone against their wishes. While there are cases of chastity belt being used to thwart a divorce, or ensure the fidelity of a spouse, these cases are rare. In most countries you cannot force someone to wear a chastity belt without a contract, and even then you must remove it if they agree to lose the benifits accrued through the contract.
 * Many myths exist. A Woman locked up for seven years in a primative belt, all metal and no padding is a bunch of hooey, who would do that to his Woman ? and with that lack of trust society would have collapsed. In the author's opinion only: It is alot more likely that these belts were made for all the female members of the family and hung underneath the dinner table in case the Visigoths or the Tartars showed up.
 * This may well be the only Lawful and mundane (non-fetish) use of these belts. Parents would sometimes put their children into belts, in Western society this would land you in jail for child abuse. It happened decades ago and there is only one known modern case. A seventeen year old girl in Texas. Even she only aqcueised for money, to live a better style at college, to keep her own apartment and whatever else. How a court would rule on this remains to be seen.
 * There can be problems. A Woman during menstruation is not having a good time but if that time is within their agreement she wears it. During that time it is suggested that you do not antagonize her nor leave her with your kids too long.
 * A Man has a different set of problems. Your penis is trapped, locked up. The discomfort can be severe depending on the design of the belt. Also if a Man has an erection "trying" in the tube he might be unable to urinate. This can be a BIG problem, moreso if that tube is metal.
 * Comfortable, secure and unobtrusive chastity belts are available right now. They require measurements, and money, about $1000 for the full blown one down to about $500 for a Chastitysteel, but that is not a true florentine belt.
 * In a nutshell, if you enjoy sex more after a period when you were prevented from doing it (even like working alot, schedules etc.), you might enjoy this "fetish". If you purposely don't go get your favorite icecream, desert, or whatever for a while so you enjoy it more when you finally do get some, you might enjoy this.
 * It's not a worldwide craze, but some people do enjoy it.
 * There are resources on the web with information on exactly why anyone wants to do this.

Accuracy?
I thought chastity belts used in the medaeval times were just a Victorian legend.

I also think that the male device shown should not actually be being used. An empty one would do just as well. I personally find it offensive and pornographic. I don't think that a clearly visble penis is necessary for this article. Anotherpongo 17:02, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The article doesn't say they were used in medieval times, it says they were used (though rarely in terms of absolute frequency) during the RENAISSANCE. Why not peruse the Eric John Dingwall book (which was reprinted in the 1990s, and can sometimes be found remaindered cheap) before expressing any definite opinions?  AnonMoos 17:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Well RENAISSANCE then. Whatever. Sorry for expressing my opinion. I was just unsure.


 * And the image is not "pornographic"[sic]. The guy is way overweight, and the image is not presented like any kind of pornography I've heard of.  It might or might not be considered gratuitous unnecessary nudity in some circumstances, but it's a fact that the modern male non-belt chastity devices tend to be contructed out of clear plastic.  AnonMoos 17:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I happen to find the image offensive, that's all. Relax.
 * Thanks for the nice comments. You know, I love being shouted at. You've made my day. Anotherpongo 17:21, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry if I was abrupt, but you misused several important words in your original comment, and in at least one case such misuse could have been avoided by a simple moderately close reading of the article. AnonMoos 19:11, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay. Here's my view:

My apologies for my earlier misuse of those "important words", but I feel that pictures of genitals should be kept to a minimum. An empty device would serve more-or-less the same purpose, and demonstrate what a male chastity device looks like.

I do not like the idea of someone padlocking my genitals in a plastic tube, and I don't see how anyone would actively it. I am not here to force my views on others though. I would just like it if an obese man's clearly visible genitals were kept off an online encyclopaedia. Anotherpongo 19:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * My initial reaction after the pic was posted was not appropriate, but then after thinking about it, I'd say it's as equally appropriate as the Bill Jones belt picture that nobody has objected to. Both feature chastity devices being worn by otherwise naked subjects.  Neither features pubic hair, if that matters at all.  I do find the Bill Jones picture more attractive, but that's probably because it's of a female and it has better lighting.  Both pictures show how each device is worn.  The CB3K pic wasn't posted by me.  One vote for appropriate.  --zabadoh 19:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC) (moved here from another discussion thread formerly elsewhere on page)

If 'Anotherpongo' is so horrified by the sight of a penis, what on earth is he/she doing reading an article about chastity belts? May I suggest reading about gardening instead, or bunny rabbits? Quite frankly, if you don't like what you see, simply click away - don't stop to ponitificate. You may like blue, others like red - let it be. Life's too short etc.


 * Wikipedia policy does not ban nudity, but only demands that nudity should be appropriate and relevant to the particular topic under discussion. It's a fact that the modern non-belted male chastity-device designs generally do not fully cover the genitals, and in many cases such devices are constructed from clear plastic.  Therefore, most photographs which clearly depict such devices in use will probably present similar issues...


