Chastity

Chastity seems to be at the mercy of the general public’s “opinion,” as Adams seems to state. I find Adams’s discussion concerning the actual identity of chastity as a virtue versus the popular opinion of chastity as a virtue to be interesting, albeit somewhat confusing. Adams’s discussion of chastity includes Driver’s explanation of how chastity lost its title as a virtue as a result of changing cultural standards and expectations. On page 57 it concludes with the statement that someone who properly understands and respects human sexuality and acts accordingly, is what chastity “was supposed to be.” (p. 57)
The past tense in this sentence is what confused me. Chastity “was” supposed to be something? What, exactly? And what is the virtue that the person who respects the sexuality of others has? The way Driver discussed chastity (by which I am referring to what it “was supposed to be,”), it seems as though the physical actions (or lack thereof) involved lost their virtue when the public opinion of chastity declined, presumably due to the presence of accurate paternal tests.
This, to me, seems absurd. I agree with Adams (or at least what I presumed to be his standpoint) in that I cannot see how any aspect of what could be considered a virtue would lose its goodness as a function of changing times, cultural shifts, and technological advances. Adams himself states that chastity would not have been so highly regarded if it were only valued for its usefulness; rather it was valued for the intentions behind it. But the use of the past tense still irks me: does chastity not exist anymore? (A fact that would render a good bit of my Catholic school upbringing irrelevant.) If the definition Adams provides at the bottom of page 57 is not (or I guess more accurately, was not) chastity, then what was it? And has the physical aspect’s virtue really been discredited by the development of effective birth control and do-it-yourself DNA tests?
As I previously stated, I cannot see how an action’s virtue can be discredited by changing times and other such variables, particularly if the definition of a virtue is being “for the good.” Although advancing technologies might defeat the usefulness of at least the physical aspect of “chastity,” it does not change the fact that the actions are “for the good,” and thus their virtue.
I am aware that there is a large possibility I misinterpreted what Adams what trying to say, what his standpoint on the chastity is, or if he even took a stance on the subject. But provided I correctly understood what Adams was saying, then I agree with Adams that the virtue of the physical aspect of chastity is not diminished by surrounding factors, although I am still confused as to what chastity was if not what he described it was supposed to be, that being sexual respect.