Pagan Beliefs?[edit]

The section on Paganism under "Eastern Religion" should be removed. Paganism is not one religion and it does not include only eastern religions. Furthermore how can you generalize over a category of unrelated religions like this? 202.89.191.178 (talk) 08:55, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that new-agers and neopagans (predominantly actually living in Western countries) is what is meant... AnonMoos (talk) 12:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Older comments[edit]

In wikipedia, it is definitely okay to describe different points of view in the articles, but I think we should try to avoid stating these views as facts. Alkas 17:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to explain the part about virgins better. I believe it is relevant for this article to point out how the chastity of virgins can be undermined by immodest dress. Jpritikin 12:24, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed two paragraphs: - One paragraph about clothing. This seems unrelated to me. Please refrain from straying away from the main article. If you feel that the clothing issue needs to be addressed, please add a section rather then including this paragraph in the intro.

- One paragraph about the virtues of chastity. I understand your point of view, but I feel that this is your personal opinion rather than a definition of chastity. If you feel that this issue needs to be addressed in this article, please think about adding a section. In this section you can describe these opinions. However, please try to avoid stating opinions as facts, instead describe them as opinions of certain social groups. Alkas 20:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The terms "pederasty" and "pedagogy" are reversed- pederasty is sexual, not pedagogy. -- 04:19, 30 June 2007 24.128.51.174

I think the first sentence isn't NPOV in proclaiming chastity as the "state of sexual purity", without qualification along the lines of "according to most mainstream Christian doctrine" (or something more accurate if that isn't viewed accurate). Alternatively, would it be fair to just delete references to "sexual purity" and just stick to the facts - no sex if you're not married, sex only with your spouse if you are? --Robert Merkel

This most seems to duplicate sexual abstinence... I ponder merging. Martin


Merge away Martin.


I removed

"Chastity" can be used to refer to other sexual recommendations:

This is recommended by some groups, but I have never heard of a case where 'chastity' is used to describe whether or not you are using contraception.

DJ Clayworth 15:56, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I did the merge. :) Martin 00:19, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Oh dear, I think the merge is just a radical misconception. But I won't argue, it's so obvious... Pfortuny 17:25, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Undid redirect, wrote article[edit]

I though redirecting chastity to sexual abstinence addresses a very superficial and narrow point-of-view, so I wrote an article which I think is fairly NPOV. For those of you who would like to see an example of chastity as part of a documented system of ethics, look here [1].

The article is very brief. Please expand to include examples from other ethical systems. In particular, I have little knowledge of far eastern ethical systems and religions. --Mm35173 14:31, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't quite understand how "coitus within the context of marital fidelity" can be considered chastity. Also, while I know many Baptist groups prohibit dancing, I don't know whether they'd consider it a violation of chastity. If so, it might be added to the list of possible offenses against chastity. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 22:31, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"The acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the spouses takes place are noble and honorable; the truly human performance of these acts fosters the self-giving they signify and enriches the spouses in joy and gratitude." Sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure:" - Catechism of the Catholic Church. Also, St. Ambrose said, "There are three forms of the virtue of chastity: the first is that of spouses, the second that of widows, and the third that of virgins. We do not praise any one of them to the exclusion of the others. . . . This is what makes for the richness of the discipline of the Church." The Baptists' proscription of dancing is very interesting. Is that because they think that dancing is an expression of sexuality which is contrary to God's plan, or is it merely a mechanism to prevent temptation? If it is the former, then yes, it would be unchaste in the Catholic sense of the word, but if it is the latter, then it is not. --24.176.68.73 14:25, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we should be more explicit about what is a Roman Catholic definition of "chastity" on this page then. Merriam-Webster's dictionary has two relevant definitions: "abstention from any sexual intercourse reprobated by religion or condemned by morality" (by which definition married people can engage in sex and still be chaste; the R.C. definition) and "abstention from all sexual intercourse" (by which definition they can't; not the R.C. definition). As for the Baptists' proscription on dancing, I can't say for sure because I'm not a Baptist, and not all Baptists prohibit it (there are as many different Baptist theologies as there are Baptist churches, because they're organized congregationally), but I think those that do condemn it do so because they fear it will arouse lust, rather than because dancing is itself a sexual act. I suspect even married people aren't allowed to dance with each other, though. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 17:09, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since the very word (and the notion) predates christianity, and is not limited to Abrahamic religions, it is only linguistic logic that the word remains in use as (at least historically, forever) a moral/religious concept, while a more distant, descriptive term as sexual abstinence belongs in a different, profane semantic register, so DON'T merge, whatever you do; and yes, the precise implemenatation does differ per religion, and may even shift over time Fastifex 12:23, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To what I said above I might add that the "abstention from all sexual intercourse" defintion of chastity might well be the Shaker view; at any rate they didn't marry and could only have children by adopting them. I don't know whether they used the word "chastity" to define their insistence on celibacy, though. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 12:39, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It seems they did, according to [2], so I'm adding the information. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 12:46, 21 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Removed portions[edit]