 * Is the photo now on the page the best possible image to use as an illustration of modern non-belted male chastity-device designs? Certainly not!  But does it do a reasonably adequate job, without execessive gratuitous prurience?  In my opinion, yes...  If anyone has a better replacement image, then by all means propose it, but I don't think that the image should be deleted from the article at this time without such an improved replacement. AnonMoos 16:45, 5 February 2007 (UTC) (moved here from another discussion thread formerly elsewhere on page)

Modern anti-masturbation device usage
The following comes from questionable source and thus was moved to the talk page:
 * Anecdotal accounts suggest that the use of anti-masturbation devices on juveniles continues in the United States and Europe through the present day. 

While I think it is possible such devices are still used today in rare instances, the source used to support the claim is a erotic story that claims to be based on a true story. Given that authors of erotica have been known to make false claims of a story being true I don't think it counts as even anecdotal evidence. Also the source from which it comes from (BDSM library) probably does not meet Wikipedia guidelines for sources. --Cab88 15:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I originally wrote that statement for this article. In this case, the author was a regular and credible poster on the lockmeup.com discussion board  for some months.  Usually hoaxers bearing their tales of woe sound quite immature and are sussed immediately by the group.  But this poster, Mary Cranston, truly seemed to care about the subject and knew what she was talking about.  You can read her replies to questions about her story, and maybe even post any questions you might have in this thread:    I haven't seen her post in a while, so she might have taken a break from the forum.  The other thread that I've found credible is known on the forum as the Tex thread after the writer's adopted sobriquet (she starts the thread as an anonymous poster)  zabadoh 00:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I would move it back to the main page. The author of that story is a credible and regular poster on that discussion board, which is the best on that topic. 141.218.210.28 (talk) 05:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

"How to" guides
I think most of this article reads as a "how to" guide, and should therefore be moved to Wikibooks and replaced here with a link to the new article. The Wednesday Island 19:58, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, most such material has been added by User:Chastityslave only in the last day or two... AnonMoos 09:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Image Change
Hey, just curious why the modern picture of a male chastity belt was changed. I don't take it personal and I wont change it back until I get some feedback about wether or not you all think it was valid. Thanks!

Orbiterdictum 03:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

New image has now been deleted: I have located earlier image and reinstated it IdreamofJeanie 15:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Virgin Mary's 'belt'?
I have read that several churches in the middle ages venerated 'Mary's belt' as a holy relic. Is this supposed to be a veneration of, funnily enough, an alleged chastity belt, or is it supposed to have been the common clothing item, worn by Mary? --10:43, 8 June 2007 212.152.70.12


 * No, it was not a chasttity belt. AnonMoos 13:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Merge from Chastity cage
It seems as though the concept of a "chastity cage," while not necessarily a belt per-se, accomplishes the same thing. I'm not an expert in the area, however judging by some of the pictures on Chastity belt and the shared features, the purpose (in modern terms) is to primarily prevent orgasm of one or multiple parties. It seems to me that Chastity cage fits that description, but is primarily intended for males. So, it seems that more beef could be added to Chastity belt by condensing Chastity cage, which is poorly-sourced and lacks historical context, and adding it into Chastity belt, which is both much better-sourced and has a decent amount of historical context. Lemme know what you think. -- slakr \ talk / 05:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The chastity belt and chastity cage articles are about specific devices, and not about erotic sexual denial in general.  The three are conceptually separate, have different historical backgrounds and thus should remain separate articles.
 * —85.214.60.31 09:46, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Even better: how about combining Chastity belt and Chastity cage into the current disambiguation page:  Chastity device.  Again, I understand that a belt and a cage are technically different, but there's no historical content on Chastity cage to support the claim that the histories are fundamentally different-- even though there is a cited, decent history on Chastity belt.  The history on Chastity belt, for example, mentions devices that actually would not meet your proposed division between the two concepts (e.g., it mentions "metal balls or cups enclosing the penis").  Moreover, Chastity cage faintly resembles an advertisement for the makers of the CB-xxxx line of devices and its suppliers.  It also has no cited reliable secondary sources.


