July 2022 - Cut to the Chaste

I received three questions recently that I want to answer here since the topics may interest other Cut to the Chaste readers.

Cherry Keeper Device Review Question

The first comes from Peter R. who asked about my review of the Cherry Keeper device. Peter writes…

Re. your review on the Cherry Keeper, specifically your comment that it was easy to remove. Did you have the “Headlock” feature in the device that you were testing? As per the Cherry Keeper website: “No device of this style is 100% secure, but HeadLock makes it so that a serious effort must be put in to escape.” The two statements are contradictory unless you didn’t have the HeadLock feature, and if you did, then the device will not satisfy my expectations.

Hi Peter, and thanks for your question. No, I did not test the Cherry Keeper with the HeadLock feature, and agree the statements you quoted from the manufacturer’s website are contradictory. And, as I mentioned in the review, I found it much easier to escape from the Cherry Keeper than many of the devices I’ve tested. That’s why I mentioned it in the review even though, as the statement you attribute to the Cherry Keeper manufacturer’s website says, “No device of this style [ball-trap device] is 100% secure.” All it required was pushing the locking mechanism at the top of the base ring away from my abdomen with my left thumb. That created plenty of a gap between the ring and my abdomen to allow me to work my flaccid member easily out of the cage and base ring, using my right index finger. I took about ten seconds. While I’ve found that same thing possible with other devices, it usually requires far more effort.

Since I’ve not tested a Cherry Keeper device with the HeadLock feature, I can’t say whether it makes the device more secure or not. But I have my doubts which is why I didn’t order a device that offered the option.

According to the manufacturer’s website, “The HeadLock feature adds a smaller ring to the entrance to the cage, restricting the opening in such a fashion as to hold the head in place.” It’s been my experience that whatever you can insert a peen through you can usually withdraw it from. And the true issue is, as I described, the ability of the wearer to gain access to the flaccid shaft between the body and the back of the base ring. I can’t imagine how having an extra, smaller ring at the base of the cage on the front side of the base ring would change that much.

Different folks find wearing a male chastity device appealing for different reasons. For example, some view a chastity device from the perspective of their interest in bondage. So, naturally, the security of the device is of paramount concern to them. These folks like the thought of having their penises hopelessly imprisoned inside an inescapable device that renders them completely helpless. But for penis owners without a piercing that they can incorporate into the security of the device, 100% security, like it or not, is not reality. It’s only an illusion that requires suspension of belief.

I know of folks who want 100% security so much, they superglue the locks of their devices or break the keys off in the locks. That might be a testament to their commitment to permanent chastity, but it doesn’t make their devices inescapable. Some devices are definitely more difficult to remove when locked than others, but a motivated guy can escape from any ball-trap device, period. And he probably won’t even need any tools to do it. A flaccid penis is simply too pliable and squishy to prevent it.

Here is my take on male chastity devices. It’s the symbolism of male chastity that matters most, not whether a chastity device is inescapable. For me, a chastity device is an anti-temptation measure, since one of the main reasons I wear them is because I want control over my masturbation frequency, something I struggled with a lot before I discovered chastity devices. And wearing a locked cage or tube has helped me tremendously.

I may not have the willpower to resist masturbating more often than I think I should or want to, but I have enough not to remove or escape from my device to do it. So, it doesn’t matter to me that my device isn’t realistically 100% secure and that I could escape it if I wanted. I have no interest in escaping. If I did, I wouldn’t waste money on buying the devices unless I also felt willing to get a Prince Albert (PA) piercing. A ring through a PA (or maybe a frenum piercing) that is hooked inside a locked chastity device cage or tube and not accessible is the only realistic way to prevent a guy from escaping a locked ball-trap device.

It wasn’t my intention to be overly critical of Cherry Keeper devices. They perform the function the manufacturer designed them for. For someone looking for a lightweight device and feels no temptation to escape from it while locked, they are well-designed, aesthetically pleasing, and functional. But they aren’t in my experience as secure as other devices I’ve tried.