The paragraph on vows of chastity originally read:

Vows of chastity can also be taken by laymen, either as part of an argoasied religious life (such as Catholic beguins and begards) or on an individual basis, as a voluntary act of devotion and/or as part of an ascetic lifestyle, often devoted to contemplation.

I edited this to remove the words "argoasied" (which seems to be a typo, but I can't tell for what), "beguin" (which means "infatuation" and so makes no sense in this context), and "begard" (which as far as I can tell is not a word of English). --Angr (t·c) 06:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would guess that "argoasied" was originally meant to be "organized", as it's the only word I can think of that would work in that context and shares a number of letters and letter combonations (nearly all; o, a, i, rg, ed. Also, in the British spelling system, sometimes s is used for what in the American spelling system is spelled with a z). It would make perfect sense in that context, as I've never really heard of "Vows of Chastity" being taken outside of the context of a religious organization or group (I have seen the term "Abstinence Pledge" used in reference to sexual abstinence and used in secular contexts, usually as a part of sex ed, especially abstinence-only sex ed, though). Your guess is still as good as mine on "begards", though. :P Runa27 05:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Fastifex. I've restored the bit about beguines and beghards now that you've explained what they are, and added links to the relevant articles. User:Angr 14:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Natural Family Planning an Offense Against Chastity?[edit]

Is their a source for this, because this surely is NOT the Catholic view, or any other Christian view that supports NFP as far as I know. NFP would be seen as promoting chastity not violating it. (Assuming no argument, will change this portion later) -- Jbamb 20:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, the organization was unclear and I misread. -- Jbamb 20:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Celibacy is not Chastity is not Abstinence[edit]

This page is one big muddle. Although in common usage today celibacy chastity and abstinence all pretty much just mean "not having sex" that is not their historical or current religious meaning, which is what the page is supposedly here to explain.

Celibacy means renunciation of marriage (and necessarily includes abstinence)
Chastity means godly sexual behavior according to your position in life. Historically that has meant virginity and modesty before marriage, monogamous fertility within marriage, and abstinence for those in religious order
Abstinence means not having sex, and is always part of celibacy but not always part of chastity.

These different categories really need to be explained. DanB DanD 18:25, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, the definitions are different from culture to culture and religion to religion. Somewhere on this talk page I've mentioned two dictionary definitions of "chastity", and the fact that for the Shakers at least, "chastity" entails both celibacy and abstinence, while for Roman Catholics it does not. We cannot stick to just one definition and chastity and still retain an NPOV. User:Angr 18:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think an NPoV would view the idea historically, and a historical view would acknowledge the dominance of a Catholic-and-Orthodox-shaped conception of sexual morality--the Shakers are cool but they didn't exactly make Western culture. And they were consciously reacting against a culture that meant something different by "chastity" than they did.
Not sure what to do about a non-Western context. The word is specifically European, but should there be a goal of finding analogous concepts in other cultures, or treat the article as specifically about one evolving cultural form?, with separate articles about sexual rules in other religions and cultures where they occur? Trouble is it's unlikely any wiki-folk know enough about non-western cultures to say much that's useful about their traditions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DanB DanD (talk • contribs) 19:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Certainly more space can be given to Catholic and Orthodox views of chastity than to Shaker views, but we should also be careful not to define chastity only in terms of one group's definition. And certainly the article should not be written in such a way as to preclude the possibility of non-Western views being added in the future, even if you and I aren't able to add anything. Even Westerners can go to the library and do some research on non-Western views of chastity. User:Angr 19:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, having now read through the sexual abstinence page, I think that's where non-Western perspectives should go--or on a more general "religion and sexuality" page, or a specific page of their own if the treatment is in-depth.
It was decided to keep a separate page for "Chastity" instead of merging it with sexual abstinence, so I think to justify the separation this page ought to be a detailed study of a culturally specific concept. "Chastity" is a Christian/European-derived conception of right sexual behavior, so I (now) don't think it would be accurate to try to fold ideas from other cultures into that.
One thing the page does need is pre-Christian conceptions of sexual morality in Europe that influenced the idea of chastity--Lucretia in Rome and so on.
DanB DanD 20:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural bias[edit]

Article is missing the Islamic sense of chastity which is quite strong and part of the Sharia Law.