 * The main reason I'm proposing the merge in the first place is the fact that Chastity belt defines itself as a device that fits both descriptions, and Chastity cage describes itself as a device that is a Chastity belt. For example, the very first sentence of Chastity cage is: "A chastity cage is a device which encloses the male genitals to prevent stimulation and erection," which, judging by the pictures and text of Chastity belt, is exactly what a chastity belt does: "A chastity belt is a locking item of clothing designed to prevent sexual intercourse and possibly masturbation."  If the only real difference is that one is attached to a belt and the other isn't, then it doesn't seem to warrant two separate articles.  It would therefore seem to me that both articles would have more beef to them if their strengths could be merged and the weaknesses could be eliminated in the process, which is what I think we could do. -- slakr  \ talk / 03:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The two articles were originally one. I  spun off chastity cage into its own separate article because it was often unclear which was being referred to in the original chastity belt article.
 * As for the definition, perhaps "chastity belt" could be more carefully defined as a sexual restraint which girds the loins. —85.214.60.31 11:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the whole concept of having a "chastity cage" article to begin with because I've never heard of the CB-xxxx, Lori's, and similar devices referred to as "chastity cages". Actually the term "Ball-trap device" seems to be in more common usage.  But if they aren't chastity belts by strict definition either, then what are they?  You could argue that they constitute a genre of device unto themselves since they look similar and serve similar functions.  My opinion is that if we were to merge the articles, then we should 1)  Make a new section, "Other Chastity Devices", within the main article complete with descriptions of this type of device, and also 2)  Make the Chastity Device article point to Chastity Belt. zabadoh 04:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I would support the merge, as I have never heard the term "Chastity cage" outside of its wikipedia article. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 18:57, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with 85.214.60.31. His reasoning makes sense to me. Also, I'd like to call your attention to this article: Ball bag (BDSM). From the description, I'd say it'd better be a redirect to Chastity cage. A final note: I created Ball-trap device as a redirect to Chastity cage. If this name is indeed the most common, the article should be moved there. Waldir talk 21:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * That reminds me. I've also seen these devices referred to as "Chastity tubes".  In fact, Lori's devices has taken the domain name chastitytube.com.  The only reason I can think of these things being called chastity cages is the appearance of the popular CB-2000 which has bars and looks like a cage.  But this is the exception more than the rule.  The CB-3000, Cage, CB-6000, Lori's, Gerecke, Steelworxx, Houdini, et al, have more tube-like appearances.  In any case, these devices are popularly labeled and sold as "chastity belts"/keuschheitsgurdel, even though they're not technically belts, because they don't go around the waist or whatever.  I re-iterate my support for the merge.  zabadoh (talk) 08:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Per Articles for deletion/Chastity cage, Chastity cage has been redirected here. Interested editors may wish to evaluate the archived versions of that article for content that may benefit chastity belt. - BanyanTree 11:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Losing the key
If you lose the key for one of these things, does it come with a spare. If it doesn't I imagine you'd be in the proverbial, just wonderin --Hadseys (talk • contribs) 15:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, this would be a problem, especially with belts with built-in locks. The makers always make sure the buyer is aware of this potential problem. Most would ship with at least two, anyway. Stories about lost keys are a noticeable subset of the fiction scene, too. StaticSan (talk) 04:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * With all the steel belts that I have purchased, the manufacturer always includes a note to test the included keys with the locks before locking the belt on your body. Don't act surprised :-)  zabadoh (talk) 08:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Following is fiction but with a moral. Julius Caesar, before going off to war, entrusted a spare key to his most devoted general. He said: "In case I am killed in this coming battle, you may then use this key to free the chastity belt from my wife." Then, as he rode with his army out the gates of Rome, his trusted general came running after him: "Caesar, Caesar, you gave me the wrong key!"LoopTel (talk) 20:45, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to admit, funny as hell. I guess it can have two meanings. One is that you have to be careful about your keys, and the second one is, don't trust your generals with your queen. ZtObOr 23:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Links that I have recovered, that have changed in the reference section, can anybody change them?
I am a regular user browsing Wikipedia and I noticed one of the reference links had gone 404 and dead. However, I did locate the content in question with a slightly changed URL, can anybody update to reflect this? I can't seem to get the list up for editing. The link in question is the one where 2 scientists claim that Chastity Belts are nothing but a myth. New link is included below. http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=1996_1349429

194.117.188.230 (talk) 11:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, you should feel free to update the article with the correct link. Thanks for digging that one up.  Actually, I'll make the change for you. zabadoh (talk) 05:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The list itself is dynamically generated from notations in the article itself. So to change the link in a reference, you have to find the reference in the body of the article and edit there. Does that make sense? zabadoh (talk) 17:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, that article is highly problematic, since it talks only about "medieval" chastity belts, whereas for more than 70 years it has been known by scholars who studied the matter that chastity belts were much more of a renaissance phenomenon than medieval... AnonMoos (talk) 22:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Most of this article covers very old and cumbersome styles of belts. Shouldn't something be added about more recent developments, for instance those padlocked trousers being worn by indonesian massage parlor workers to prevent sexual activity? Doesn't that count as a chastity belt?216.208.38.26 (talk) 19:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)Trainman2