Can I Get the Smoothness of a Metal Device and Weight of Plastic

The next question comes from Rob P. who asked if it were possible to find a device that offers the smoothness of steel, which he prefers, but with the light-weight of a plastic device he needs. Rob writes…

I have several devices and like the weight of the printed devices from custom chastity. But prefer metal as I get less chaffing. But the weight of the metal is a problem even with custom devices from mature metal. Any thoughts on how I get the smoothness of metal with the weight of plastic?

Ps I enjoyed your books

Hello Rob, and thanks so much for mentioning the books. I’m pleased you enjoyed them. Ah, nirvana. The silky smoothness of steel with the feather weight lightness of plastic. I’m sure many guys wish for that same thing.

First, the obvious response. Sadly, I do not know of any 3D printed device with the smooth feel of stainless steel. I’m very much a fan of steel devices myself, and so I know exactly what you mean. And I prefer steel to any plastic device I’ve tried, including the 3D printed ones. Personally, I like the weighty feel of stainless steel, so that’s not a problem for me other than when working out or going for a long run. And I have invested in plastic devices to wear for those activities. But I now own a stainless device that is so lightweight I don’t have to exchange it for plastic even when running. It’s the Amicus, a partially customizable device from Male Chastity Now.

I ordered the shortest cage length available, and it is unbelievably lightweight for stainless steel. I estimate it weighs less than half as much as my Mature Metal Jail Bird, maybe even less than that. It feels so light that I frequently forget I’m wearing it and have no issues when wearing it for running.

The owner of Male Chastity Now, a U.S. company, has always got the cages for the Amicus from a China-based supplier to keep the price low, and the quality is first rate. Then he makes the base rings. Unfortunately, his supplier has disappeared, so the Amicus isn’t available right now. But Male Chastity Now offers a fully customizable device, the Contender, which is every bit as lightweight at the Amicus with comparable cage lengths. So, that might be one option for you if the aesthetics of the device appeal to you.

Another custom maker of stainless devices, Badass workroom, also a China-based company that I’ve recently bought two different devices from also produces some high quality, beautifully crafted stainless steel devices that are far lighter than either of my Mature Metal devices. That could be another option. Badass workroom also manufacturers many of their models in titanium, which makes them about forty-five percent lighter than the lightest stainless steel models. That might definitely offer the smoothness of metal with a weight comparable to plastic.

I’m aware of Custom Chastity and they have a line of interesting devices, but I’ve never worn one and know little about the company. But I do own three 3D printed devices from three different manufacturers and so I know a little about how they make them. The last one I bought has the smoothest surface. The first one I got, one of the first available, has a surface that is quite rough, almost pebble-like. I had to do a lot of work on that one using a mini rotary sander because the base ring caused unbearable chaffing. So it seems the technology is improving and the device surfaces are getting smoother. But I also understand the smoother they make them, the more expensive the process. Still, with my experience with them, I don’t see any plastic device ever offering the satisfying smooth feel of steel.

I’m only guessing here, based on my experiences, but I’m assuming your biggest problem with chaffing comes from plastic base rings but the smoothness you’re after that you mentioned you enjoy probably has to do with the interior of the tube or cage. No matter how advanced 3D printing becomes, I can’t imagine you ever will get that feel from a plastic device. So, I’d say, titanium might be your best bet for getting the best of both worlds. Hopefully, before the end of the year I’ll get the chance to order, wear test, and review one of the titanium models from Badass workroom.

Thanks for the question and for supporting my books.

How to Put on a Chastity Device With One Hand

The last question comes from Jack T. who asked if I could offer any advice to someone with the use of only one hand for putting on a chastity device. I received Jack’s question through the contact page and the system delivered the email to me as it ideally does when someone completes the contact form. But I can’t access the email today for some reason, which is always annoying. Still, I can remember what Jack shared, so I’m relying on memory for this one.

The gist is Jack has use of only one hand, and his partner is unavailable to help at that moment, but he wants to wear his device. After many attempts, however, he hasn’t found a way to put it on by himself with only one hand.

Hi Jack,

Thanks so much for the question, and I’m sorry you’re having difficulties. Like you, I tried putting on a chastity device using only one hand to see if I could and wasn’t able to do it. Getting the tube or cage on and locked with one hand seems doable, but getting the base ring on with only one hand seems pretty near impossible. From my experiments, it seems if you could get your testicles into the ring, you could probably hold the ring with one hand and push the flaccid penis through with a thumb. But getting both testicles into the ring is the obstacle. I can get one inside pretty easily, but not both. Admittedly, I’m not the most coordinated guy on the planet, so someone with more dexterity could possibly do it. Still, I’m afraid I can’t offer you a solution. Maybe someone reading this, more clever than I am, might have an idea and will post it in the comments for you. Take care, Jack, and thanks for following the website.

That’s it for mail call this month. The comment form facility seems like it’s working properly for a change as these questions all arrived in my inbox like they were supposed to. When checking the spam folder where the questions had been going, I found only actual spam. So, if you have a question, give it a try. Also, don’t forget you can always slide into my DMs on Twitter with a question if you have a Twitter account.

Closing in on a full month of wearing the Steelworxx Thunder stainless steel chastity device, I’m ready to tender my review.

Having worn the Steelworxx Thunder for over three weeks, I feel I’m ready now to give my opinions. Having always worn only open cage-type stainless steel devices in the past, I’ve always been intrigued with fully enclosed tube-type devices and curious how different it might feel to wear one. So, I decided to plunk down my hard-earned cash for my first Steelworxx device.

Since, in my opinion, Thumper of denyingthumper.com fame, has already written brilliantly everything worth reading about the Steelworxx Steelheart, I chose to get the Thunder model instead. The two devices are pretty similar except the Thunder has a blunt, squared off nose rather than the rounded nose of the Steelheart. I also liked the looks of the generous urine outlet slot, another obvious difference from the Steelheart which has a round hole in the center of the nose. Let’s see what I found out.

Steelworxx Thunder Specifications

Below are the specifications of the Steelworxx Thunder I ordered, customized to my own measurements.

I found that the device fit as perfectly as I’d envisioned when ordering it. The 60mm length I ordered reflects my preference for cages a little shorter than the actual average length of my flaccid penis. I’m able to slip into tube without the need for lubricant or use of the stocking method, yet I feel the pleasing skin to metal contact between my shaft and the interior of the stainless-steel tube at all times. My device has the traditional tiny brass padlock Steelworxx provides, but the Thunder is also available with an integrated (MagicLocker-style) lock at an additional charge.

The tube is available in total lengths from 60mm to 130mm, base ring (termed A-ring by Steelworxx) diameters of 38mm to 50 mm, and inside tube diameters from 29mm to 44 mm. The gap measurement (distance between tube and ring) is 15mm (0.591inch) at the bottom and 5mm (0.197inch) at the top. That will probably work for 90% of us, and does for me.

Steelworxx Thunder Device Physical Details

Steelworxx manufacturers the Thunder from surgical stainless steel and the beautiful outer surface is buffed to a mirror-like high gloss finish. The aesthetics of this device alone were rather breathtaking for me the first time I put it on. As a cage-type device wearer for the most part, I very much liked how my penis totally disappeared thanks to the fully enclosed tube. I’ll say Steelworxx in my experience with custom made chastity devices from a variety of manufacturers is unmatched when it comes to quality and craftmanship. Everything fits precisely and tightly just the way they designed it.

Steelworxx Thunder Device Use

The Thunder is another standard ball-trapping device. You insert your scrotum and testicles into the A-ring, pull your flaccid penis through the ring to rest atop your testicles, and slide the tube on. Then you mate the two components together and lock up. The device feels quite secure, but as we know, standard ball-trapping device security is mostly illusionary unless you combine a PA piercing with the device to eliminate the possibility of escape. There are options available at an additional cost for guys with PA piercings to gain added security. I had no ball slippage issues with the device, which means the standard factory-set gap worked great for me and probably will for most guys.