In addition, there is the whole Mediterranean sense of "honor" that is not associated with any one country or people but which seems to (historically in most places and still today in some places) require a substantial protection of women.

--Blue Tie 14:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Then site your Islamic beliefs and sources. Site your Islamic leaders exegesis regarding chastity. This is the Catholic belief as handed down from the time of Jesus before Muhammed by 600 years. And please explain how you can have more than one wife, and please explain why killing is part of Islamic holy tradition.

Here is the difference and I hope resolution to this mark: IF needed I can make this a multi-part series.

Chastity is stateless. Sexually this means no sexual activity. Celibacy is related to the state you are in:

Being Celibate in the single life or holy priestly office means no masturbation or fornication, and forcing your will to remove such thoughts from your brain. Jesus says,"If you look at a woman with lust, you have already committed adultery with her in your heart." This means we need complete renewal of mind and body.

Celibacy to the married life means being faithful to your spouse, meaning only having sex with your spouse. This is celibacy in marriage.

This philosohpy has many citings. Lets start with the Catechism of the Catholic Church then we will cite the sources from that book, which is the Bible.

Proof for the state of marriage and the allowance of sex in marriage CoCC (Page 446, Article 7, The Sacrament of Matrimony 1601)

"The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life, is by its nature ordered toward the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring; this covenant between baptized persons has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of the Sacrament" (CIC, can. 1055 paragraph 1; cf. 48 paragraph 1. )

We are formed in the image and likeness of God, Rev 19:7,9; cf. Gen 1:26-27

Marriage as the order of creation: "Be fruitful and multiply" Gen 1:28; cf 1:31

It is not good that man should be alone Gen 2:18 The woman, "flesh of his flesh" his equal, his nearest in all things, is given to him by God as a "helpmate"; thus she represents God from whom all help comes and into which the man pours his love into. Gen 2:18-25 "Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh!" Gen 2:24 "They are no longer two but one flesh" in the NT, Mt 19:6 Sex after marriage joins the man and a woman into one flesh and an unbreakable bond. This is celibacy in marriage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.136.111 (talk) 20:47, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clerics and Catholicism[edit]

I edited/reworked this section, hopefully makeing it more clear. I also corrected/updated the current law ref the promise of celibacy, and included the footnote for Anglicans being received as Catholics. I doubt anyone actually wants to read all the specific decrees of various nations, and they do change, but if so, I can provide refs for the United States and Great Britian.DaveTroy 09:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

POV[edit]

I believe the statement "While lewd clothing may contribute to successful courtship, such clothing has far reaching implications on society as a whole." to be a POV, that is stated as fact.

Jpritikin claims that POV can't be removed - which policy are you referring to? Please see WP:NPOV.

The paragraph that follows is also full of unsupported claims; but even if we phrase it as "what some cultures believe", that is different from stating that clothing has "far reaching implications" as a fact. Mdwh 21:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it would be nice to be able to cite research supporting these claims but I don't think I am claiming anything that isn't particularly obvious. If there are other POVs then they should be included. The NPOV policy is to include all POV. Jpritikin 01:43, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I disagree with it, for one. And the problem isn't that a POV is being included - but that the POV is being stated as fact, rather than attributed to a particular point of view. Mdwh 02:36, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to include your opinion as well. With two opinions, it will be easier to present them as opinions, not as facts. Jpritikin 17:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Promiscuity[edit]

Is it not inaccurate to say that the opposite of chastity is promiscuity? Chastity refers to adherence to a particular value system, whereas promiscuity is something that really has less of a dependence on a value system. Also, one can be neither promiscuous nor chaste in a given value system. I think this sentence ought to be removed. Cazort (talk) 12:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Islam paragraph[edit]

This paragraph is extremely POV. I am not able to fix it myself but I'd rather have no Islam related information than what's there now. Even better if someone could fix it of course.