 * Well, no, it's actually the women wearing the padlocks, and there's nothing "hard" below them, so not really. ZtObOr 23:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Anti-Rape use?
Hello, I seem to recall having read that chastity belts are getting common again in some countries as a rape prevention measure, shouldn't be some mention of it under modern use? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.167.73.174 (talk) 04:55, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I doubt whether it would really be too practical in many cases, but there is this: Anti-Rape Corsets advertised in Jakarta Newspaper -- AnonMoos (talk) 10:04, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Eastern Christianity
It was apparently used in the ancient Orient. See the book The Syro-Aramaic Reading of the Koran, which claims that the chastity belt is a kind of christian hijab, from an arabic philological point of view. ADM (talk) 01:39, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Erection
Can erection really be completely avoided? If a man consciously tries to never have an erection should he not get at least one wile asleep? If he is wearing a chastity device designdet to prevent erection would he not wake up from a terrible pain in his penis?

2009-08-09 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.


 * Actually, during the first few nights (I have no personal experience, being underage, but I've read other people's comments), there is a lot of sensation going on. It's all part of the "breaking in" or something like that. ZtObOr 01:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

You sound like you don't know what you are talking about. At least, I don't understand your answear.

2009-08-18 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.247.167.70 (talk) 11:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * For better answers, you should probably be asking this question on a message board dedicated to chastity belts and bdsm. I suggest browsing the links section on Altarboy's website to find such a board.  zabadoh (talk) 03:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Pain and discomfort
It doesn't cause "terrible" pain in your penis.. just a little discomfort. Sleeping on your back prevents it anyway. Beyond the first few "break in" weeks, you don't notice this so much. And yes, it WILL prevent a full on erection. Becoming very aroused is still very possible. ;D -- 22:32, 29 November 2009 98.23.11.13

Pictures
No real pictures.Aielen (talk) 22:47, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

"However, the actual use, if any, of medieval chastity belts 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."
Not sure what that really means -- it's been very well-known at least since Dingwall's book was published (1931) that chastity-belts were far more of a Renaissance phenomenon than Medieval, and that Renaissance belts were internally padded (so that the metal didn't directly touch the skin), and the padding generally had to be changed at least once a month (i.e. they were not suitable for long-term uninterrupted wear). Many Renaissance belts seem to have worked reasonably well within the above parameters, and the Classen book doesn't seem to add much, based on the summary given in the article... AnonMoos (talk) 05:40, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Classen book
I have no idea what the Classen book amounts to as a whole, but frankly, the quotes from the book which have been included in this article sound a whole lot like unmitigated flagrant nonsense, with each new one worse than the last. It's undisputed among serious scholars that chastity belts were not a medieval phenomenon -- but on the other hand, there also has been fairly strong support for the fact that chastity belts were a (minor) historical phenomenon of the renaissance, among a few rich merchants (mainly) who doubted the fidelity of their often much-younger wives. Frankly, unless some indication is given of the facts and reasoning on which Classen bases his somewhat out-of-the-mainstream conclusions, I would feel inclined to yank all Classen mentions from the article -- especially if I receive no reply to these talk page remarks. AnonMoos (talk) 07:50, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * No courtesy of a reply after three days; therefore removing Classen book from article. The Classen book might actually be useful in some other form, but in the way in which it is currently used it reallyy does not seem to add anything useful. AnonMoos (talk) 22:04, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Efforts at debunking
All the efforts at debunking seemed to be aimed at medieval chastity belts, but no serious scholars have set much store by the existence of medieval chastity belts since at least 1931 -- unless you call 15th-century northern Italy "the middle ages" (most informed people would call it the Renaissance). Therefore all the medieval debunkings are really somewhat irrelevant to the actual main historical issue -- which is that Dingwall and some others think that it's reasonably likely that a small number of Renaissance rich men used chastity belts on their often much-younger wives... AnonMoos (talk) 05:17, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Use in China?
The film 3D Sex & Zen (and probably also the original Sex & Zen) has a character wearing a chastity belt. I don't know if it's in the original story (The Carnal Prayer Mat, 1657), but if it is then the obvious question is whether it was the author's imagination (perhaps he had heard of European chastity belts) or a real phenomenon in the Qing dynasty (or earlier). Zip-x (talk) 14:02, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Nothing in the standard older scholarly sources on the chastity belt (such as Dingwall) as far as I'm aware... AnonMoos (talk) 04:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Chastity belt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090307234836/http://observers.france24.com:80/en/content/20080429-indonesian-masseuses-forced-lock-trousers to http://observers.france24.com/en/content/20080429-indonesian-masseuses-forced-lock-trousers

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 17:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chastity belt. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110410200915/http://www.aolnews.com/2010/02/08/ruff-sex-a-chastity-belt-for-dogs/ to http://www.aolnews.com/2010/02/08/ruff-sex-a-chastity-belt-for-dogs/
 * Added tag to http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=995600.WKU.&OS=PN%2F995600&RS=PN%2F995600

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC)