In this post I’m going to discuss some of my perspectives on male chastity devices. I will focus on their purpose and security issues. And I will detail how we dealt with these issues in my current experience of chastity.
Prevention
The two main purposes I see for locking up a man’s genitals are: control and prevention. Much has been written about the ways that a keyholder can control the sexuality and behavior of someone locked into chastity. What and how to control is a very broad topic that I will not delve into today. My links page has a few good articles about control.
Prevention is an easier topic, being more limited and practical in nature. What activities does the device prohibit? I see three primary levels of prevention: stimulation, orgasm, and intercourse. Devices can prevent all, some, or even none of these. So when selecting a device, it seems important to know what you wish to prevent, and whether a given device actually achieves that goal.
In my situation my wife/Mistress/keyholder wants to prevent orgasms and intercourse, but she also wants access for stimulation as she loves to tease and deny. To prevent stimulation as well, a properly fitting full belt style device could be used to block all access.
Devices that enclose the penis can severely limit stimulation, but many can also transmit the sensations of a vibrator. For some men such vibrations can be enough to achieve an orgasm. For others (like me), a vibrator against my chastity device can only tease, arouse, and frustrate.
Tube or cuff style devices which fully expose the glans would not work for us. A tight, even painful, shaft restriction does not prevent me from being able to masturbate to release. It’s possible that I could even have intercourse and orgasm with such a device. I think they look interesting, but I suspect they would prevent very little sexual activity for me.
Another, secondary aspect of prevention is visual. Some devices show more of the male genitals than others. Cages and clear plastic models allow the penis to be seen, whereas tubes, opaque plastic, and full belts keep the cock partially or fully out of sight. Since men are sexually visual creatures, one opinion is that the inability to see their own manhood will increase the psychological impact of a chastity device. I think that would be true for me.
One advantage to visibility is that it allows the keyholder to see and possibly access the cock for teasing. I believe cage designs offer a sweet-spot of both visibility and minimal access for stimulation while severely limiting or preventing the ability to orgasm.
Visibility is also closely related to ease of cleaning, which in turn can relate to wearing time. Having to remove a device for periodic cleaning can be desirable or undesirable. In our situation, we appreciate being able to stay clean without having to remove the device.
Another secondary prevention feature of almost all chastity devices is limiting or preventing erections. Attempts to get hard will reinforce the state of being in chastity. Sometimes this can also interrupt sleep patterns due to nocturnal erections.
Some devices offer optional spikes to more severely discourage erections. Some keyholders enjoy this punishment effect, which can discourage behaviors like using pornography or having sexual fantasies, physiologically training him to actively avoid arousing situations. Keyholders can also use it to inflict genital pain by purposely arousing him.
A final secondary aspect of some devices is to prevent the use of urinals. I was able to stand and pee with my CB-3000, but not now. Always having to sit to pee reinforces being in chastity and can be humiliating. Some keyholders enjoy reinforcing this with sissiness or feminization teasing. All my boy underwear has been replaced by panties, for example.
Security
I’m going to use the word “inescapable”, but I must define it first. I consider a chastity device inescapable if the only way out of it requires: 1) damage to the device, 2) damage to the genitals, or 3) access to the key(s).
True inescapability is impossible in reality. I use the term instead to indicate a sufficiently high level of effort that the wearer would not or cannot accomplish.
I could easily escape from the CB-2000 and CB-3000 devices that we have used before. Without a piercing, I don’t believe that any ball-trap style device (even my current metal JailBird cage) could contain me. The flaccid penis can be amazingly flexible – stretching, bending, twisting, etc.
Tipping a ball-trap device forward allows me to easily pull out the back. When soft, I could just as easily slip back into it. I also know I’m creative and handy enough to easily defeat something like the Points of Intrigue. While I never did escape and masturbate, I always knew I could.
Trust enters the equation here. If chastity security relies on trust, then I don’t see the sense in spending money for a more physically secure device. In the extreme, no chastity device is even needed – the keyless keyholder just needs to set the rules (e.g. no orgasms without permission). “Faith-based” chastity, anyone? 🙂
For me, like most men interested in chastity, this level of sexual trust isn’t feasible. That’s a primary reason we get interested in chastity devices in the first place — we fail at self-control.
