5

There was a meme circulating around of an Amazon review of a chastity belt (Be warned, there's a chastity belt in the image). It essentially is a mother describing her absolute joy that her son is no longer "sinning" at night thanks to a chastity belt.

Whether this is actually real, morally acceptable, socially acceptable or good parenting is another question. But I'm curious on whether this is legal and if religion is a legal justification of such actions.

I feel that if any minor told me that their mother puts a chastity belt on them I'd be morally obligated to call CPS.

To what legal extent can parents prevent children from masturbating and are religious reasons legal justifications for such actions?

Improve this question
6
  • 1
    Just to clarify, are you asking about forbidding masturbation or putting their child in a chastity belt? Because the latter probably constitutes sexual abuse regardless of the reasoning behind use, while I could see the former being legislated either way.
    – IllusiveBrian
    Commented Aug 30, 2018 at 3:03
  • 2
    OK, if you don't mind please edit your question to make that clear at the end.
    – IllusiveBrian
    Commented Aug 30, 2018 at 11:38
  • 1
    While I agree with you, the laws and interpretations are likely to vary from state to state. My uninformed guess would be that there aren't likely to be laws specifically about chastity belts, so it would be a judgment all by Child Protective Services.
    – David Thornley
    Commented Aug 30, 2018 at 16:56
  • 2
    @DavidThornley I made an educated guess that a chastity belt would be considered a sexual toy, like if a parent was using a dildo on their child.
    – IllusiveBrian
    Commented Aug 30, 2018 at 21:58
  • 1
    The device appears to be this one: amazon.co.uk/Stainless-Steel-Massage-Lock-Comfortable/dp/…. It is sold as a sex toy.
    – Paul Johnson
    Commented Dec 1, 2019 at 16:41

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
6

To what legal extent can parents prevent children from masturbating and are religious reasons legal justifications for such actions?

One of the main restrictions on parental authority is a prohibition on engaging in child abuse or neglect. But, in most cases, this either isn't defined at all, or is defined only in the most general terms (in the same way culpability for an accident depends upon "negligence" which is also only vaguely defined).

So, somebody would have to decide if that conduct constitutes abuse or neglect of a child (realistically, this fact pattern would involve the issue of abuse, rather than neglect), and while religious reasons can justify some conduct that might otherwise be considered abusive because it caused harm for no justifiable reason, ultimately, the interest of the state in preventing the abuse of children outweighs freedom of religion and could give rise to criminal child abuse charges and/or termination of parental rights.

Whether or not a chastity belt would constitute abuse would depend upon the judgment of the relevant CPS official, a prosecuting attorney and a trial judge (possibly subject to appellate judge review), in light of common sense and community standards. There is no hard and fast rule, and the question might be resolved in different ways in different times and in different places.

Improve this answer
2
  • 2
    Yes, you may expect two completely divergent answers to that question depending on where in the US it is answered. West Coast, almost certainly moderates to it being more akin to abuse, Through the bible belt "It don't go near far enough."
    – David C. Rankin
    Commented Dec 27, 2018 at 8:51
  • 3
    @DavidC.Rankin Often different judges in the same courthouse would resolve those questions differently in practice despite applying a verbatim the same legal standard.
    – ohwilleke
    Commented Dec 27, 2018 at 11:35
-6

To what legal extent can parents prevent children from masturbating and are religious reasons legal justifications for such actions?

This would depend on the Jurisdiction in question

  • making masturbation illegal by law

If such a law does not exist:

  • then the parents have no legal right to prevent their children from masturbating

In most societies (to which I believe the United States is one) there is a strict division between Church and State and a monopoly of the State exists to enforce the laws of the State

  • so any rules of a Church apply only to an individual of that Church who voluntary submits themselves to these rules
    • Church rules to not have the force of law in a juristic sense
  • an individual citizen does not have the right to inforce any law upon another citizen
    • whereby a minor is considered to be a citizen
      • even though they are not always considered reponsible for there actions

If such a law does exist:

  • implementation instructions will exist on
    • how it is to be inforced and by whom

Since I am more familiar with European laws

  • I haven't the faintest clue on what these implementation details would entail
Improve this answer
14
  • 6
    "If such a law does not exist: then the parents have no legal right to prevent their children from" - watching TV all night? Eating two pounds of candy? Going outside in winter without a coat? Swearing? The fact is, parents do have the right to prevent their children from doing all manner of things which are legal.
    – D M
    Commented Dec 1, 2019 at 22:12
  • 4
    I have no idea what the random bullet points are meant to do, and they make this answer unreadable in any sensible way.
    – user4657
    Commented Dec 1, 2019 at 22:30
  • 3
    Whatever. Do you claim that parents have no legal right to prevent their children from performing any legal act, or do you claim that this is legally special? And what is the basis for your claim? Do you have any law, precedent, Latin phrase, or anything at all besides your say-so?
    – D M
    Commented Dec 2, 2019 at 3:26
  • 2
    Ah, I think I see the problem now. You're interpreting "legal means" to mean using the law to prevent the action, while I'm interpreting "legal means" to mean "means which are not illegal".
    – D M
    Commented Dec 2, 2019 at 12:38
  • 1
    "1) private masturbation is not forbidden 2) if it was, it could only be enforced by the state and not by a 3rd party." Without giving a basis for why this case is an exception, you are basically saying that the general rule is, if some action isn't illegal, then no-one is legally allowed to forbid someone from doing that action. @DM then shows examples were legal actions are legally forbidden by parents when setting rules for their children. Given that this question deals with children, it seems that same principle would apply. You give no reason for why it doesn't apply here.
    – user110391
    Commented Dec 8, 2021 at 16:08

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .