Talk:Chastity
From wipipedia.org
(Difference between revisions)
(New page: There's a group of articles on chastity on [http://backdrop.net/sm-201/index.php?title=Chastity SM-201].--~~~~) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
There's a group of articles on chastity on [http://backdrop.net/sm-201/index.php?title=Chastity SM-201].--[[User:Ropeuser|Ropeuser]] 22:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC) | There's a group of articles on chastity on [http://backdrop.net/sm-201/index.php?title=Chastity SM-201].--[[User:Ropeuser|Ropeuser]] 22:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :The main article there is copied from here, the [http://backdrop.net/sm-201/index.php?title=Female_Chastity one on "Female chastity"] is full of historical nonsense (historical chastity belts did not exist at the time of the Crusades, and were in fact associated much more with rich Renaissance merchants with much younger wives than with medieval knights, and in any case could not be worn uninterruptedly for long periods), while the [http://backdrop.net/sm-201/index.php?title=Why_Chastity "Why chastity? article] is about femdom/malesub, but never explains this... [[User:AnonMoos|AnonMoos]] ([[User talk:AnonMoos|talk]]) 17:06, 15 January 2014 (GMT) | ||
Latest revision as of 13:06, 15 January 2014
There's a group of articles on chastity on SM-201.--Ropeuser 22:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
- The main article there is copied from here, the one on "Female chastity" is full of historical nonsense (historical chastity belts did not exist at the time of the Crusades, and were in fact associated much more with rich Renaissance merchants with much younger wives than with medieval knights, and in any case could not be worn uninterruptedly for long periods), while the "Why chastity? article is about femdom/malesub, but never explains this... AnonMoos (talk) 17:06, 15 January 2014 (GMT)