  1. Islam has been careful to distance people from their animalistic desires and Satanic manners
  2. The chastity of Islam is what restrains the human behaviour from deteriorating into the following of despicable desires.
  3. Fornication is incompatible with the characteristics of the faithful muslim believer and repulsive to the pious and the God-fearing

I think this speaks for itself. --86.88.18.236 22:35, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the entire section since the information was already more generally included under Abrahamic religions. Str1977 (talk) 18:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice improvement Str1977. Jpritikin 19:19, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chastity belts?[edit]

I noticed in this whole article on chastity with a section that has clothing on it that there is no mention of a chastity belt. Perhaps we should include it in the "see also" section? ZtObOr 21:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the role of Chastity belts in actual history (as opposed to apocryphal legends) is rather minor, but I wouldn't object to a simple "See also" link... AnonMoos (talk) 22:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, now that I think about it, it doesn't belong. And I wonder which "apocryphcal legends" are being referred to here... ZtObOr 23:15, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That knights going off to the crusades slapped chastity belts on the wives they left behind... AnonMoos (talk) 13:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That, they did. But it's still not relevant to the article. ZtObOr 02:05, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2021

What about the modern use of chastity belts? And chastity, as absurd as it may sound, in a modern sexual content in general? -- Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:16B8:A0DC:B00:8C25:693B:B1FE:A481 (talk) 16:33, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very very late in replying to Ztobor, but crusaders did NOT use chastity belts (which were much more of a Renaissance phenomenon than medieval). AnonMoos (talk) 01:49, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article is way in need revision[edit]

Chasity is having respect for sex as being primarily a means of reproduction. Indeed, chastity across different cultures is the same thing - sexual restraint to the purpose of bringing human beings into the world. Chastity is a conservative value, as it conserves sexual energies. None of this information is new... it's been known for thousands of years. 74.195.25.78 (talk) 00:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WHY IS "CHASTISE" REDIRECTED TO "CHASTITY"?[edit]

Why does the word "Chastise" redirect to the word "Chastity" when no reference to the word "Chastise" is mentioned? The dictionary definitions of "chastise" are, 1) to inflict punishment on (as by whipping), and, 2) to censure severely. Please correct this error. -- PiPhD (talk) 08:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is a problem with Intro[edit]

It's diluted. Being chaste isn't just about being acceptable, but rather by being pure and by being unencumbered by excessive sexual pursuits. -- 21:47, 21 February 2009 74.195.28.79

Pretentious pseudo-scholar talk[edit]

"The particular ethical system may not prescribe each of these. For example, within the scope of Christian ethic, ..."

Does anyone endorse this writing style? patsw (talk) 01:03, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Islam as an Eastern Religion?[edit]

Islam developed in what is technically the east, the middle part of it more specifically, but it is without a doubt an Abrahamic religion. I'm going to move it to the Abrahamic section, if anyone has a problem with it please note it here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.92.161.161 (talk) 02:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chastity. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ((Sourcecheck))).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template ((source check)) (last update: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:47, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In Christianity[edit]

I have no idea of the meaning of "sexual purity" .Chiloa (talk) 13:35, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Definition[edit]

In heterosexual marriage, are sexual practices not directed toward reproduction against chastity ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chiloa (talk • contribs) 13:51, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They're against celibacy, but if you define chastity as limiting all sexual acts exclusively within marriage (i.e. with one's lawfully-wedded spouse only), and keeping one's sexual thoughts and feelings under control and in what was considered to be their proper place (i.e. not letting them dominate one's life), they're not against chastity... AnonMoos (talk) 05:03, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Artifice?[edit]

When I read the article and the word it capitalize, must it not be qualified as "artificial"? The head says that its root is "the seven virtues" but there sex is not mentioned. Many people "yes especially those "simple-minds" relate it to clean neat and tidy". And that is far more important because in that sexual behavior eventual finds its place.

145.129.136.48 (talk) 23:44, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Abrahamic religions[edit]

The sentence "Sexual acts outside or apart from marriage... are considered immoral..." does not apply to all Abrahamic religions. In Judaism, premarital sex is strongly discouraged, but (unlike adultery and incest) it is not halachically forbidden, and therefore not inherently sinful. --ABehrens (talk) 04:52, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of References[edit]

There are no references whatsoever in the "Sharia" subtitle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiJoe24 (talk • contribs) 04:18, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual pleasure[edit]

Should there be a section on kink acts involving chasitity?147.134.92.125 (talk) 02:27, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We have an article Erotic sexual denial... -- AnonMoos (talk) 14:48, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Categories