Precautions to Consider While Wearing the Thunder

The usual precautions apply as with any ball-trapping male chastity device. Choosing the proper size base ring is important. Choosing an A-ring size that is too small can cause significant issues, including the risks associated with compromising your circulation. As a rule of thumb, skin discoloration or skin temperature of the scrotum that feels noticeably cooler than normal body temperature are indications of reduced circulation. Also, since it is a fully enclosed tube, selecting an inside tube diameter that fits properly is also important since you will be unable to monitor the skin color and temperature of your shaft while wearing this device.

Comfort and Feel of Wearing the Thunder

I find the Thunder surprisingly light weight even though it’s a fully enclosed tube, and the interior of the tube feels satiny smooth. It’s one of the most comfortable devices I’ve worn and there was no adjustment period. It felt comfortable the first time I put it on and has remained that way. I truly like the feel of having my shaft completely enclosed by steel. To me, it feels much nicer and more noticeable than the sensations I’ve experienced when wearing fully enclosed plastic tubes.

Hygiene Considerations When Wearing the Thunder

If you’ve read my previous chastity device reviews then you already know I’m a stickler when it comes to hygiene. I knew from my experiences with the plastic enclosed tube devices I’ve tired, that the Thunder might offer similar challenges in the hygiene department. I did purchase a plastic squeeze bottle with a syringe-like tip that I use daily for cleaning while showering. First, I fill the bottle with warm soapy water and flush the interior of the tube with it from the top and through the urine outlet at the bottom. Then using clear warm water in the bottle, I repeat the process to rinse out the soap. This does a fair job of keeping things clean, but of course it’s more of a bother than keeping things clean when wearing an open cage-type device. Also, I suspect the method I use does not completely rinse all the soap out of the tube since the interior “hugs” my flaccid shaft quite well.

I wore the device for three days before removing it for a thorough cleaning and didn’t notice any issues. Then I tried four days, and did notice a faintly unpleasant smell when I removed the tube. Finally, I wore the device for five days straight, and the unpleasant odor when I removed the tube was pronounced. But at least I had no skin issues. Still, I wouldn’t recommend wearing the Thunder for more than five days without removing it for a deep cleaning.

More disconcerting to me than the cleanliness factor are the urination issues while wearing the Thunder. I did fully expect to sit to pee, but thought the generously sized urine outlet would eliminate any urination issues. But it did not. In normal daily wear of any chastity device, the urethral opening of the penis never stays perfectly aligned with the urination outlet of the device. And I find that true of the Thunder. So, frequently, when I’ve urinated, I’ve noticed that the misalignment mentioned and the force of urine flow combines to cause urine to back up inside the tube. At times, judging from the sensations of warmth inside the tube, it feels urine backs up past the head of my penis. I’m not pee-phobic, but prefer not to soak my penis in the stuff. So, I don’t particularly care for this aspect of fully enclosed tubes. For that reason, as comfortable as the Thunder is to wear, it will never replace the open cage-style devices I typically wear on a continual basis.

Overall, based on the experiences I’ve shared here on the topic, I must rate the Thunder pretty low when it comes to the hygiene department. And it’s the only area I feel this device doesn’t truly shine.

Final Thoughts

Other than the hygiene issues I find problematic, the Steelworxx Thunder is an exceptionally well made, light weight, and super comfortable stainless-steel device that deserves consideration by those who prefer fully enclosed tube devices over the more open, cage-type devices.

At 149,00 € (about $152.00 USD) this is outstanding quality at a very reasonable and affordable price for a custom-made stainless-steel male chastity device. That’s less than the cost of many of the popular plastic chastity devices that are not even fully customizable, and half the price I’ve paid for many of my cage devices. Also, in comparison, the Thunder costs about $30 USD less than the more popular Steelheart model. But don’t forget, getting the Thunder with the integral lock option or a PA accessory will add to the base price. You can visit the Steelworxx official website (https://www.steelworxx.de/Stainless-steel) for more information and current prices.

Disclaimer: This review represents my own honest opinions. I purchased this device at the full retail price using my own funds, and I have no affiliation with Steelworxx other than being a satisfied customer.

Month: July 2022

Mail Call: July Reader’s Questions and Answers