It seems to me that for quite a few years (decades) now, young girls have been under immense peer and media pressure to start having "sex" as soon as the opportunity presents itself, and that a vow of chastity, along with a suitable means of advertising it, provide a very welcome and long overdue counter development (with or without the Christian angle).

A simple ring is an excellent way of doing this: just as a wedding ring advertises the fact that an individual is married and not available to others for sexual relations, so too a chastity ring communicates to others that an individual is unmarried, but unavailable, nevertheless, for "sex".

I've placed "sex" in inverted commas because there is a huge amount of misunderstanding as to what is actually meant, as ex-President Clinton's, "I did not have SEX with that woman" famously demonstrated.

My own (necessarily limited) sexual experience (1967-98) was that women tended to attach relatively little "special importance" to actual sexual intercourse. Once we'd gotten into some heavy petting (certainly after getting into bed together) they usually expected to go the whole hog. As a man, I thought that was what I was "supposed" to want too, and part of me did, of course. It took me a long time to realize that, actually, it wasn't what I really wanted, certainly not so quickly from a woman I was seriously interested in (had perhaps already fallen in love with), and not just sexually attracted to.

All the women I talked to about this admitted that they were so quick to have full sex because THEY assumed the man expected it, and didn't want to disappoint him, or go against what was perceived as the social norm. Denying or delaying sexual intercourse for "moral reasons" was dismissed and ridiculed as being "immature" and prude, or typical of old-fashioned,  conservative (rightwing) people, while us leftwing "progressives" (back then) were far more enlightened and "free" - to bonk (as soon as possible and at every opportunity) purely for the pleasure of it.

Should chastity rings be allowed in schools? Of course they should. If this is contentious, then we need separate schools.

2nd Post

What about developing a culture in which all children (certainly girls, but why not boys too?) are given a chastity ring at an age when they are still virgins, but old enough to understand what it means, as a practical way of encouraging them not to rush into having sex, especially full sex, at an early age?

This might go some considerable way in rectifying the terribly harmful degree of premature sexual activity and promiscuity that a combination of commercial interests and "progressive" values has visited upon modern British society.

It's just an idea.

3nd Post

[TiredOldDog], I'm not suggesting that anyone should remain a virgin until marriage, but that we should be vigorously combating prevalent attitudes, which lead to so much premature, casual and promiscuous sex, but are considered by many of today's (and yesterday's) kids to be perfectly "normal" and acceptable.

What happened after 1998? I separated from my wife, and since then - apart form the odd wet day-dream - I've lived the life of a monk. My fault, of course: the women I fancy tend to be a tad too young to be interested in me. But all for the best, I'm sure. Some of the sublimated energy goes into my outpourings here on CiF.

Reading that, some posters, no doubt, will hope that I find a new partner as soon as possible.

4th Post

[HarryTheHorse], referring back to your post from yesterday (10:14), the desire to influence and exert (a degree of) control over how other people behave (even over their thoughts and feelings, as many a CiF thread bears witness to, especially on matters such as race, immigration, multiracial/multicultural society, religion, morals etc.) seems to be a pretty basic human behaviour pattern.

It is what being a politician, newspaper editor or political commentator (who make a living and get their social status from it) is all about. They have to claim, of course, and possibly even believe themselves, that they represent the voice of "the people" or of "reason", but what they are really doing is trying to influence people in the direction of their OWN attitudes and view of the world. It presumably has (or had) considerable evolutionary advantages for those individuals most skilled at it.

Has there ever been a society in which the mass of the people were not expected and required to do what they where told by those in power and authority? Could this be why modern western societies are experiencing such social turmoil - with millions now claiming to know what is best, certainly for themselves, if not for the rest of society as well?

Not that it matters, so long as business interests, politicians and the media continue to have such a firm grip on things . . . . Except that the direction in which they are taking us is towards disaster.