A Lady is Chaste.
Her accessibility is vow appropriate.
An unchaste woman is no Lady. It is easy enough to say but more of an issue to define. The private and more intimate aspects of a woman are increasingly more vulnerable and as such, need a greater degree of trust in promised protection. Let us try to explain.
Why is it not unchaste for a married woman to passionately kiss her husband? Would we smile on the exact same action being performed by a fifteen year old girl with a boy she just met at a party. The distinction is obviously not in the act but in the qualifications of the actors. Add to that information that it would be unchaste for the married woman to be passionate with her husband in public. Why? The public has not vowed anything to deserve such inclusion in their affections. A chaste woman ought not even regale her associates with the logistics of her intimate life. A woman's privacy, from her initial conversation to her intimate aspects, are obtained chastely when a vow appears that keeps the privacy and intimacy of her life from being extended to anyone who has not honored it sufficiently. A woman strikes up a conversation with a man to whom she has not been introduced. She is not asking directions. The man will naturally say to himself, "She's hitting on me." She has allowed access, albeit very shallow access, to someone who has vowed absolutely nothing, not even knowledge of his name. At a party, a girl can chastely allow a man to fetch her a drink because he has been introduced to her and has conversed with her and a tacit vow for her circumstantial wellbeing is assumed. If she allowed him to hold her hand merely because she had been introduced, she would be considered unchaste. She is not being immoral but merely demonstrating that she doesn't understand who gets what when. A man who has vowed before witnesses to protect, honor, cherish, etcetera is allowed to enjoy the extremes of privacy that a chaste woman has denied the rest of the world. A married woman is chaste in that she reserves her privacy for the man who has vowed to protect it. In fact,since chastity here is defined by the promise being matched with appropriate affection, a woman who fails to extend such to her husband is guilty of a perverse unchastity. She is violating the vow. This is the misapprehension of the monastic; the more exquisite the denial the more chaste it claims to be. The absolute vow ("till death do us part") deserves the absolute access. A woman who denies the debt is saying that her affections are a matter of her willfulness rather than her honor. The willfulness of the traditionally unchaste lets the unpaying customer take the goods home on credit (with a liberal return policy) and ends up robbing herself of the value of her own goods. As the stuff continues to be returned, she puts it back on the shelf used and will soon discover she manages a Second-Hand store. Unwise allowance is unladylike for its folly. Denial is unladylike for its lie. A man with integrity stops into the store, vows what ever is the correct amount (the manufacturer's list price), is rung up at the register, and then is sent away without anything at all. A chaste woman charges the appropriate price for her affections and meets the conditions of the contract.