That’s why I am now locked into an inescapable chastity device. Neither of us wanted to have any worries once it was locked on and the keys were secured. And we’ve achieved that for much less than the cost of a full belt device (which Mistress doesn’t prefer anyway).
Like essentially all men in chastity, there is no way I would damage my chastity device or my cock in order to escape. Either type of action would be obvious to a keyholder and entail consequences much more severe than remaining in chastity. And this is a curious point to explore further.
One common consequence that a keyholder will build into a chastity agreement is the permanent termination of chastity in the relationship for breach of security. While this allows for a “safeword” style exit strategy, such a clause is likely never exercised. Being in chastity is a big deal, and ruining it forever is a huge deterrent. This aspect also eliminates lock picking as a viable approach.
A keyholder can thus leverage a strong interest in chastity into a very serious real-life chastity experience. Neither damage to the relationship nor ending chastity forever are ever seen as worth that risk. He ends up trapped, figuratively and literally.
Access to the keys can also be a trust issue. Are the keys hidden? Does she wear them (and is that really inaccessible)? Does he have a copy? How secure are the emergency keys? Again, relying on trust here defeats a goal of being in inescapable chastity. Fortunately one need not rely on trust to inexpensively attain key security.
Our Security System
The device I wear has two sets of keys. One pair of keys is for the PA-lock (which prevents pull-out). The other pair of “keys” are the only way to remove the high-security screw holding the cage to the base ring. That leaves us with two full sets of keys: her set, and an emergency set.
The emergency set of keys is encased in an inexpensive plastic key box specifically made for this purpose. Once closed, it cannot be opened without breaking it. So any access to the keys will be obvious to the keyholder. I keep this box in my car in case of a true emergency. Our agreement is that Mistress reserves the right to inspect it at any time. She has also custom-decorated the box itself, so replacing it with a new one isn’t an option.
Her set of keys is locked in a safe in our master bedroom. It’s a low-end but very secure biometric safe that opens using her fingerprint. She had me securely cable it into our closet, far away from our bed, to ensure that her fingers cannot come in contact with it while she sleeps. The safe can also be opened by a backup key, which she has hidden. Once she is confident about the safe working reliably with her fingerprint, it sounds like she will keep the backup keys with a relative (locked in their safe). Another option would be to use another emergency key box for the backup keys.

PA lock and JailBird
A penis piercing is a vital component of my inescapable chastity. Since a belt-style device is not for us, and since I can pull out of other devices, that only left one option. My Prince Albert piercing allows the the tip of my glans to be locked to the end of the JailBird cage. This completely prevents any possibility of pulling out.
Many other chastity devices can utilize a PA piercing to prevent pull-out. One concern I had about units with a PA “pin” was that a truly flaccid penis might stretch enough to pull off the pin. Since we wanted as short a cage as possible, this would have potentially left more shaft for “unhooking”. A longer cage might mitigate this, but at the risk of pulling on (and possibly migrating or damaging) the piercing hole.
Summary
One of our goals for chastity was to eliminate the need for trust-based chastity enforcement. A PA piercing was necessary to achieve our security goals. We also took some simple and relatively inexpensive steps to implement serious key security.
The device we selected allows for stimulation and well as easy cleaning and long-term use. The cage length restricts me to a humiliating length of less than 3 inches, and forces me to sit to pee.
The result is a device which I now wear continuously. I know I can’t escape it, and that helps. I don’t spend any effort trying to defeat it, leaving me more energy to focus on pleasing my keyholder. Your mileage may vary, but this is what we have found that works for us.
I’d love to hear your comments.
March 9, 2012
Categories: Female Domination, Male Chastity, Non-fiction . Tags: CB-3000, Chastity, Chastity Device, DS, Enforced Chastity, femdom, FLR, Genital Piercing, Humiliation, JailBird, Kink, Male Chastity, malesub, Marriage, Orgasm control, panties, Power exchange, prince albert, Relationships, sissy, Tease and Denial . Author: lockedhubby . Comments: 6 Comments